t
2
3. After a rather involved discussion it was generally agreed, as suggested by France and the UK, that reference should be made
to the defendant's domicile and not to the tenant. This would,
for example, cater for the case where it was the tenant who had
to sue for recovery of money paid under a lease. There was no
element of tenant protection if he had to sue in another country
(i.e. the country of the rei sitae).
4. Spain said that it had political reservations as to creating
a new alternative exclusive forum. The Chairman said that there
were still political problems with what had been suggested by the
EFTA countries but there could be discussion on the details of a
possible solution particularly the question whether the exception should be for the benefit of natural or legal persons.
Article 17 (6) maintenance agreements
5.
The
Germany said that this was a purely academic question.
UK explained that it seemed clear from Iveco v. Van Hool that
questions of essential material validity of jurisdiction
agreements were regulated by the applicable law rather than by
Article 17 of the Convention. It would be best therefore not to
say in Article 17 that jurisdiction agreements on maintenance
were not available, since this would again suggest that questions
of material validity were regulated by Article 17. It would
therefore be best to oppose the EFTA request. This line was entirely supported by France.
Article 27 (4)
6.
There was general agreement to continue to resist the EFTA
request.
Article 52 (3) dependent domicile
7. The Chairman indicated that a majority of delegations had
been prepared to delete Article 52 (3) from the Parallel