Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎300v] (605/1220)

4
12
(4) Mixed Interest.
Thprfi will b e no principle of mixed interest in regard to criminal juris-
.. .° 6 - S®. ;,1 denend on the nationality of the accused (article 44 of the
diction, which w H d P Mixed Xribuna l s will have penal jurisdiction over persons
RO.J.). • eard t0 contempt of court against them, including ,
of all nationalities in regarUm (article 45 of the r.o.J.). C on-
detournement an wiU P h ^ ve pe na l jurisdiction over persons of all
versely, the nati contempts of court against native courts and
nationalities m , ^ bankruptcy proceedings have taken place before
bankruptcy offen convention). The inclusion of bankruptcy offences
liTrtide 6 " h e nation was ,level; asked for by the Egyptians and goes
in aiticie u oi i unwisely volunteered by MM. Vryakos and Messina
o^the D^Ong Coramatee andTheninatuvally, o„ b, .h, „
practice it does not matter, because there are practically no bankruptcy cases in
the natlve “" ts r ' d t0 civil and commercial matters, the mixed tribunals have
iurisdiction between foreigners, and between foreigners and persons lusticiab e by
jurisdiction uei - ^ rs mav however, submit to the jurisdiction of the
Mixed Courts 0 mider the conditions specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 26
of the R O J including the acceptance of clauses to this eftect in contracts,
of the K.aJ me g declara ti 0 n by the Egyptian Government in the final A t
stotef that that Government does not intend to insert in Governmen con racts
states that tnal , , blic administrations and municipalities any
(including contracts ^hicb disputes should be submitted,
clause rela^ngto^hejunsdiction^te Qf opinion ari sing from an
creditor is a foreigner (article 35) (n) wliere tnere is a ^ case of
immovable property in favour of a foreigner (article ^ 6 )\ a ( ) w an h a l
Egyptian companies which are already in existence, in w ac e -; m ti c i a bl e by
foreign interests and whose statutes do not stipulate that t e y 3 t ^ t i on
the national courts (article 34). The words printed in italics create a^tnction
rendering the provision narrower than Document A, iuh v L Mixed Courts
annex) states that all such companies should be justiciable by the Milted Courts
and providing for a declaration about future companies. iinder
(together witf the minor question of the Mixed Prison Reglemen «d under
sub-section 11 below) on which the Egyptians have failed to implem
A. The circumstances are explained in Part V. i ternl
61. The Drafting Committee’s report on article 34 states th ^ noI
substantial” means that the interests concerned are neither o atters
of a fictitious nature and in article 35 that the transfer of juri _ enters
relating to bankruptcy shall take place on the day when a foreig
an appearance
62. A "
’ ance - , a ft nnd 7 of
Articles 40, 41 and 42 of the R.O.J. correspond t0 , art ‘C le ”’ d in
the annex to Document A, but the drafting has been considerab T P , ear ij er
manner calculated to meet the criticisms which were advanced agai
texts. . . . „ i a pipar th^t
63. The Drafting Committee’s report to article 40 makes i jj ct j OI1 of
article refers only to cessions, the object of which is to avoid tae 3 . , . chan ge
the national tribunals and not to legitimate cessions the enect ot
of iurisdiction. ^o+innal courts,
64. Article 7 of the convention applies to the Egyptian
the rule laid down in article 40 of the R.O.J. for the Mixed kour s. ^ t jj e
65. In article 8 of the annex to Document A appears a dra ^ ve jyin
terms of which give jurisdiction to the Mixed and national courts re p
the case of third party actions (whatever the nationality of P ar tr munals, ^ ut
to principal actions already properly entertained by either -V + 0 give ri se
as it appeared that this principle was undesirable, (i) as being Uk X . » c0lir ts
to conflicts of jurisdiction, (ii) bringing a foreigner before me ^ this
without any form of consent on his part, a particular reserve wim g