1. If the petitioner “because of his nationality, is excluded from suing in the country of his habitual residence”.

2. If “the respondent does not object to Danish jurisdiction”.

3. It is expected that Denmark will ratify the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations of June 1, 1970.

4. Østre Landsret, 11 1, 1963Google Scholar, Ugeskrift for Retsvaesen, 1964, A 200Google Scholar; Clunet 1965, 690Google Scholar: M and W married in Denmark in 1944. In 1950 M emigrated to California and in 1956 M became a U.S. citizen. In 1957 M divorced his wife during a 3 day stay in Mexico. The same year he re-married in California. The Californian authorities did not enquire whether the conditions of marriage were fulfilled and the marriage could be declared void within a few days time if the conditions were proved not to have been fulfilled. W brought an action against M to declare the Mexican divorce invalid as being contrary to basic principles of Danish law. M. contended that the dissolution of his marriage with W was valid because no obstacle was raised to his marriage in California in 1957. Københavns Byret held that the Mexican divorce decree was manifestly contrary to Danish law materially as well as in form and thus without legal effect in Denmark. However, the fact that M, having U.S. citizenship and domicile, had contracted a second marriage in the U.S.A. based on the validity of the divorce, made this divorce valid, and the court gave judgement in favour of M. On appeal, Østre Landsret held that the Mexican judgement had no legal effect in Denmark and stated furthermore that the Californian marriage was not an act of such a legal nature that the validity of the divorce could possibly result from it. It gave judgement in accordance with Ws contention.