Article 9

1.

a.

in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange his defence; but such a failure to effect service cannot constitute a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement where service was not effected because the defendant had concealed his whereabouts from the person who instituted the proceedings in the State of origin;

b.

in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the competence of the authority giving the decision was not founded:

i.

on the habitual residence of the defendant, or

ii.

on the last common habitual residence of the child's parents, at least one parent being still habitually resident there, or

iii.

on the habitual residence of the child;

c.

the decision is incompatible with a decision relating to custody which became enforceable in the State addressed before the removal of the child, unless the child has had his habitual residence in the territory of the requesting State for one year before his removal.

2.

3.