defendant was domiciled in an EFTA country. This view was
supported by Sweden. Saggio replied that the EEC Group could not accept a diminution of the scope of the Brussels Convention and it was also important to bear in mind the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK underlined the point that the EEC countries were prepared to abandon jurisdiction over EFTA domiciliaries under Articles 16,17 and 18 of the Brussels Convention, these being all
cases where EC courts could now assume jurisdiction over persons
domiciled in EFTA countries. There then followed a complex discussion with various examples to illustrate the respective scope of the Brussels and Parallel Convention. Norway thought it was totally unacceptable that the Brussels Convention should be applied in an EFTA country if the defendant was domiciled in an EEC state and thought that the EFTA countries would be willing to
accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in any action brought in an
EEC state whether under the Brussels or Parallel Convention.
Finland was not, however, prepared to go so far and pointed out
that the Brussels Convention could not in any event apply in an
EFTA country.
9.
Sweden reverted to the problem of lis pendens under Article 21 and France suggested that this could easily be dealt with in the report, since it was clear that the text of the Convention
did not exclude the possibility of taking into account proceedings being brought in another court on the basis of another convention. Sweden disputed whether this would achieve
the object, since Article 21 referred to proceedings in a
different Contracting State under either the Brussels Convention
or the Parallel Convention but not to both.
$
Article 16 (Working Documents 24 and 34)
10. In reply to the Chairman's question as to where matters now stood, Saggio explained that the EEC Group had agreed that it should be the defendant's rather than the tenant's domicile which
should be referred to and that the plaintiff should have an