FRONTIERS RIGHTS SEEKING NATIONALITY THE JUDICIAL ODYSSEY OF APPLICANTS The Committee of Cases quasi systematically refuses to receive and/or sign the legal notification. The unofficial given pretext that the short delay does not allow it to complete the study and build its opinion or its counter-argument. years later. It should be noted that neither the Committee nor the Court itself consider that notification, even if refused to sign, is completed as stipulated by the law. As mentioned, this is a systematic pattern. We highlight here few examples. In a lawsuit involving the registration of adult children, the judge issued a decision on 12/8/2017 to bring the state as a party in the lawsuit. Yet, the State delayed 13 months to accepted to receive the notification on 27/11//2018. Also, in one of the nationality lawsuits, the legal brief submitted by the Applicants to the court on 24/11/2014 was sent to the President of the Committee of Cases who signed three years later on 5/7/2017. Ironically, throughout the three years that passed before the state officially signed the notification, the Committee of Cases had referred the judicial file to the General Directorate of Civil Status requesting its opinion and to the General Security to conduct their investigation. In 9 nationality lawsuits, the delay by the state in receiving notification ranged between one year at eighteen months, and in some of them, notification hasn’t yet been received at all (up until 31/12/2018). In three of the lawsuits, the proceedings did not progress at all throughout this time period. Oddly enough, in other lawsuits, the state’s attorney responded to the lawsuit or submitted a counter argument before the proof of receiving notification was signed or despite the fact that the proof of notification was never issued. For instance, in 4 lawsuits, the state received notification after one year from filing the notification; however, the state’s attorney had presented the counter argument 2-7 months before signing the proof of receiving notification. In two other lawsuits, the proof of receiving notification was not submitted to court until 31/12/2018, more than one year after filing the notification, but the state attorney had submitted the counter argument to court before officially receiving notification. The proof of receiving notification of the legal complaint brief delivered to the state on 14/11/2014 was never submitted to court (according to the transcripts up until 31/12/2018). Despite that, the state attorney had responded to the lawsuit on 24/8/2015 and there was an exchange of pleadings between him/her and the Applicant attorney in 2016. After submitting the second counter argument, the court received proof of receiving notification of the first counter argument by the Committee of Cases without the proof of receiving notification of the lawsuit. This pattern is repeated throughout the court proceedings. However, this flawed practice is not exclusive to the State. All parties behave similarly to a great extend be it the State’s attorneys, the client’s legal, and the SEEKING NATIONALITY | PART 3 LEBANESE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Article 449 “The defendant shall present, within fifteen days from receiving notification of the legal complaint brief, a counterclaim responding to the lawsuit as well as all the supporting documents attached to the counterclaim. The latter shall include, in accordance with Article 445, the name and identity of the Applicant and defendant and shall present all demands clearly and in detail in the demands paragraph concluding the counterclaim.” Article 452 “The Applicant shall respond to the defendant’s counterclaim within ten days from receiving notification of the defendant’s counterclaim. Similarly, the defendant shall receive notification of the Applicant’s response and will have the same amount of time to, in turn, issue a response.” 82