Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents

Argentina

08-05-1987

The Republic of Argentina objects to the extension of the application of the Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents concluded at The Hague on 5 October 1961 to the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich, as notified by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 24 February 1965, and reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich, which form an integral part of its national territory. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21 and 41/40 recognising the existence of a dispute concerning sovereignty in respect of the Malvinas, and urging the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom to continue negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, through the good offices of the Secretary General of the United Nations, who would report to the General Assembly on progress made.
The Republic of Argentina also objects to the extension of the application of the Convention to the so-called "British Antarctic Territory", lodged on the same date, while reaffirming the rights of the Republic to the Argentine Antarctic Sector, including those relating to its corresponding maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. Furthermore, it would refer to the assurances concerning claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica laid down in Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in Washington on 1 December 1959, to which the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are parties.

Australia

11-07-1994

[...] pursuant to Article 13, the Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international relations of which it is responsible.

Austria

02-11-2017

Regarding the July 2016 entry into force of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents ("the Apostille Convention") for the Republic of Kosovo, Austria shares the view of other Contracting States that, consistent with the obligations under the Apostille Convention, any certification purporting to be an Apostille issued within the territory of the Republic of Kosovo by an entity other than the competent authority designated by the Republic of Kosovo does not have any legal effect.

09-03-2018

Austria takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Austria declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Austria therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Austria further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev will determine the procedure for relevant communication. As a consequence of the above, Austria declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Bahrain

10-04-2013

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain [...] is implementing an e-register system, with reference to Article 7 of the said Convention.

Belarus

16-06-1992

[...] official documents issued by government agencies of the Belarussian Republic for use in the territories of contracting States of the Hague Convention, repealing the necessity of legalisation of foreign offical documents, are now authorised only by an apostille written on these documents.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

08-10-2003

[...] that the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken over from the Ministry of Civil Affairs and Communication the responsibility for the international co-operation in judicial matters, as well as the co-operation between two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina [as of 15 March 2003].

Brazil

02-12-2015

The Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil further states that Brazil's accession to the Convention does not imply the recognition of sovereign rights over territories to which the Convention's application has been or will be extended under the terms of Article 13.

15-08-2016

Brazil does not recognize Kosovo’s self-declared independence and therefore does not consider itself to be in treaty relations with Kosovo under the Apostille Convention. Brazil reaffirms its understanding that the question of Kosovo’s independence must be guided by the terms of Resolution 1244 (1999) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Chile

10-10-2016

Declaration of Chile about Kosovo's accession to the Apostille Convention:
Chile does not recognize Kosovo as a Party to the Apostille Convention, and therefore the aforementioned Convention will not have effect between Chile and Kosovo.

China

16-06-1997

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Declaration"), the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997. Hong Kong will, with effect from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
It is provided both in Section XI of Annex I to the Joint Declaration, "Elaboration by the Government of the People's Republic of China of its Basic Policies Regarding Hong Kong", and Article 153 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, which was adopted on 4 April 1990 by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, that international agreements to which the People's Republic of China is not a party but which are implemented in Hong Kong may continue to be implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In accordance with the above provisions, I am instructed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China to make the following notification:
The Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization for Foreign Public Documents done at the Hague on 5 October 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"), by which the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is designated as the depository, which applies to Hong Kong at present, will continue to apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the People's Republic of China also makes the following declaration:
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.

10-12-1999

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal on the Question of Macau (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Declaration) signed on 13 April 1987, the Government of the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau with effect from 20 December 1999. Macao will from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
It is provided both in Section VIII of Elaboration by the Government of the People's Republic of China of its Basic Policies Regarding Macau, which is annex I to the Joint Declaration, and Article 138 of the Basic Law of Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, which was adopted on 31 March 1993 by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, that international agreements to which the Government of the People's Republic of China is not yet a party but which are implemented in Macau may continue to be implemented in the Macau Special Administrative Region.
In accordance with the provisions mentioned above, I am instructed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, to inform Your Excellency of the following:
The Convention abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents, done at The Hague on 5 October 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), which applies to Macau at present, shall continue to apply to the Macau Special Administrative Region with effect from 20 December 1999. The Government of the People's Republic of China also whishes to make the following declaration:
In accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, it designates the Chief Executive, the Secretary for Administration and Justice, and the Director of Justice Affairs Department of the Macau Special Administrative Region as the Authorities competent to issue the certificate referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Convention in the Macau Special Administrative Region.
Within the above ambit, the Government of the People's Republic of China will assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations that place on a Party to the Convention.

03-03-2006

[...] that the Apostille Service Office of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has recently computerized the Apostille system.
As a result of the computerization of the system, there will be a change in the way that the Apostille Certificate is produced. At present, the Apostille Certificate is in the form of a chop stamped on the document requiring Apostille service with blanks completed in handwriting. After computerization, the Certificate will be generated from the computer and be affixed to the document requiring Apostille.
As the current practice, the Certificate will be signed by the Registrar, High Court, and sealed with the Seal of the Court. This new system will commence operation with effect from 20 March 2006.
Apart from the above, all existing practice and procedure remain unchanged.

18-04-2012

The Office of the Chief Secretary for Administration [of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") of the People's Republic of China] has the further honour to inform [...] that in order to follow the recommendation of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Apostille Convention, the Apostille Service Office of the Judiciary of the HKSAR will indicate the limit effect of an Apostille by inserting the following statement at the top of the Apostille with effect from 23 July 2012:
"This apostille only certifies the signature, the capacity of the signatory and the seal or stamp it bears. It does not certify the content of the document for which it is issued".
Apart from insertion of the statement mentioned above, there will be no other change to the Apostille.

08-03-2023

The Convention will not be applicable between the People's Republic of China and those Contracting States that China does not recognize as sovereign states.
In accordance with the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the Government of the People's Republic of China has decided that the Convention will continue to apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
The other Declarations previously made by the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region continue to be effective.
The Declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of China that "the Convention will not be applicable between the People's Republic of China and those Contracting States that China does not recognize as sovereign states" applies to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region.

Colombia

03-02-2005

[...] as of December 15th of 2004, the apostille issued by the Coordination of Legalizations and Apostille of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia will no longer be attached to its respective documents in the form of a sticker, but mechanically with a metallic staple.
As of December 15th of 2004, the apostille format will also include a space at the bottom reserved for identifying the document for which the apostille is issued and for the names and surnames of its holder.

22-04-2005

.[.. ]as of May 1st of 2005, the signature which appears on the Colombian Apostille format, will no longer be written in ink, but will be scanned.

12-10-2007

As from October 8th, 2007, Colombia has introduced a new Apostille Certificate [...].
Its basic characteristics are as follows:
*The Apostille is printed in black and white, on normal paper, instead of the security paper used up to now.
*The security features of the current Apostille Certificate have been replaced and reinforced by the use of digital certificates and encrypted signatures, following the recommendations and conclusions of the Third International Forum on Digital Evidence held in Los Angeles (May 29, 2007) at which the e-APP was discussed in detail.
*The authenticity of Apostilles issued by the Government of Colombia may still be verified by using the e-Register, which is accessible on our web site www.cancilleria.gov.co/apostilla. States Parties are highly encouraged to regularly use the E-Register.
*The presentation of the e-Register has been slightly modified: instead of the current view of a summary containing the basic data of the Apostille, users are able to view an exact color image of the Apostille that has been issued.
*The use of a digital certificate will guarantee that the electronic version of the Apostille has not been tampered. Likewise, if the paper Apostille attached to the document somehow differs from the one displayed in the e-Register, it likely means that the paper Apostille has been altered.
*For a transitional period of time, and until the stock of current Apostilles expires, the Government of Colombia will be issuing both models, that are equally valid and authentic.

17-01-2012

[...] the following information in accordance with the electronic Apostille Pilot Program (e-APP) [...]:
* The Apostille is printed in black and white, on normal paper.
* The security features of the old Apostille Certificate were replaced and reinforced by the use of digital certificates and encrypted signatures.
* The authenticity of Apostille[s] issued by the Government of Colombia may be verified by using the e-Register, which is accessible on the web site https://cancilleria.gov.co/tramitesmre/ciudadano/consultaApostilla/wfrmapostilla.aspx
* The presentation of the e-Register was slightly modified, instead of the current view of a summary containing the basic data of the Apostille, users are able to view an exact color image of the Apostille that has been issued.
With these changes there is a better security to the procedure because the use of a digital certificate guarantees that the electronic version of the certificate will not be forged.
Furthermore, we have implemented the Apostille online from the electronic source documents, such as the Judicial Certificate and the INVIMA Certificate, which can be consulted with the Apostille, and there is included -in addition of the standard items-, the name of the owner, leaf number, type and number of the document; in order to establish the correspondence between it and the Apostille.

Denmark

30-10-2006

[...] that the Convention as yet does not apply for Greenland and the Faro Islands.

14-10-2021

The Convention should now be applied to the Faroe Islands. The Kingdom of Denmark thus withdraws its territorial declaration with regard to the Faroe Islands in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.

Ecuador

28-12-2005

Moreover the above-mentioned Ecuadorian Ministry has decided to change the design of the current "Apostille" used in Ecuador for a new design, more practical and simplified.
This new seal will be issued with a 10 American dollar stamp and will be implemented as from the second quarterly of 2006.

Estonia

30-04-2019

Estonia takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Estonia declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above-mentioned Conventions, Estonia therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Estonia further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Estonia declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Finland

19-09-2018

The Government of Finland takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Finland declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Finland therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Finland further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Finland declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the said conventions.

France

17-12-1965

[...] that the French Government has decided in agreement with the British Government to extend the territorial scope of the Convention to the Franco-British Condominium of the New Hebrides [...].

01-04-1970

[...] that the French Government and the British Government have concluded an agreement confirming the above-mentioned decision on extension, which entered into force in the New Hebrides on 15 February 1966, and specifying with regard to the Condominium, the French and British authorities that are competent to issue, either jointly or separately, the certificate referred to in the Convention of 5 October 1961.

14-11-2017

Referring to the declaration made by Serbia on 29 May 2017, the French Republic wishes to notify all Contracting States that, with regard to public documents executed in the territory of Kosovo and requiring the issue of an Apostille under Article 3 of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, it will recognise as authentic only those documents which have been the subject of an Apostille issued by the competent authorities designated by Kosovo, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention.

Georgia

21-08-2006

This Convention does not apply to the documents issued by the de facto illegitimate authorities and officials of the regions of Georgia: Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the former Autonomous District of South Ossetia.

Germany

26-09-2017

Regarding the July 2016 entry into force of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (“the Apostille Convention”) for the Republic of Kosovo, Germany wishes to notify all Contracting States that, consistent with its obligations under the Apostille Convention, Germany will not give legal effect under the Convention to any certification purporting to be an Apostille issued within the territory of the Republic of Kosovo by an entity other than the competent authority designated by the Republic of Kosovo .
The Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Apostille Convention of 2016 in its Conclusion and Recommendation 7, as well as Paragraph 113 of the Handbook on the Practical Operation of the Apostille Convention confirm that it is for the law of the place from which a document emanates to determine its public nature.
Therefore, the law of the Republic of Kosovo determines whether a document is a public document to which the Apostille Convention applies and to which only the competent authorities of the Republic of Kosovo may affix an Apostille Certificate.

06-06-2018

The Federal Republic of Germany takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965), the Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Germany declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
Regarding the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Federal Republic of Germany therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Federal Republic of Germany further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the government of Ukraine will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it will only engage with the government of Ukraine for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions with regard to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

Guatemala

19-01-2017

The accession and the implementation of this Convention, does not imply the recognition from the Republic of Guatemala of any territory as sovereign State and any regime as Legal Government, that to the present date, are not recognized by the Republic of Guatemala, neither implies the establishment nor reestablishment of the diplomatic relations with those countries with which they do not maintain currently.

Hungary

18-04-1972

The Hungarian People's Republic declares that the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, done at The Hague on October 5, 1961, are contrary to resolution 1514/XV on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960.

Indonesia

05-10-2021

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia is bound by the provisions of Article 1 on the scope of public documents in the Convention with a declaration statement that provided that the documents issued by the prosecutor office as the prosecuting body in the Republic of Indonesia, are not included in public documents whose requirements of legalization have been abolished as set forth in this Convention.

Latvia

04-04-2018

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia […] with reference to […] the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965), the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980),and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) has to honour to convey the following.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the aforementioned Conventions to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Latvia declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Republic of Latvia therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Republic of Latvia further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Republic of Latvia declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the convention.

Lithuania

16-06-2020

The Government of the Republic of Lithuania takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965), the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (1970), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognize the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania therefore considers that the conventions in principle continue to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Government of the Republic of Lithuania further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv for the purposes of the application and implementation of the said conventions.

Montenegro

30-01-2007

[...] the Government of the Republic of Montenegro succeeds to the Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents, adopted at The Hague on October, 5th, 1961, and takes faithfully to perform and carry out the stipulations therein contained as from June 3rd 2006, the date upon the Republic of Montenegro assumed responsibility for its international relations.

New Zealand

07-02-2001

[...] this accession shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to that effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.

Oman

23-03-2021

[…] the Government of the Sultanate of Oman represented by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the pleasure to notify […] its desire to confirm its position regarding Article 1 of the Convention. The Sultanate considers that the provisions of the Convention do not apply to commercial and customs documents, whatever their type, origin or value, nor do they apply to documents issued by Diplomatic or Consular Agents. In the view of the Sultanate the Convention applies only to civil public documents, pursuant to paragraphs a, b, c and d, of the aforementioned Article.

Pakistan

08-07-2022

The participation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, shall in no way imply recognition of entities which it does not recognize outside the scope of the present Convention and shall not lead to entry into dealings with such entities under this Convention. Furthermore, the Convention shall not apply to India, and/or entities not recognized by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Philippines

12-09-2018

The Philippines’ accession to the Apostille Convention will not apply to Contracting Parties which it does not recognize as States.
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to draw the attention of State Parties to the Apostille Convention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Philippine Extradition Law (Presidential Decree No. 1069 [s.1977]) which pertains to documents submitted to the Government of the Philippines in support of extradition requests, and wish to convey that the Apostille Convention does not supersede or override the provisions of the Philippine Extradition Law.
The Certification by apostille under the Apostille Convention does not satisfy the requirements under the Philippine Extradition Law. Extradition requests directed to the Republic of the Philippines should be conveyed in the manner provided for by the Philippine Extradition Law.

Poland

10-08-2021

The Republic of Poland takes note of the Declaration submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents and of the Declaration submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declaration made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declaration made by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Poland declares, in accordance with the duty of non-recognition as lawful a situation created by a serious breach by State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law and in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognize the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Convention, the Republic of Poland therefore considers that the Convention in principle continues to apply to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Republic of Poland further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as well as certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the government of Ukraine will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Republic of Poland declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with present, de facto authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine for the purposes of the application and implementation of the Convention.

Portugal

10-12-1999

Upon instructions from my Government and referring to the Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents concluded at The Hague on 5 October 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) which currently applies to Macau, I have the honour to inform Your Excellency of the following:
In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the Portuguese Republic and of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the question of Macau, signed in Beijing on 13 April 1987, the Government of the Portuguese Republic will remain internationally responsible for Macau until 19 December 1999, the People's Republic of China resuming from that date the exercise of sovereignty over Macau, with effect from 20 December 1999.
From 20 December 1999 the Portuguese Republic will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention in Macau.

13-03-2018

The Government of the Portuguese Republic takes note of the Declaration submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, done at The Hague, on 5 October 1961, to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declaration submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declaration made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declaration made by the Russian Federation, the Government of the Portuguese Republic declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Convention, the Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore considers that the Convention in principle continues to apply to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
The Government of the Portuguese Republic further notes the Declaration by Ukraine that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Convention is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, the Government of the Portuguese Republic declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the convention.

Romania

14-06-2018

Romania takes note of the Declarations submitted by Ukraine on 16 October 2015 regarding the application of the Convention on Civil Procedure (1954), the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (1961), the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), the Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1965) and the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol and of the Declarations submitted by the Russian Federation on 19 July 2016 in relation to the Declarations made by Ukraine.
In relation to the Declarations made by the Russian Federation, Romania declares, in line with the conclusions of the European Council of 20/21 March 2014, that it does not recognise the illegal referendum in Crimea and the illegal annexation of the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
As regards the territorial scope of the above Conventions, Romania therefore considers that the Conventions in principle continue to apply to the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol as part of the territory of Ukraine.
Romania further notes the Declarations by Ukraine that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the city of Sevastopol are temporarily not under the control of Ukraine and that the application and implementation by Ukraine of its obligations under the Conventions is limited and not guaranteed in relation to this part of Ukraine's territory, and that only the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev will determine the procedure for relevant communication.
As a consequence of the above, Romania declares that it will not engage in any direct communication or interaction with authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and will not accept any documents or requests emanating from such authorities or through the authorities of the Russian Federation, but will only engage with the central authorities of Ukraine in Kiev for the purposes of the application and implementation of the conventions.

Russian Federation

26-11-2015

The Russian Federation does not consider Kosovo to be a sovereign state and does not recognize it as such.
According to the provisions of the Convention, only a State can become its member. Thus, the relevant provisions of the Convention, including provisions regarding the procedure of its entry into force, cannot be applied in respect of the «act of accession» to the Convention of the mentioned entity.
In light of the above the Russian Federation does not view itself bound by the Convention with regard to the said entity.

19-07-2016

Reaffirming its firm commitment to respect and fully comply with generally recognised principles and rules of international law, the Russian Federation, with reference to the declaration of Ukraine of 16 October 2015 regarding the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, states the following.
The Russian Federation rejects to the above mentioned declaration of Ukraine and states that it cannot be taken into consideration as it is based on a bad faith and incorrect presentation and interpretation of facts and law.
The declaration of Ukraine regarding "certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine" cannot serve as a justification for non-compliance with its obligations, disregard for humanitarian considerations, refusal or failure to take necessary measures to find practical solutions for issues that have a very serious and direct impact on the ability of residents of those regions to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms provided for by international law.
The declaration of independence of the Republic of Crimea and its voluntary accession to the Russian Federation are the result of a direct and free expression of will by the people of Crimea in accordance with democratic principles, a legitimate form of exercising their right to self-determination given an aided from abroad violent coup d'état in Ukraine which caused rampant radical nationalist elements not hesitating to use terror, intimidation and harassment against both its political opponents and the population of entire regions of Ukraine.
The Russian Federation rejects any attempts to call into question an objective status of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the territories of which are an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation under its full sovereignty. Thus, the Russian Federation reaffirms that it fully complies with its international obligations under the Convention in relation to this part of its territory.

Rwanda

06-10-2023

Competent authority:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

06-10-2023

[…] the Republic of Rwanda wishes to exclude documents that provide Power of Attorney for property from certification under the Apostille Convention in Rwanda, due to internal considerations.

Serbia

26-05-2003

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of The Netherlands and with the reference to the misunderstandings concerning the application of the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, signed at The Hague on 5 October 1961 and ratified by the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia on 21 May 1961, and the Convention On the Issue of Multilingual Extracts from Civil Status Records, signed in Vienna on 8 September 1976 and ratified by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to the succession of which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed the declarations on 19 April 2001 and 16 October 2001 respectively, and, in that connection, the competencies of Yugoslav institutions to legalize public documents, has the honour to inform of the following:
1) Yugoslavia has legalized public documents in the sense of the Hague Convention under the Law on the Legalization of Public Documents in International Traffic ("Official Gazette of the SFRY", No.6, 8 February, 1973) since its adoption.
Under the article. 8 of the said Law, the courts of the first instance and the Ministries of Justice of the constituent Yugoslav Republics provide apostilles, i.e. authorize Yugoslav documents, for use in the States Parties to the Hague Convention. Under the Law, municipal courts have primary competence to certify documents issued by institutions resident in the areas under the jurisdiction of the courts. Republican and Provincial justice administration authorities are competent to authorize, as an alternative, documents issued by institutions resident in the areas under their jurisdiction if not authorized by competent courts of the first instance.
Bearing that in mind, only one authorization, i.e. apostille, by the competent court of the first instance or, exceptionally, by a Republican or Provincial justice administration authority will suffice for the authorization/acceptance of Yugoslav documents in international legal traffic. The insistence therefore on a cumulative authorization of documents by one or more Yugoslav institutions is in contravention of the provisions of the Hague Convention and the goals for the promotion of which it was signed and acceded to by a large number of countries, Yugoslavia included, as a source of international law.
2) Furthermore, and with reference to the said Note, the Embassy has noticed that the competent authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands frequently request that multilingual extracts from Yugoslav civil status records be legalized by alternative Yugoslav authorities (Ministries of Justice of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro).
That practice is contrary to the provisions of Article 8, para 2, of the Vienna Convention and Article 6, para 1, of the Hague Convention. They also request that extracts from Yugoslav civil status records in Serbian undergo the entire gamut of possible legalizations by various Yugoslav and Dutch authorities, which runs counter to the letter and spirit of Article 1 of The Hague Convention which provides for the obligation of the States Parties to accept extracts from civil status records of all States Parties, defined as public documents, if they are supplied by an apostille alone.

09-06-2006

[...] following the declaration of the state independence of Montenegro, and under the Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia is continuing international personality of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, which was confirmed also by the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia at its session held on 5 June 2006.

06-11-2015

The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Treaties Division, and has the honour to draw the latter's attention to the information received by the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law that the Provisional Institutions of Self-Govemment of Kosovo intend to deposit the instrument of ratification of the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents (the Apostille Convention) with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. That legal action is envisaged for today afternoon.
Article 12 of the Apostille Convention stipulates that any State which was not represented at the Ninth Session of the Hague Conference, when the Convention was signed, may accede to the Convention.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia hereby strongly requests that Kosovo should not be treated as a State in regard to its requested participation in the Apostille Convention, either by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law or by the Treaties Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a depositary of the Convention.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the Serbian territory. The Government of the Republic of Serbia does not recognize the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo. Nevertheless, the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, under the auspices of the European Union, is under way, with aim to find mutually acceptable solutions for many complex issues.
Kosovo is neither a member of the United Nations. Although the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 declared that the unilateral declaration of independence, as a formal legal document, could not violate international law, it refused to admit that there was a right by Kosovo to declare independence and that Kosovo achieved statehood. In the words of the Court, "the declaration of independence is an attempt to determine finally the status of Kosovo" [emphasis added]. This means that the Court found that "a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status" envisaged in paragraph 11 i) of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 has not run its course. The Court specifically affirmed that UNSCR 1244 (1999) is in force and continue to apply as long as it is not repealed.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia does not possess the information that the organs of the Hague Conference on Private International Law have ever decided to treat Kosovo as a State pursuant to the Apostille Convention, or any other multilateral conventions on private international law. Under these circumstances, it should be a duty to the depositary not to receive the instrument of ratification of the Kosovo authorities, or at least to suspend its deposition until the proper decision of the organs of the Hague Conference.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia emphasized that the accession of Kosovo to the Apostille Convention would be a dangerous precedent, harmful for many States. This would open the door for other entities to follow the same path thus threatening territorial integrity and sovereignty of other States.

18-12-2015

By its note no. 839/2015 of 6 November 2015, the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia conveyed the view of its Government that Kosovo could not be treated as a State pursuant to Article 12 of the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents (hereinafter the Apostille Convention), and for that reason, it requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, as the depositary of the Convention, not to allow the deposition of the instrument of accession by Kosovo's authorities. Alternatively, it requested that the deposition is suspended until the proper decision of the organs of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is adopted.
By its note no. 916/2015 of 28 November 2015, the Embassy further explained its position, emphasizing that the issue of statehood of an international subject claiming accession to the Convention has a preliminary character, because only States are capable to accede. The answer to that issue should precede the act of deposition of the instrument of accession and, even more, it should precede the stage of raising objections as an opportunity for the Contracting States pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Yet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by its note verbale no. 2015.660990 of 2 December 2015, declared that Serbia raised an objection to the accession of Kosovo, treating Serbia's note of 6 November 2015 as the objection in accordance with Article 12, second paragraph, of the Convention. The substance of Serbia's note of 6 November 2015 has also been included into the Notification of 11 December 2015 pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention, available on the website of the depositary. However, a logical question arises how it could be possible that a State raised an objection pursuant to Article 12, second paragraph, of the Convention before the deposition of the instrument of accession of a new Contracting State took place. Serbia actually requested the depositary to bring the preliminary question of Kosovo's disputed statehood to the attention of the Contracting States of the Apostille Convention and the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law as the competent organ of the international organization concerned. By refusing to perform its function in the suggested way, the depositary, in the view of Serbia, has breached its neutrality.
The Republic of Serbia will continue insisting on its position in the further communication to the Council on General Affairs and Policy, both regarding the incapability of Kosovo to be a Contracting State of the 1961 Apostille Convention and regarding the unacceptable procedure of its accession.

26-04-2016

The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as Depositary of the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents, and with reference to the Note of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain no. 25/16 of 1 April 2016 and the Depositary response to that Note published on the Treaty Database on 15 April 2016 under no. 19/2016, has the honour to inform that Serbia aligns itself with the declaration of Spain.
In the view of the Republic of Serbia, the duty of a depositary in the event of any difference appearing between a State and the depositary as to the performance of the latter's functions cannot be performed by a mere electronic notification of that difference on the Treaty Database. "Bringing the matter to the attention of all Contracting States to the Convention concerned", as formulated by the Council of General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in its Conclusions & Recommendations adopted on 17 March 2016 in accordance with Article 77, paragraph 2, of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, presumes that the Contracting States must be asked for their respective positions concerning the matter of difference.
Otherwise, in the absence of any decision adopted by the Contracting States of the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents on the controversial question of Kosovo's statehood, it seems that the exclusive position of the Depositary State to that highly political issue is decisive. Such a procedural approach, in the view of the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia, exceeds the duties and power of a depositary. It is also contrary to the well-established practice of the Treaty Section of the UN Office of Legal Affairs: in its Summary of Practice, the UN Depositary declares that if he were to receive an instrument of accession from any area of controversial statehood, "he would not wish to determine, on his own initiative, the highly political and controversial question of whether or not the areas whose status was imclear were States; [such] a determination, he believed, would fall outside his competence."
For that reason, the reception of the instrument of accession of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Govemment of Kosovo has no legal validity.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia appreciates the intention declared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to perform the Depositary functions "on the basis of complete impartiality and thus in full conformity with Articles 76 and 77 of the Vienna Convention", and in that regard, invites the Depositary to demonstrate its impartiality by finding an effective way to bring the matter of difference to the attention of all Contracting States.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands the assurances of its highest consideration.

29-05-2017

The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and recalling the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), has the honour to notify esteemed Ministry that the present extension ratione loci of the applicability of the 1961 Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents (hereinafter the Apostille Convention) to the territory of the Serbia's Province of Kosovo and Metohija has to be interpreted in accordance with Article 13 of the Apostille Convention.
Furthermore, in conformity with above mentioned Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government of Kosovo established by the UNMIK regulation 2001/9 of 15 May 2001, which was confirmed by the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 to be in force, all references to the Province of Kosovo and Metohija and its provisional institutions need to be designated accordingly and in conformity with the UN practice.
The Embassy of the Republic of Serbia would highly appreciate if the Ministry, acting in its capacity as Depositary, brings this Note Verbale containing declaration of extension to the attention of all Contracting States to the Apostille Convention and to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Spain

04-08-1997

[...] the Colony of Gibraltar has issued certificates (apostilles) under the Hague Convention no. XII of 5 October 1961 in which the name of the territory is stated against the word 'country'.
The Kingdom of Spain considers that the certificate used by the authorities of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar constitutes a clear violation of the Convention referred to above. Article 13 of the Convention allows the contracting States to extend the Convention to all the territories for the international relations of which they are responsible, thus enabling such territories to issue certificates, but never as 'countries', as Gibraltar has done.
Accordingly, Great Britain extended the territorial application of the Convention to Gibraltar, which the British authorities themselves consider to be a dependent territory and not a 'country'. Gibraltar's self-proclamation in the certificate as 'country' is not only unacceptable to Spain, it does not reflect the current status of this territory under international law.
As a result, the Kingdom of Spain declares that it denies the validity of certificates issued by the United Kingdom and Gibraltar in which the name of the Colony is entered against the word 'country'.

30-05-2011

The Ministry of Justice of Spain has put in place a new system for the issuance of Apostilles, which includes the possibility to issue both electronic and paper Apostilles.
Starting on 16th May 2011 in two pilot Competent Authorities (Superior Courts of Justice of the Region of Murcia and Castilla-La Mancha), the new system will be progressively deployed in the Competent Authorities in Spain.
The Competent Authorities formerly designated as Secretaries of the "Territorial Courts" (Secretarios de Gobierno de las Audiencias) are now referred to by their current official denomination: "Chancellor Secretariats of the Superior Courts of Justice" (Secretarías de Gobierno de los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia).
The main features of this new system are explained below:
Format of the Apostille certificate
- As of 16th May, the Apostille issued with the new system will follow the sample format attached and will be digitally signed.
- Apostilles issued with the new system for paper documents will be printed and printed on the document or attached to it by means such as metallic staples and stamps.
- Electronic Apostilles issued with the new system will also be digitally signed and will contain the public document as an attachment. The digital certificate will guarantee that the Apostille and the electronic public document embedded in it have not been altered after its issuance.
- For a transitional period of time and until the new system for issuance of Apostilles is deployed in all Competent Authorities, the Government of Spain will be issuing both the current and the new Apostille model which are equally valid and authentic.
e-Register of Apostilles
- The authenticity of Apostilles issued by Competent Authorities in Spain may be verified at the Spanish electronic Register of Apostilles at the website of the Ministry of Justice. The exact website will be included in the Apostille.
- In the case of electronic Apostilles, the e-Register will also allow to verify the authenticity of the underlying electronic public document.

13-11-2015

The Embassy of Spain in The Hague presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and has the honour to draw the latter's attention to the information provided by the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law regarding a ceremony carried out at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands part of which states as follows:
"On 6 November 2015 Kosovo* deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (the "Apostille Convention"). By doing so, Kosovo joined its first Hague Convention and became the 109th Contracting Party to the Apostille Convention. The Apostille Convention will enter into force for Kosovo on 14 July 2016.
At the ceremony, which took place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (i.e. the Depositary), H.E. Ms Vjosa Dobruna, Ambassador of Kosovo, and Counsellor Besnik Ramadanaj represented the Embassy of Kosovo. On behalf of the Depositary, Head of the Treaties Division Mr Joseph Damoiseaux, Head of the Publication Section of the Treaties Division Mr Jules van Eijndhoven and Legal Officer Mr Mark Groen also attended the ceremony. Secretary General Mr Christophe Bernasconi and Principal Legal Officer Ms Mayela Celis represented the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).
Pursuant to Article 12 of the Apostille Convention the Depositary shall give notice to the Contracting States of the accession of Kosovo".
The Embassy of Spain regrets this decision since there is no evidence that the organs of the Hague Conference on Private International Law have ever decided to qualify that territory as a State (http://wwv.hcch,ngt/index_en,php?act-siates.nonmember) as required by the Apostille Convention or any other multilateral conventions on private international law.
The Kingdom of Spain is a Party to the Apostille Convention and, as many other of its States Parties, has not recognized the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo. Moreover, Spain has reaffirmed its commitment with the principle of integrity and sovereignty of the States, as set out in the UN Chart and the Helsinki Final Act. Furthermore, Spain fully respects UNSCR 1244/1999 still in force.
The territory of Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations and the General Conference of UNESCO has recently opposed to its membership.
The Embassy of Spain draws the attention to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands that the accession of this territory to the Apostille Convention would be a dangerous precedent with unforeseen consequences, harmful for many States, regarding this and other multilateral Conventions which require statehood for becoming a Contracting Party. Therefore, this is not a technical issue that could be just solved by a literal interpretation of Article 12 of the Apostille Convention or article 76 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.
It would also be important to highlight that the opposition mechanism established by article 12 of the Apostille Convention might be not enough guarantee to avoid the negative consequences on those States Parties having expressly objected. That would be the case, for example, in the case of a Judicial Decision issued by a Court from a State that could have previously accepted a document apostilled by this territory if such decision should have to be enforced by a State having previously objected.
Taking into account the abovementioned arguments, Spain is on the opinion that it is not up to the Depositary State of the Convention to qualify if a particular applicant complies with the requirement of statehood established by the Apostille Convention. Neither the Depositary State could rely on the allegedly neutrality of the ceremony to accept the deposition, because this in fact implies the adoption of a clear position on a political and controverted issue that exceeds its duties as Depositary State.
Under these circumstances, the Embassy of Spain requests the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands not to receive the instrument of accession of this territory to the Apostille Convention or, at least, to suspend its deposition until a proper decision could be adopted by the competent organs of the Hague Conference on Private Law.

____________________________
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence

01-04-2016

The Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain in The Hague presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and has the honor to draw the latter's attention to the Conclusions & Recommendations adopted by the Council of General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, at the meeting held on 15-17 March 2016, on the issue of "New ratifications / accessions: role of the Depositary and the Permanent Bureau". According to them:
"When, following the deposit of an instrument of ratification, approval, or accession, the Depositary subsequently receives an objection from a Contracting State, including based on the issue of statehood, the Depositary brings the matter to the attention of all Contracting States to the Convention concerned".
Following this recommendation to the Depositary the Council did not consider itself competent to verify the condition of statehood of any entity depositing an instrument of ratification, approval or accession to the Hague Conference's Conventions while handing over the issue to the Contracting States of the Convention concerned.
In the case of the territory of Kosovo alleged accession to the Convention Abolishing the Requirements of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, of 1961 (Apostille Convention) the matter has not been brought to the attention of the Contracting States to the said Convention yet. Therefore by no means the Contracting States have adopted a decision on this issue.
Taking all this into account, the Kingdom of Spain's stance remains that the reception of the instrument of accession of the territory of Kosovo to the Apostille Convention has no legal validity, because the depositary is not entitled to qualify neither directly nor implicitly any entity as a State. Thus, Spain requests to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands the non-admission of the petition of accession of the territory of Kosovo to the Apostille Convention.
The Kingdom of Spain wishes to remind the inconvenience caused by the notorious lack of impartiality of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, in a matter that goes far beyond its duties as a Depositary. The Kingdom of Spain underlines its right to take appropriate legal action as it considers that the Ministry's actions have infringed International Law, particularly the due neutrality of the Depositary State of any international Treaty within the exercise of its functions according to Article 76(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of 1969.
The Kingdom of Spain would highly appreciate if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands brings this Verbal Note to the attention of the other Contracting States to the Apostille Convention.
The Kingdom of Spain avails itself this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands the assurances of its highest consideration.

22-04-2016

The Embassy of Spain presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and with reference to the latter's Note Verbale MINBUZA-2016.213921 of 14 April 2016, in reply to this Embassy's Note Verbale 25/16 of 1 April 2016, the Embassy of Spain wishes to make the following clarifications and requests:
As stated during the recent meetings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, it is the view of Spain, and many other States, that the question of Palestine and that of the territory of Kosovo are not the same.
The Embassy of Spain kindly reminds the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands that at the 193th session of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on 4 January 2016, the Presidency of the Administrative Council, as well as the Permanent Bureau of the Conference, agreed to put under review the submission of the instrument of accession of Palestine and the territory of Kosovo to the 1907 Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes until the States Parties would take an appropriate decision on the matter.
The Embassy of Spain appreciates the written submission of the statement delivered by the depositary during the 194th meeting of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and fully agrees with its last paragraph stating that "the Netherlands, in its capacity as depositary, has no stance on statehood..” Therefore, the Netherlands rightly considers that "it is for the individual Contracting States of the 1907 Convention to decide on matters of statehood, eligibility and accession". This is precisely the reason why Spain has repeatedly reminded the depositary that it is up to the Contracting States and not to the depositary to adopt a decision before accepting the instrument of accession of a territory, notably if its statehood is controversial.
Accordingly, Spain stresses the fact that the Council on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague Conference on Private International Law decided at the meeting held on 15-17 March 2016 (paragraph 4 of the conclusions and recommendations) to bring to the attention of all Contracting Parties to the Convention concerned any matters, including the issue of statehood, following the deposit of an instrument of ratification, approval or accession when the depositary receives an objection from a Contracting State, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the UN doctrine and depositary practice by other International Organizations in similar situations and in compliance with the decision previously adopted by the above mentioned Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
In the same vein, in relation with the Apostille's Convention, Spain has repeatedly requested the depositary to take a decision similar to the one adopted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Since at the last meeting of the Council on General Affairs of the Hague Conference no final decision about the territory of Kosovo could be taken, Spain requests to convene a meeting of all Contracting Parties before 15 May 2016, when the deadline for submission of objections under Article 12 of the Apostille Convention expires, to give the possibility to all Contracting Parties to take the appropriate decision.
Alternatively, and taking into consideration the limited time available and the difficulties to convene the meeting in such short notice, the Embassy of Spain requests the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands to suspend the instrument of accession of the territory of Kosovo to the Apostille Convention until the Contracting Parties of the Convention may adopt a decision.
Should this not be the case, in the opinion of Spain, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands would go far beyond its technical duties as depositary and would act contrary to the decisions adopted by other international organizations and depositary States in similar situations. In addition to the decision of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, it is also important to bear in mind the decision of the General Conference of UNESCO to dismiss the application for membership of the territory of Kosovo and, more recently, the decision of the Executive Committee of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) adopted by consensus on 16th April 2016 to postpone the process of accession of the territory of Kosovo "waiting for a decision of the United Nations".
The Embassy of Spain would highly appreciate that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands brings this Note Verbale to the attention of the other Contracting States of the Apostille Convention.
The Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands the assurances of its highest consideration.

12-05-2016

The Kingdom of Spain, as many others Contracting States, does not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence of the territory of Kosovo nor the statehood of that territory.
The territory of Kosovo does not comply with the requirement of statehood established by the Convention Abolishing the Requirements of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, of 5th October 1961 (Apostille Convention) and, consequently, the deposition of the instrument of accession has no legal or other effects. Therefore, the provisions of the Apostille Convention regarding the procedure of entry into force are not applicable and the Kingdom of Spain does not consider this territory a Contracting Party of the Apostille Convention.
Taking all this into account, the Kingdom of Spain does not view itself bound, directly or implicitly, by the Apostille Convention with regard to the said entity. Moreover, the Kingdom of Spain will not accept under any circumstance the validity of the documents issued by the said territory even if they have been recognized by another Contracting State of the Apostille Convention.

Switzerland

12-06-2018

Referring to the declaration formulated by the Republic of Serbia with regard to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents of 5 October 1961 and received by the Depositary on 29 May 2017, Switzerland wishes to notify all Contracting States that, with regard to public documents executed in the territory of Kosovo, Switzerland will recognise as authentic only those documents for which an Apostille has been issued by the competent authorities designated by Kosovo, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention.

Tonga

15-11-2010

[...] all Apostilles issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Tonga and its designated Diplomatic Missions shall now be subject to an administrative fee before issuance.

Ukraine

16-10-2015

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine - the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against the Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above Conventions, as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.
The provisions of the Conventions regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

09-03-2022

In view of the ongoing aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Ukraine hereby informs the Depositary […] of the inability to guarantee the fulfilment by the Ukrainian side of obligations [under the above Convention] to the full extent for the period of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation and the martial law in place in the territory of Ukraine until complete termination of the encroachment upon the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.

01-12-2023

[The aforementioned treaty is] implemented on the territory of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were) conducted or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party's fulfillment of its obligations under [this treaty] as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.
The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is at the link below:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text

United Kingdom

01-04-1970

[...] that agreement has been reached between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the French Republic whereby the extension of the Convention to the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides with effect from the 15th of February, 1966, has been confirmed.

16-06-1997

I am instructed by Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to refer to the Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents done at the Hague on 5 October 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) which applies to Hong Kong at present.
I am also instructed to state that, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Hong Kong.

United States of America

24-12-1980

On the occasion of the deposit by the United States of America of its instrument of accession to the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, concluded October 5, 1961 (1961 Convention), the Department of State wishes to draw the attention of States currently parties to the Convention, and eventually of those becoming so in the future, to the provisions of Title 18. United States Code, Section 319ø relating to documents submitted to the United States Government in support of extradition requests. It does so for the purpose of preventing possible misunderstandings by stipulating that the 1961 Convention does not supersede or override the provisions of Section 319ø.
Section 319ø provides:
Section 319ø Evidence on (Extradition) hearing
Depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped, and the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that the same, so offered, are authenticated in the manner required.
The requirement of Section 319ø is satisfied by the certification of the principal United States diplomatic or consular officer resident in the State requesting extradition that the documents are in such form as to be admissible in the tribunals of that State. The certification by apostille under the 1961 Convention does not satisfy this requirement, as it only certifies the signature, the capacity of the signer, and the seal on the documents. It does not certify the admissiblity of the documents. Thus, the requirement of section 319ø is not deemed by the United States to be overridden by operation of Article 8 of the 1961 Convention.
It should be noted, however, that a certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States as set out in section 319ø has also served to legalize such documents, and will continue to do so without the need for any other legalization by United States officials or certification by the apostille under the 1961 Convention.
In light of the above, it is recommended that States party to the 1961 Convention continue as before to cover documents supporting extradition requests directed to the United States with the special certification provided for by section 319ø. Failure to cover extradition documents in this recommended manner could regrettably result in a finding by the United States judge or magistrate hearing the extradition request that the documents do not meet the requirements of section 319ø and thus are not entitled to be received and admitted as evidence. Such a finding could, in turn, result in the irrevocable rejection of the extradition request.

06-09-2017

The Embassy of the United States of America […] has the honor to convey that, having regard to the July 2016 entry into force of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents ("the Apostille Convention") for the Republic of Kosovo, the United States wishes to notify all Contracting States that, consistent with its obligations under the Apostille Convention, the United States will not give legal effect under the Convention to any certification purporting to be an Apostille issued within the territory of Kosovo by an entity other than the designated Kosovo competent authority.
As recognized in Conclusion and Recommendation 7 of the 2016 Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Apostille Convention, and as memorialized in Paragraph 113 of the Handbook on the Practical Operation of the Apostille Convention, the law of Kosovo determines whether a document is a public document to which the Apostille Convention applies and to which only the competent authorities of Kosovo may affix an Apostille Certificate.