CLAIM FOR FEES BY AN ARCHITECT ENGAGED SOLELY IN PLANNING WORK, TO BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHICH FORMS THE ACTUAL BASIS OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ( IN THIS CASE A DEBT PAYABLE UNDER GERMAN LAW AT THE PLACE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS DOMICILED ), OR BY REFERENCE TO THE OBLIGATION TYPICAL OF THE CONTRACT AND CHARACTERIZING THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP AS A WHOLE ( THAT IS TO SAY, THE PLACE WHERE THE ARCHITECT HAS HIS PRACTICE AND/OR THE SITE OF THE PLANNED BUILDING )?"
6 IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION LAYS DOWN THE GENERAL RULE THAT JURISDICTION IS TO BE BASED ON THE DEFENDANT' S DOMICILE, BUT THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) THEREOF FURTHER PROVIDES THAT, IN MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT, THE DEFENDANT MAY ALSO BE SUED "IN THE COURTS FOR THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION IN QUESTION ". AS THE COURT OBSERVED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1976 ( CASE 12/76 TESSILI V DUNLOP (( 1976 )) ECR 1473 ), THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE WAS INTRODUCED IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE IN CERTAIN CASES OF A PARTICULARLY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A DISPUTE AND THE COURT WHICH MAY BE MOST CONVENIENTLY CALLED UPON TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE MATTER .
7 IN THE SAME JUDGMENT THE COURT RULED THAT THE QUESTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE "PLACE OF PERFORMANCE" OF AN OBLIGATION WAS TO BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE LAW GOVERNING THE OBLIGATION AT ISSUE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS OF THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT .
8 IN ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1976 ( CASE 14/76 DE BLOOS V BOUYER (( 1976 )) ECR 1497 ) THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE CONVENTION WAS INTENDED TO DETERMINE THE INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATES, TO FACILITATE THE RECOGNITION OF JUDGMENTS AND TO INTRODUCE AN EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE FOR SECURING THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS; IT HELD THAT THOSE OBJECTIVES IMPLIED THE NEED TO AVOID, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, CREATING A SITUATION IN WHICH A NUMBER OF COURTS HAD JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ONE AND THE SAME CONTRACT, AND THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION COULD THEREFORE NOT BE INTERPRETED AS REFERRING TO ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION .
9 THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5, THE OBLIGATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WAS THAT WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHT ON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF' S ACTION WAS BASED . IT RULED THAT, IN A CASE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTED THE RIGHT TO BE PAID DAMAGES OR SOUGHT DISSOLUTION OF THE CONTRACT ON THE GROUND OF THE WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF THE OTHER PARTY, THAT OBLIGATION WAS STILL THAT WHICH AROSE UNDER THE CONTRACT AND THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF WHICH WAS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIMS .
10 THE GENERAL RULE THEREBY DEFINED ADMITS, HOWEVER, OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS