The evolution of both and their application and Interpretation by jurisprudence has given a positive empiric result. Mondialisation of process, which needed a fast way Email Database for Judicial information exchange and judgment that adapts to it. World trade, has opened the door to more efficient and fast ways of litigation and serving process, resulting in a gain of time and money Email Database by cutting "Red Tape". Nonetheless, there are limits to this liberty that trensform into critics to the methods and which are based on the need to eliminate some absurds requirements like the risky exam.
Of legality prior to service or the choice given to defendant to refuse service if documents are not translated and the lacunae such as no distinction between service Email Database to Individuals or Multinational Companies, Nonresistance of presumptions and many more will Email Database see later.. The Hague Convention's Centralized method has, as said many "legal lacunae" or serious defects:, the main one is that is a free governmental service that does not uses a "fast Email Database Independent Private Process Server.", as is requested by many courts and litigants, it is defective and often deceptive method.
It promotes the use costly translation and the contents of summons is exam for legality before they can be served. These requirements makes it slow and therefore not adapted to modern international litigation. It is also contradictory because under the veil of gratuity Email Database there are a series of unnecessary expenses that result in an expensive service, more that using private channels. I consider it promotes unnecessary translations because, if documents are Email Database not translated, the defendant can refuse service and in other cases the central authority will not be able to exam their legality.