Australie - Autorité centrale (art. 2) et informations pratiques

Autorité(s) centrale(s):

the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department of the Commonwealth of Australia 

Coordonnées :
Adresse : Private International Law Unit
Australian Government
Attorney-General's Department
Robert Garran Offices
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Australia
Téléphone : +61 2 6141 3332 (for voicemail messages)
Télécopieur : +61 (2) 6141 5452
Courriel : pil@ag.gov.au
Site web : www.ag.gov.au
Personne à contacter : The Principal Legal Officer
 
Langues de communication : anglais

Informations pratiques
(les informations suivantes ont été fournies par les autorités étatiques concernées ou ressortent des réponses aux Questionnaires sur la Convention Preuves)
Lois de blocage : Oui, il a deux lois de blocage :

Section 42 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1994 (Cth).

Section 7 of the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act 1984 (Cth).

Chapitre I
(Commissions rogatoires)
Transmission des Commissions rogatoires : Les commissions rogatoires sont directement envoyées par une autorité judiciaire de l'État requérant à l'Autorité centrale de l'État requis. 
Autorité chargée d’informer l’autorité requérante de l’heure et du lieu d’exécution de la commission rogatoire (art. 7) : Responsibility for informing the requesting authority of the time and execution of a Letter of Request depends on the State or Territory in question.
La présence des magistrats à l’exécution d’une commission rogatoire (art. 8) : Déclaration d'applicabilité.
Dispenses et interdictions établies par la loi d’autres États que l’État requérant et l’État requis (art. 11) : Pas de déclaration d'applicabilité.
Exigences de traduction (art. 4(2) et 33) :  L'Australie accepte les commissions rogatoires rédigées en langue anglaise, ou accompagnées d'une traduction dans cette langue.
Frais d’exécution d’une commission rogatoire (art. 14(2)(3) et 26) : Australia seeks reimbursement of costs under Art. 14(2).
There are no constitutional limitations with regard to the reimbursement of fees and costs, in connection with the execution of Letters of Request, for the service of process necessary to compel the appearance of a person to give evidence, the costs of attendance of such persons, and the costs of any transcript of the evidence (Art. 26).
Délai d’exécution : Typically the time taken to process a request is approximately six months, with some provision to expedite the process in appropriate circumstances.
art. 23 « pre-trial discovery of documents » : La commission rogatoire ne sera pas exécutée (exclusion complète).
Information sur les règles nationales sur l’obtention des preuves : 1. Commonwealth Legislation

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Foreign Evidence Act 1994 (Cth), Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act 1984 (Cth).

2. State/Territory Legislation:

Evidence on Commission Act 1995 (NSW), Evidence Act 1958 (VIC), Evidence Act 1929 (SA), Evidence Act 1906 (WA), Evidence Act 1971 (ACT), Evidence Act 1977 (QLD), Evidence on Commission Act 1988 (QLD), Evidence Act 2001 (TAS), Evidence on Commission Act 2001 (TAS), Evidence Act (NT), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), General Rules of Procedure in Civil Proceedings 1996 (VIC), Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (QLD), Supreme Court Rules 2000 (TAS), Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (TAS), Supreme Court Rules (NT).
Interrogation des témoins en vertu du chapitre I
La commission rogatoire requiert-elle d’inclure les questions exactes posées durant l’interrogation des témoins ou seulement une liste de sujets devant être abordés ? The Australian Attorney-General's Department encourages parties preparing a Letter of Request to include specific questions to ensure the Letter of Request provides sufficient detail to be executed and avoid uncertainty.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Pickles v Gratzon (2002) 55 NSWLR 533, the Court ruled that a Letter of Request need not disclose with reasonable particularity nature of evidence to be taken. However, a court will not execute a letter of request that is general and does not give sufficient detail to know what specific information is required. 

In practice, if counsel expect to appear in the Australian court to cross-examine the witness, it may be appropriate to provide a list of matters only.
Les audiences sont-elles publiques ou à huis clos ? Generally, Chapter I hearings are public although the executing court may order that the hearing be closed.  Examinations conducted other than by an officer of a Court are more likely to be conducted in private.
Les autorités judiciaires de votre État révisent-elles les commissions rogatoires, (par ex. en reformulant, réordonnant et /ou supprimant des questions choquantes ou des passages offensants, de telle sorte qu’elles puissent être exécutées en vertu des lois de l’État requis) ? Yes. The response of the judicial authorities to an unclear or objectionable Letter of Request will depend on the request in question.  The questions may be rephrased to rectify defaults in translation, and objectionable questions may be rephrased or omitted if the request is otherwise acceptable.  Furthermore, the Attorney-General's Department regularly seeks clarification on requests from the foreign authorities prior to forwarding a Letter of Request to the relevant State or Territory.
Le témoin peut-il se procurer à l’avance une copie des questions / sujets faisant l’objet de la commission rogatoire ? Generally, the witness is provided in advance with a copy of the questions / matters to be addressed.  However, this may not occur where there is a special request not to provide the witness with a copy of the questions / matters prior to examination and the Court makes an order to this effect.
Les documents produits par un témoin sont-ils authentifiés par le tribunal ? There is no requirement under Australian law to authenticate documents produced by a witness in an Australian court. However, on request, some states may be able to provide the Requesting Court with a certificate issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court that certifies that documents annexed to the certificate have been produced by the witness.
Le témoin prête-t-il généralement serment ? Yes. Witnesses are given the choice between taking an oath or making an affirmation, the latter being devoid of any religious significance.
Le témoin peut-il être soumis à des interrogations supplémentaires et rappelé ? Yes. First Request may be re-invoked - if the Australian Court so orders, but it is more likely that a further request would be made.
À quelles sanctions un témoin s’expose-t-il en cas de non-comparution ? Under domestic legislation, a court can issue a subpoena requiring a witness to appear before the court to execute a Letter of Request.  Failure to comply with the subpoena without a lawful excuse is a contempt of court and the witness may be arrested or charged with contempt of court.
Les interprètes facilitant l’interrogatoire du témoin doivent-ils être assermentés auprès du tribunal ? In Australia, the relevant court must be satisfied that the interpreter has the qualifications necessary for the task.  In addition, interpreters are required to take an oath or make an affirmation before the court.
De quelle manière le témoignage est-il transcrit ? In general, testimony is recorded by electronic means and then manually transcribed.  Court Reporters can also use computerised stenograph machines to translate shorthand outlines into transcript.  The document is then certified by the examiner as being a true and correct transcript of the evidence taken.
Chapitre II
(Obtention des preuves par des agents diplomatiques ou consulaires et par des commissaires)
Article 15 Applicable. Voir l'autorité compétente
Article 16 Applicable. Voir l'autorité compétente
Article 17 Applicable. No Competent Authority has been designated.  However, in practice such requests are considered by the Secretary of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, consistent with the process for Art 15 and 16.
Article 18 Pas de déclaration d'applicabilité (c-à-d., un agent diplomatique ou consulaire ou un commissaire n'a pas de faculté de solliciter de l'assistance nécessaire à obtenir des preuves par voie de contrainte).
Obtention de preuves par liaison vidéo
(en vertu des deux chapitres)
 
Chapitre I
Existe-t-il des obstacles juridiques à l’obtention de preuves par liaison vidéo ? No. There appears to be some uncertainty as to whether the procedures under the Hague Evidence Convention provide for the ability to take video-link evidence.  Australia considers that the Hague Convention makes no specific provision for the taking of evidence by video-link. Notwithstanding, Australia considers that there are no legal obstacles to the usage of modern technologies under the Convention.  Australia further notes that the private international law issues that may arise as a result of video-link evidence are not all addressed by the Convention.
Technologies utilisées : Generally, Australian courts may use a broad range of technologies, depending on the case in question, to execute a Letter of Request using video-link. For example, the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) defines video-link as "facilities that enable audio and visual communication between persons at different places" and enables the New South Wales Supreme Court to use any technology that falls within that definition to take video-link evidence.

Requests for video-links are treated by the State of New South Wales as being requests under Article 9 of the Convention for use of a special procedure and, accordingly, the New South Wales authorities seeks to be reimbursed for costs occasioned by the use of the video-link under Article 14. A special order from the Supreme Court of New South Wales must be obtained for a video-link and that as such use of a video-link cannot be guaranteed.  

Niveau d’interprétation exigé : Interprètes professionnels accrédités requis.
Interprétation simultanée ou consécutive : No preference has been indicated.
Ressorts dans lesquels une interprétation est nécessaire : L'État requis.
Qui paie les frais d’interprétation ? If an interpreter is located in the other State, that State may apportion the costs of the service as it deems appropriate.  For an interpreter located in Australia, the Australian authority will seek reimbursement from the foreign authority for the costs of the service (in accordance with Art 14) - the foreign authority may apportion the costs as it deems appropriate. 
Comment votre État gérerait-il une commission rogatoire si le témoin n’acceptait pas de témoigner ? Under domestic legislation Australian courts can compel witnesses to give evidence using video-link technology. For example, the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) provides that a New South Wales court may, on its own motion or on the application of a party, direct that a party (whether or not a party to the proceeding) give evidence or make a submission to the court by video-link.  Where the witness opposes the making of such a direction, the court must not make the direction unless the party making the application satisfies the court that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for the court to do so.
However, Australia will not compel a person to appear via video-link in a foreign court.  In such situations, the evidence would need to be taken by the Australian court through the standard Letter of Request process - however, the court might allow video link to be used for some other purpose, such as to allow counsel or parties to appear at the hearing - this would be decided on a case by case basis. 
Chapitre II
Existe-t-il des obstacles juridiques à l’obtention de preuves par liaison vidéo ? No. Australia considers that Chapter II of the Hague Convention makes no specific provision for the taking of evidence by video-link. Notwithstanding, Australia considers that there are no legal obstacles to the usage of modern technologies under the Convention. 

Australia further notes that the private international law issues that may arise as a result of video-link evidence are not all addressed by the Convention.

Technologies utilisées : None of the requests received by Australia under Chapter II have requested the use of video link technology.
Niveau d’interprétation exigé : Voir ci-dessus.
Interprétation simultanée ou consécutive : Voir ci-dessus.
Ressorts dans lesquels une interprétation est nécessaire : Voir ci-dessus.
Qui paie les frais d’interprétation ? Voir ci-dessus.
Accords bilatéraux ou multilatéraux : Conventions bilatérales d'entraide judiciaire : la République de Corée [2000] ATS 5 et la Thaïlande [1998] ATS 18.

Les conventions conclues entre le Royaume-Uni et les États suivants s'appliquent également à l'Australie : Allemagne [1933] ATS 4 ; Autriche [1933] (ATS 1) ; Danemark [1935] ATS 2 ; Espagne [1933] ATS 9 ; Estonie [1933] ATS 3 ; Finlande [1935] ATS 3; Grèce [1938] ATS 1; Hongrie [1937] ATS 1; Iraq [1937] ATS 2 ; Lituanie [1937] ATS 3 ; Norvège [1933] ATS 6 ; Pologne [1933] ATS 7 ; Portugal [1933] ATS 8 ; Suède [1933] ATS 10 ; Turquie [1935] ATS 5. 

Liens utiles : http://www.ag.gov.au/pil (Attorney-General's Department website - Private international law)

(Dernière mise à jour de cette page : le 5 avril 2016)

Dernière mise à jour de cette page :