Article 3(2) of the Apostille Convention is the clause that stops the apostille from being demanded where something else has already removed or simplified the formality. It is the Convention’s own link to the exemption regimes that let a Turkish multilingual civil status extract reach a German registry office with no certificate, or a consular document travel with no legalisation. The clause creates no exemption itself; it gives effect to exemptions found elsewhere.
The wording of the second paragraph
The English text reads: “However, the formality mentioned in the preceding paragraph cannot be required when either the laws, regulations, or practice in force in the State where the document is produced or an agreement between two or more Contracting States have abolished or simplified it, or exempt the document itself from legalisation.” The formality meant is the apostille of the first paragraph. Two sources of exemption are named: the law or practice of the state where the document is to be used, and an agreement between contracting states. In either case the result is the same: the apostille may not be asked for.
Three regimes that rest on it
- CIEC Convention no. 16 of 8 September 1976 on multilingual extracts from civil status records, Formül A, B and C in Türkiye: its article 8 has the extracts accepted without legalisation or equivalent formality in each bound state; it contains no clause on translation.
- CIEC Convention no. 17 of 15 September 1977 on exemption from legalisation of certain documents, in force for Türkiye since 1 August 1987 according to the French foreign ministry’s table.
- The European Convention of 1968 on documents executed by diplomatic agents or consular officers (ETS 063), in force for Türkiye since 23 September 1987.
Each of these is an agreement between states. Where one of them applies, Article 3(2) is the clause through which the Apostille Convention steps aside. The detail of each regime is on its own page of this site.
Northern Cyprus: an agreement outside the Convention
The agreement between Türkiye and Northern Cyprus on cooperation in justice and home affairs, published in the Turkish Official Gazette of 7 January 2003, no. 24986, provides in the second paragraph of its article 27 that documents drawn up or certified in the territory of one party and bearing an official seal are exempt from legalisation before the authorities of the other, with the same probative force as that party’s own official documents. Northern Cyprus has no row in the HCCH status table, so between the two there is no apostille for Article 3(2) to set aside; the exemption stands on the bilateral agreement alone. Whether the agreement has since been amended or terminated was not checked in this site’s survey.
A formality removed, a language kept
Article 3(2) speaks of legalisation and of the apostille, never of translation. An exemption therefore settles the certification only; whether the document must also be translated is decided by the receiving authority. The German missions in Türkiye state that the multilingual extracts need neither a translation nor an apostille in Germany. That is Germany’s statement about CIEC 16 extracts, not a consequence of Article 3(2), and it is not a rule for other states or other documents.
Translation after an exemption
For an exempt document the translation may be the only step left between the Turkish paper and the foreign file. It is made from the document as issued, and the certification the receiving authority wants on it is asked of that authority. The clause speaks of exempting “the document itself”; a notarised translation is a separate notarial act, and whether that act needs its own certificate is judged on its own.