Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎302v] (609/1220)

_ • i r^,-v in vtc wptg to apply m the statut ppisonnpl crsbs they
national law the ^xed C rec0 a n iJd in Document A, and a rough set of
dealt with. This necess ^ These rules were worked out in a little
rules was suggested loi 1 P , beginning of the conference as proposals
more detail later, and P r e s . ent f4 f/^defitions to the draft R.O.J.
of the United Kingdom e egati ^ ptec i by the conference with regard to
78. In general, the provisions ^ :oposals in Document A ()) The
statut personnel corresp t ^ ents w hich deal with this subject are as
provisions of the Montieux instu ^ ^ of ^ R 0 J ; (B) articles 9
STlV of ih. (C) paragraph 3 of «» KlKi- ****.
declaration in the Final Act provides that the Mixed Courts shall deal
79. (A) Article 27 of the • P^ rtide 28 ig a definition of w h at s t a tut
with foreign statut per^ ^ 3(| conta i n the rules for determining the
personnel consists of. , . onne i su it and the national law to be applied
nationality of a foreign statut Article 31 makes it clear that
where the case is dealt w th by the Mixedoor ^ ^ ^ internal foreign law in
where a foreign nation roles of the foreign law including its rules of
question and not the w 10 e point which was not mentioned expressly
private international a- This was a pomt^^ from the ^
m Document It , ’ com pii ca tions of renvoi, which, in the case
point of view, because .V^fplirSt result in the application not of any
of British subjects (, ° n “ cl ® tian k’w Article 32 provides for the application
form of British law but ^ EgyPt'an law^ Art cie u ^^ ^ wher f th are
of the foreign rules of procure in mtters d 0 do p n fQr ^ This
p°r!SE"»““M”t«“pp5S“S b, t'h. Mixed Coer., .pm.lly •K'l**
'ErUrS number of legal privule intern.tion.l l.»- eonfere.ee.
in this case and it is a tribute to the commonsense ° f th ® c h ° nter ® nC ule S and that
that they accepted the view that any set of rules is better thai .particular
it was necessary here to frame a set of rules which was suitable for t P 1 ,
circumstances for which the conference was legislating and that co q.^
other views which had been held and expressed on this subject i
“igb, b, igjo^ ^ in ai , ticle , „ M >n(1 30 of the BOJ., tog
somewhat similar to those suggested m Document A, are not, of co ^ ^ ^
the same. In some respects they are better, in other respects (in P* r ^
paragraph 3 of the article 29) they are probably not as good horn P ^
point of view; but they appear at any rate to be workable inles,
suitable for the cases to which they are to apply. . , • capa ,
82. The Drafting Committee’s report makes it clear or not
city in article 28 includes (i) incapacity arising from lunacy w • itioI1
there has been a judicial pronouncement of lunacy such as D > h ^
(ii) the effect of lunacy on transactions entered into bv tne ^ ^
(iii) the arrangements to be made as regards _ the saleguai » ions
lunatic’s property. It was also made clear in the minutes of not meaI1
of the General Committee that the last paragraph of article ^
•Vi n a
( 3 ) One suggestion in Document A, namely, that the Mixed Courts, m e ca se to
statut personnel case, will, when practicable, arrange for the Chamber dea i g ap p 0 j D t.
include a judge of the nationality of the suit, and where this is not JJ ra ,, 1 p' n ;ted King^ 0111
experts to advise them on the foreign national law, w*as not proposed by ^ because (0
delegation, or suggested by any other delegation. We refrained from proposing w€re going
point was of no importance to us as soon as it was settled that statut ^ rs ° 1 J n . , , Q 0 vemm en
to be reserved, and we had stated, as we did at the conference, that His -t a 3 e _ coQS ulted i 11
would exercise this right; and (ii) th© expert opinion of those persons v o v
.Egypt after Document A was drawn up was very lukewarm towards this i €
3