TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 33

2

not least because strictly it was the ECJ which interpreted the

Convention.

3. In reply to the suggestion by Saggio that one should revert

to Document No. 31, Norway (Ronglien) said it was too ambitious

to seek to bind the EFTA countries to the former case law of the

ECJ.

The UK said that the acceptance of the existing jurisprudence of the ECJ in relation to matters which were

identical in both Conventions was the surest evidence that

parties did agree on the meaning of the two texts. The Chairman

agreed that it was now for the EEC Group to consider Document No.

38, but emphasised that the question of balance between the two

sub-paragraphs of Article 1 was important for the EFTA countries.

It was noted that the EEC countries could not seek to bind the

ECJ, but that was an internal problem for the Community

countries. The UK also made the point that Member States could

intervene in Judgments Convention cases before the ECJ, and that it would be possible for them to take account of EFTA judgments in their interventions. This idea was supported by the Commission and it was generally agreed that this should be taken

account of.

4.

Article 2(2) of the EFTA draft suggested that the ECJ could

act as the central body. The views of the ECJ would have to be

sought before any decision could be made and the UK also made the point that there would have to be some supporting arrangement made by the EEC Member States since one could not allot a

function to the ECJ by an agreement with third countries.

5.

In relation to Article 3 of the EFTA draft text Saggio and

France made the point that this was little more than a

reproduction of Article 67 of the Brussels Convention. France

emphasised that an annual report might be useful and generally that what was in question was the intensity of co-operation

foreseen.