Categories
Uncategorized

Serving court documents to a spouse/parent abroad: why it takes time and how to reduce delays

“The case is stuck because the other party lives abroad.” In many family cases, service of documents is the slowest procedural step.

Inside the EU, service is mainly governed by Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (EUR‑Lex).

Outside the EU, timing often depends on whether the destination country is a party to the Hague Service Convention (1965) and how the Central Authority works in practice.

In divorce and parenting disputes (parental responsibility, contact/visitation schedules, child residence), one common bottleneck is service of documents to the party who lives abroad. This is rarely “court slowness” in the ordinary sense. The case often cannot move forward until the court has reliable proof that the other party was served in a legally valid way (or that service was attempted under the applicable rules).

Two international frameworks matter most in practice: (1) inside the EU: Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service of documents (recast); (2) outside the EU (or between Romania and a third state): often the Hague Service Convention of 1965 (HCCH), if the destination state is a party (practical overview: HCCH Service Section).

1) Why service abroad takes so long: 7 common causes

  • Incomplete or outdated address: if the addressee cannot be found, the process often restarts after requests for clarification.
  • Wrong “channel” for the destination country: EU routes differ from non‑EU routes. Using the wrong mechanism can lead to returns and re‑transmission. (EU framework source: CELEX 32020R1784.)
  • Missing or avoidable translation issues: inside the EU, the addressee has protections regarding language and may be able to refuse documents that are not in an acceptable language; outside the EU, the Central Authority can require translation into the official language. (EU: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784 (EUR‑Lex); Hague 1965: HCCH full text.)
  • Weak identification data: similar names, name changes, and missing personal identifiers make locating and confirming the addressee harder.
  • Local service methods take time: some states rely on local officers and administrative steps that are inherently slower.
  • Refusal to accept: refusal (especially language‑based refusal in the EU) can trigger re‑service with translations. (EU source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784.)
  • Proof of service comes back slowly: the “certificate” or confirmation must travel back through authorities and then reach the court file. (Hague 1965 certificate mechanism source: HCCH full text.)

2) EU service: what changes when the other party is in an EU Member State

Within the EU, cross‑border service is primarily governed by the EU Service Regulation (recast), which sets a standard framework between Member States for transmitting and serving documents. Primary source: Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (EUR‑Lex OJ) (also available as EUR‑Lex text: CELEX 32020R1784).

Practical effect: when the destination is in the EU, you typically have more structured channels and standard forms than in many non‑EU scenarios. However, even under an EU framework, service still depends on accurate addresses, language handling, and the speed of the receiving authority. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784.

3) EU translations and “refusal”: how a missing translation can reset the timeline

The EU framework recognises that the addressee should be able to understand what is being served. In practice, a missing translation can trigger refusal and re‑service, which can push your hearing schedule back significantly. Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784 (EUR‑Lex).

What to take away: if there is any realistic risk that the other party will refuse (or that local authorities will require a translation), preparing the correct translation from the start is often cheaper than “saving money” and losing months.

4) Non‑EU service: Hague Service Convention (1965) and the Central Authority route

When the other party is outside the EU, the key question is whether the destination state is a party to the Hague Service Convention (1965). If yes, the Convention’s main mechanism is service via the destination state’s Central Authority. Primary sources: HCCH Service Section (overview and practical information) and HCCH full text.

Translations: under the Hague system, the Central Authority may require the document to be in, or translated into, the official language of the requested state. Source: HCCH full text.

Proof of service: the Convention provides for a certificate confirming service (or explaining why service did not occur). That certificate is what often unlocks the next procedural steps in court. Source: HCCH full text.

5) Addresses, proof, and timelines: what courts typically need to keep moving

Regardless of EU or non‑EU route, courts generally need a service trail that is defensible: where the documents went, how they were served, and whether the addressee had a fair chance to respond. Cross‑border rules are designed to produce that trail – but they cannot fix missing address data or preventable translation problems.

Why the file slows down: if service is invalid or uncertain, a court may need to order repeated attempts or postpone procedural steps to protect due‑process rights. That is why “just send it by email” is rarely a safe shortcut unless the applicable rules and the other state’s system clearly support it in your specific situation.

6) Refusal to accept: what it usually changes (without turning it into a “game”)

EU: the EU Regulation includes protections around language and refusal, and it also explains how service can be remedied (typically by re‑serving with the correct translation). Source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784.

Non‑EU (Hague 1965): refusal is not “managed” in the same standardised EU way. Much depends on local practice and on the Central Authority route, including language requirements. Sources: HCCH Service Section and HCCH full text.

7) Checklist: what to give your lawyer so you don’t lose 2–6 months

“2–6 months” is not a legal deadline. It is a realistic delay range that often appears when service must be repeated due to address errors, missing translations, or procedural resets. The goal is to reduce repeat attempts and preventable back‑and‑forth.

  • Verified full address: street, number, apartment/unit, postal code, city, country – plus any proof you can legally provide (recent correspondence, lease, registry extract, etc.).
  • Identification details: full name, prior names (if any), date of birth, citizenship(s) if known, and any reliable identifiers that help confirm the correct person.
  • Language reality: what language the person actually understands and what language is typically used for official service in that country. (EU language/refusal framework source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784.)
  • Ready‑to‑use translations: authorised translation where required, clean scans, consistent names/addresses across all documents. (EU source: Reg. (EU) 2020/1784; Hague 1965 translation practice source: HCCH full text.)
  • Multiple complete sets: a full set for the court file and additional complete sets if the route requires duplicates (common in authority‑based channels). (Hague route source: HCCH full text.)
  • Any lawful contact clues: phone/email, workplace address (only if relevant and lawful), patterns that help locate the person without harassment.
  • Context for urgency: upcoming deadlines, scheduled hearings, and what document is being served (claim, defence, summons, judgment).

Conclusions

Service abroad takes time because it involves authorities (often in two states) and because courts need defensible proof of service before they can proceed. In the EU, the main reference point is Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on service of documents. Outside the EU, if the destination state is a party, the Hague Service Convention 1965 (HCCH full text) is often the backbone route. In both settings, accurate addresses and correct translations are the fastest way to reduce avoidable delays.

Sources

CTA

If you have a Romanian family case and the other party is abroad, we can review (1) the correct service route (EU vs Hague 1965 vs other), (2) translation/language risk, and (3) the service package so you reduce the chance of repeated attempts and long postponements. Contact us here: Contact.

This article is general information and does not replace legal advice tailored to your documents and the applicable law at the time of analysis.