TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 28

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