TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 34

3

Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (Swiss reservation)

6.

Switzerland reviewed the EEC position and Saggio rehearsed the EEC arguments to the effect that the exception sought was too wide. Switzerland replied that the ratification by Switzerland of the three Conventions mentioned (CMR, Warsaw, and Brussels Arrest Convention) was not an argument for a general acceptance of Article 5 (1) of the Parallel Convention. Since these three Conventions govern specific matters, Article 57 of the Parallel Convention would ensure that they were available for everyone. Germany suggested that the matter should now be put to the EEC/EFTA Political Co-ordination Committee, but Saggio thought that this would have to be discussed first within the EEC Group.

Article 57 and Preliminary Article

Sweden

7. Saggio introduced Working Document No. 36 containing the latest EC proposal which would equate EC legislation with conventions and provide the same grounds for non-recognition for the EEC as well as EFTA countries under Article 57 (3). again queried the meaning and extent of the term "otherwise admissible under the law" in Article 57 (3). It was generally agreed that this might better read as a reference to the head of jurisdiction being "otherwise entitled to recognition". Sweden also raised the question whether the provisions on non-recognition of irreconcilable judgments under Article 27 (3) applied to the case of judgments given under some convention other than the Brussels Convention. The UK thought that it did so apply, in view of the definition of judgment given in Article 25.

Finland agreed to this view as did other delegations.

It was agreed, however, that Sweden might have a point in relation to the treatment of a lis pendens under Article 21.

8.

More substantively, Norway asked that the Parallel Convention should apply wherever there was an EFTA element so that it would apply where the plaintiff and not just the