The European Union & Anor. v The Syrian Arab Republic

Service of proceedings on a foreign state under section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 is effected when the document reaches the state’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the FCDO. The provision does not prescribe the method of transmission. Email may therefore constitute valid diplomatic service where the FCDO considers it appropriate, the email reaches the Ministry’s electronic system, and the method is not contrary to local law.

Receipt means arrival at the Ministry, not voluntary acceptance by the state. A state cannot evade service by refusing delivery. The court may also validate alternative service of documents other than the claim form where there is good reason, including evidence that the proceedings have come to the state’s attention and that it is avoiding or delaying service.

The European Union and the European Investment Bank brought debt recovery proceedings against Syria concerning unpaid development loans. The claimants sought declarations that the proceedings had been validly served either by the FCDO emailing the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 11 November 2022, or alternatively by the claimants’ email of 29 July 2022. They also sought an extension of time for service and orders validating service of the application and providing for future service.

Syria had acknowledged service and served a defence but had not filed either document or appeared at the application. The central issue was whether email transmission by the FCDO constituted service through diplomatic channels under section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978.

1. The application proceeded in Syria’s absence. The court was satisfied that Syria had received reasonable notice, had an ample opportunity to attend, had shown no intention to be represented, and that the public interest favoured proceeding without further delay. Syria had therefore voluntarily absented itself.
2. Section 12(1) prescribed the exclusive method of service in the absence of agreement under section 12(6). Service had to be transmitted through the FCDO to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was complete when the document was received at that Ministry. The FCDO retained discretion, informed by its judgment, expertise and experience, as to the available method of transmission, subject to compliance with local law.
3. The words “received at” required arrival at the Ministry, rather than acceptance by an official or a positive act of volition. Requiring acceptance would undermine the statutory deeming mechanism and allow a state to evade service by refusing delivery. The same reasoning applied notwithstanding that email service would not ordinarily constitute service on a domestic defendant under the CPR.
4. Email sent by the FCDO to the Syrian Ministry’s email address was capable of constituting service. The evidence showed delivery to the relevant mail server or inbox, no bounce-back message, use of an address publicly associated with the Ministry, and no challenge by Syria to the address or receipt. The method was also not prohibited by Syrian law.
5. The claimants were therefore entitled to a declaration that the amended claim form and other documents required to institute the proceedings were validly served on 11 November 2022. The alternative service and extension applications were unnecessary and were not determined.
6. The court validated service of the application and authorised future service of documents other than the amended claim form by email and courier. There was good reason because the application had come to Syria’s attention, no operative address for service had been provided, and there was evidence of attempts to avoid or delay service.