TNAG-1580-FCO40-2154-Extension-to-Hong-Kong-of-European-Community--European-Free-1987 — Page 83

Article 64 (3)

6

EEC / EFTA Working Party

Meeting

3-4 June

declarations of extension

12. The United Kingdom indicated that it could not accept a right of veto over declarations of extension in respect of territories for which it was responsible. Consideration was being given to the question whether there was any likelihood of this Convention being extended to territories other than those which were European. If the Convention were only to be extended to European territories, this might in itself meet the EFTA concern. The matter could not, however, be settled in advance of such consideration. Spain also wished this matter to be

deferred. Denmark indicated that it would wish to extend the

Convention to the Faeroes and to Greenland. Denmark could not

see how this could raise a problem for the EFTA states so as to

justify a right of opposition.

is

Article 57 - conflicts between conventions

What A EFTA altitude

now?

13. Jenard introduced his paper (Working Document No. 17) and stressed that the arrangement which had been agreed between EEC Member States and reproduced in Article 25 (2) of the Accession Convention showed the openness of the EEC states towards Third countries, since the formula agreed gave priority to conflicting obligations under other conventions with Third countries. However, in the cases provided for in Article 25 (2) (a) the court of the Member State would apply Article 20 of the 1968 Convention. Sweden welcomed the note by Jenard and indicated that the EFTA states were not opposed to the basic idea that conventions in particular matters should prevail. The EFTA problem related to conventions to which the EFTA states were not parties. The EFTA states found this too far-reaching a solution, although no definitive position had been reached. What the EFTA states would seek is an amendment to allow them to refuse recognition in the case of a judgment where jurisdiction is derived from a convention to which the EFTA states were not party, and where the defendant was domiciled in an EFTA state