Facts
On 9 February 1967, D., born in 1966 in Bad Homburg, filed an action before the Local Court of Speyer against [F.], an Italian national, then domiciled in Speyer, for the payment of maintenance contributions. [F.] was personally summoned. On 25 April 1967, the court decided to hear D.'s mother as a witness. On 31 May 1967, she declared that she had had sexual relations with [F.] before and during the legal period of conception. Subsequently, F.'s lawyer renounced his mandate and [F.] returned to Italy. On 26 March 1968, the court rendered a default judgment ordering [F.] to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of 95 DM to D. [F.] filed an opposition to this judgment in May 1968, but his opposition was rejected on 9 July 1968 by a second default judgment. Both judgments were notified to [F.] by postal delivery in accordance with Sec. 175 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.Considerations
3. The appellant argues that some of the conditions set out in Art. 2 of the Hague Convention and some of the documents mentioned in Art. 4 are missing. However, the two judgments, although qualified as "default judgments" according to German terminology, do not constitute default judgments within the meaning of international civil procedure law, as the appellant was a party to the proceedings through a lawyer. Consequently, Art. 4(3) of the Convention is not applicable. Even if the judgments were to be considered default decisions, the absence of the documents mentioned in Art. 4(3) would not be a ground for refusing enforcement, as the judgments contain an official finding of the notification of the summons to the appellant, which fulfils the same function as the production of the documents provided for in that provision. 4. The appellant also argues that the second default judgment of 9 July 1968 was not validly notified to him, as notification by postal delivery in accordance with Sec. 175 of the German Code of Civil Procedure is not in conformity with Swiss public policy. However, the 1958 Hague Convention does not govern issues of notification, but only the recognition and enforcement of decisions. The question of whether a judgment has become res judicata is determined according to the law of the State in which it was rendered, in this case German law. Under German law, the two default judgments have become res judicata, as evidenced by certificates of…