C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER R—ACCESS TO INFORMATION › PART 172—SERVICE OF PROCESS; PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS, SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, OR SIMILAR REQUESTS OR DEMANDS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LITIGATION; EXPERT TESTIMONY

22 C.F.R. § 172.2

Service of summonses and complaints

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Only the Office of the Executive Secretariat (S/ES-EX) is authorized to receive and accept summonses or complaints sought to be served upon the Department or Department employees. All such documents should be delivered or addressed to: Congressional & Litigation Support Office, Office of the Executive Secretariat (S/ES-EX), Room 1464, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520.

(b) In the event any summons or complaint described in § 172.1(a) is delivered to an employee of the Department other than in the manner specified in this part, such attempted service shall be ineffective, and the recipient thereof shall either decline to accept the proffered service or return such document under cover of a written communication which directs the person attempting to make service to the procedures set forth herein.

(c) Except as otherwise provided §§ 172.2(d) and 172.3(c), the Department is not an authorized agent for service of process with respect to civil litigation against Department employees purely in their personal, non-official capacity. Copies of summonses or complaints directed to Department employees in connection with legal proceedings arising out of the performance of official duties may, however, be served upon S/ES-EX.

(d) Although the Department is not an agent for the service of process upon its employees with respect to purely personal, non-official litigation, the Department recognizes that its employees stationed overseas should not use their official positions to evade their personal obligations and will, therefore, counsel and encourage Department employees to accept service of process in appropriate cases, and will waive applicable diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities when the Department determines that it is in the interest of the United States to do so.

(e) Documents for which S/ES-EX accepts service in official capacity only shall be stamped “Service Accepted in Official Capacity Only”. Acceptance of service shall not constitute an admission or waiver with respect to jurisdiction, propriety of service, improper venue, or any other defense in law or equity available under the laws of rules applicable for the service of process.

[57 FR 32896, July 24, 1992, as amended at 80 FR 12082, Mar. 6, 2015; 80 FR 30155, May 27, 2015; 83 FR 17489, Apr. 20, 2018; 91 FR 1246, Jan. 13, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Egervary v. Young, 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Egervary v. Young, 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 9× “22 C.F.R. § 172.2 .153 C. Statute of Limitations .”
Coulibaly v. Kerry, 213 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2016). “4(e)(2)(B); (3) because “the Department is not an authorized agent for service of process with respect to civil litigation against Department employees purely in their personal, non-official capacity,” 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 (c), the complaint and summons were not delivered to “an…”
Malyutin v. Rice, 854 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 .(e) (emphasis added). As the regulation unambiguously provides, the Office of the Legal Adviser is not authorized to accept service of process for the remaining Defendants.”
Zhao v. United States Dep't of State (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 2× “Additionally, 20 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 provides the regulatory requirements for service of process on the U.”
Ibrahim v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2024). “20 The Court cited and quoted 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 , which specifically governs service of 21 process on the U.”
Kiraka v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.N.J. 2025). “(Note that the suite number is 5.600.) 22 C.F.R. 172.2(a).”
Bonomo v. Shabat (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). “SHABAT Opinion of the Court trial court concluded that Plaintiff had properly served Defendant through the Executive Office of the Legal Adviser pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 172.2 , and that service had also been accomplished by certified mail to the DPO address.”
— 22 C.F.R. § 172.2(a) — 1 case
Kiraka v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.N.J. 2025). “(Note that the suite number is 5.600.) 22 C.F.R. 172.2(a).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.