TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 37

Article 27 (4)

6

13.

Switzerland repeated its objection to this provision, to

which it was replied by France, on behalf of the EEC countries,

that it operated as a safety valve so as to preserve the recognition of judgments which decided an incidental question on a matter not regulated by the Convention. The matter was left

open.

Article 52 (3) dependent domicile

14.

Greece indicated that it could not accept the EFTA request

for deletion of Article 52(3), but the EFTA countries maintained

their objection. (As this view is only held by Greece, the EEC position was not argued with any vigour, and no other Member State intervened in support of Greece.)

Articles 60 and 62

15. The UK said it was not in a position to settle the question

whether the Convention should be open or closed and that this

matter should be held over. In any event, the absence of any

decision on this question only affected the final clauses of the Convention and, in particular, the proposed wording of Article 57 was apt to cover the case of an open or closed convention.

Article 64

p

declarations of extension

16.

Saggio explained that the EEC countries were opposed to

negotiating declarations of extension on a case by case basis. Norway referred to its request for a written description of the territories in question and Switzerland reverted to its earlier point that its proposal was not unusual in Treaty practice. The UK replied that what the EFTA countries were seeking did not

accord with the practice at the UN which was to rely on the rule

in Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties.