Illegally Ruled Decision on Custody Case 27th of December 2018
The proof of Service of the documents, of Service Abroad, was Absent!
The evidence of Service Abroad shall highlight the fact, place, and confirm the date of Service
Proof of Service of the documents must be obtained either from a dated and duly certified proof of receipt or from a certificate from the State to which the application was filed.
ABSTRACT:
“The International Convention on 15/11/1965 does not repeal the provisions of the domestic law of the signatory countries on Service of legal documents, but it ensures that the document has been received by its recipient, in order to avoid fictitious Service and the absence of a party from the proceedings. In particular, in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the above International Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, which came into force in Belarus in 1998.
The proof of Service of the documents, for the purpose of Service or notification abroad, must be obtained either from a dated and duly certified proof of receipt, by the person to whom the documents are addressed, or with a certificate from the State to which the application was filed. Which shall highlight the fact, place, and date of Service so that it is confirmed, as already mentioned, that the person to whom the Service or notification is made has been informed of the document to be served!”
Rule of Law à la Belarus
Repressions and Lawlessness in Belarus
“The attached ruling states that the Belarusian judiciary rejected Mr. Cheropoulos’ second ground also, according to which the decision of December 27, 2018, was issued illegally as the matter of custody of the minors did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the Republic of Belarus, having previously been considered and finally judged by the Swedish Courts, which on 19/9/2018 had ruled that custody of minors is assigned to the father and the decision had become effective”.
“In fact, the Judicial Authorities rejected the above, reasonable, and true ground of appeal, claiming that the plaintiff L.A. Trafimovich had filed their lawsuit for the custody of minors on 27–04-2017,i.e., before Mr. Cheropoulos, who filed the respective lawsuit in Sweden on 30-05-2017 (while the truth is that the related lawsuit was filed by Mr. Cheropoulos in Sweden on 04–05-2017, and already on 30-5-2017, a decision was issued (interim decision) ruling that the father was temporarily assigned with custody of the children), and therefore the Belarusian Courts did have jurisdiction”.
“At the same time, in order to strengthen their judgment, they mention that the minors are Belarusian nationals and have been living in Belarus with their mother for more than one year”.
The Judicial Authorities of Belarus reached the above erroneous conclusions and judgments without taking into account the current rules of law, purposely misinterpreting them and the facts, in order to reject the well-founded and lawful appeal of Mr. Cheropoulos.
Attached Hereto:
# 2018.12.27 RU Illegally Ruled Decision on Custody Case 27th of December 2018
# 2018.12.27 EN Illegally Ruled Decision on Custody Case 27th of December 2018
Claim of Liudmila Trafimovich
Attorney’s Protest on Legal Atrocities
Nicolaos AA Cheropoulos
Father of Anthie and Alexandra
Reviewed Oct. 2023
EN 
RU 
UA 
SK 
IT 
EL 
SV