Case Law
Rule 274: Service outside the Contracting Member States

Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division, Order dated 18/04/2024, Daedalus Prime LLC/ Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. (Registry number : ORD_20986/2024 ORD_20986/2024)
Example of decision on service outside a contracting member state: “In a case, like the one present, service must be first attempted in accordance with Rule 274(a)(ii) RoP under the Hague Service Convention, since the People’s Republic of China does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but is a party to the Hague Convention, respectively in accordance with Rule 274(a)(iIi) RoP by service through diplomatic or consular channels from the Contracting Member State in which the subregistry of the relevant division is established, since there is no convention or agreement with Taiwan in force.
Formal service on the defendant is an internationally recognized principle and not a superfluous formality. The purpose of service is to give the addressee the opportunity to take note of the document of the application and to prepare his legal defense. Pursuant to Art. 24 (1)(d) UPCA the Court is bound by the international agreements binding the contracting member states. Therefore, the general provisions of the EU Service Regulation and the Hague Service Convention, respectively service through diplomatic or consular channels, and their priority laid out in Rule 274.1 (b) RoP cannot be overridden by Rule 271.5 RoP, as claimed by the plaintiff. In fact, The Hague Service Convention requires that the relevant documents have actually been transmitted in accordance with a procedure provided for in the Convention (Art 15(2)(a) Hague Service Convention). An attempt of service and actual transmission in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Service Convention, respectively in accordance with the national rules regarding service through diplomatic or consular channels, is an indispensable prerequisite for a decision on the merits of the case.”