(л
5
optional forum. There were still some political reservations as to whether an alternative exclusive forum could be accepted. The EEC Group also thought that the alternative forum should only be available in cases where the lessor was a natural or legal
person. An alternative was to follow the model of Article 13 and
to confine the exception to Article 16 to those cases where the
letting was not a trading or professional activity. Spain emphasised that so long as the scope of the exception had not been determined it would be difficult for Spain to take a step forward for political reasons. Finland agreed that the only two possible fora were the domicile of the defendant and the place of
the rei sitae.
11.
The discussion then turned to whether the exception should be available in the case of a lessor who was a legal person.
Article 17 (6) Agreements on jurisdiction in maintenance disputes
12. Saggio explained that the position of the EEC countries had not changed and that they did not see any reason to prohibit what was essentially an academic possibility. The UK also made the point that it now seemed clear from Iveco v. Van Hool that questions of the material or essential validity of a jurisdiction agreement were not regulated by Article 17 itself, but by the
applicable national law. It ought, therefore, to be left to the national law to decide whether such agreements could validly be made.
Norway replied that these agreements were contrary to public policy in Norway and Sweden challenged the EEC position in view of the existing exceptions to Article 17 there were already in the text of Article 17 and the acceptance by the EEC countries of an exception in the case of labour contracts. Germany and France both thought that the possibility of an agreement on jurisdiction in these cases was academic and that the question
ought to be left to the applicable national law. The Chairman agreed to leave this question on the agenda.
t
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.