TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 64

these

f

jever they may be situated. Some doubts have been

expressed on this, particularly on the EFTA side, and

one suggestion is that the right of extension should be

balanced by a right of any Contracting State to object

to that extension. Proposed language to give effect to

this suggestion appears in square brackets in paragraph 3

of draft Article 64.

3.

enable us to

which we

In order to determine the line (our negotiators)should

take on this issue, it would be helpful to know whether,

fourer of the

L

in principle, there would be (interest in your territory (in extension of this Convention. It will clearly be of value mainly to territories, enjoying relatively sophis-

of the Canta bien The value is primarily in

fad an Ho

ticated commercial systems.

(Bermuda)

the

я

7

the reciprocal enforcement of judgments provisions (which)

f eyle would enable, (say

a -judgment given in /Bermuda) to be

enforced in France without any special procedure being

required (see Article 26)*. Correspondingly, of course,

judgments given in other Contracting States would have

на

to be enforceable in your territory] As you will see

would

from the 1982 UK Act, that requires some relatively

Locat

complex (domestic) legislation. On general legal and

commercial grounds, we would be in favour of civil

judgments being mutually recognised and enforced in order

to narrow down the circumstances where people who default

on their obligations are able to escape justice simply

ur thity

by leaving the country among the widest possible network

of countries and territories sharing common judicial

standards But it must first be a matter for the

(authorities of each territory] to assess whether it would

[them]

be valuable to them to be part of such a system.

4.

yu

news

I should be grateful for (a response) by mid-August if