( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE CONVENTION ' ) TWO QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) OF THAT CONVENTION .
2 BY A WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED 19 JANUARY 1980 , HORST ROTTWINKEL , THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , LET A FLAT IN HIS HOLIDAY VILLA AT CANNOBIO IN ITALY TO ERICH ROSLER , THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , FOR THE PERIOD FROM 12 JULY TO 2 AUGUST 1980 . THE RENT AGREED FOR FOUR PERSONS WAS DM 2 625 . BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT VISITORS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO STAY OVERNIGHT . THE INCIDENTAL CHARGES FOR GAS , WATER AND ELECTRICITY HAD TO BE CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE QUANTITIES CONSUMED AND THERE WAS ALSO AN EXTRA CHARGE FOR CLEANING AT THE END OF THE LETTING . THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS TO BE GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW , THAT BIELEFELD WAS TO BE THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE AND THAT ITS COURTS WERE TO HAVE JURISDICTION .
3 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS SPENT HIS HOLIDAY IN THE HOLIDAY VILLA AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DEFENDANT .
4 ON 7 JANUARY 1981 THE PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEFENDANT IN THE LANDGERICHT ( REGIONAL COURT ) BERLIN , FOR DAMAGES AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING INCIDENTAL CHARGES . HE CLAIMED THAT THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY THE DEFENDANT HAD ACCOMMODATED MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS IN THE HOLIDAY HOME WHICH CAUSED THE CESSPOOL CONSTANTLY TO OVERFLOW , CREATING AN INTOLERABLE SMELL , AND WAS A CONSIDERABLE NUISANCE OWING TO THE NOISE .
5 ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF , HIS AND HIS FAMILY ' S REST AND QUIET HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLY DISTURBED . HE CLAIMED DAMAGES FROM THE DEFENDANT FOR LOSS OF HOLIDAY ENJOYMENT , FOUNDING HIS CLAIM ON A BREACH OF THE LEASE , AND SOUGHT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COSTS OF TRAVELLING TO THE HOLIDAY RESORT . HE ALSO CLAIMED , UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE , PAYMENT OF INCIDENTAL CHARGES IN RESPECT OF GAS , ELECTRICITY AND WATER AND OF CLEANING AT THE END OF THE LETTING .
6 THE LANDGERICHT BERLIN DISMISSED THE ACTION AS INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION , THE COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED , NAMELY ITALY , HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PLAINTIFF ' S CLAIMS . THE KAMMERGERICHT ( HIGHER REGIONAL COURT ) IN BERLIN QUASHED THE JUDGMENT OF THE LANDGERICHT AND REFERRED THE CASE BACK TO THAT COURT FOR RE-HEARING AND JUDGMENT .
7 THE DEFENDANT APPEALED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE KAMMERGERICHT TO THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF ON A POINT OF LAW .
8 CONSIDERING THAT THE DISPUTE RAISED QUESTIONS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION , THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF , BY ORDER OF 5 OCTOBER 1983 , STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ( 1 ) IS ARTICLE 16