This was a direct constitutional appeal (amparo directo) against the judgment issued on 4 July 2018 by the Unitary Court of the 31st Circuit, in respect of a maritime lien for unpaid seafarers' wages in a case involving a ship management company which supplied the crew, and a ship owned by a joint venture. The District Court Judge recognised that the party who had paid the seafarers' wages was a privileged creditor regarding the maritime claim corresponding to the salaries and expenses paid to the crew of the ship and, therefore, had a privileged right to be paid with respect to other creditors, and ordered payment of the amount claimed. The shipowner filed an appeal, which was heard by the Unitary Court. The Unitary Court issued a decision that the shipowner was not a party in the special trial for recognition of a maritime lien. Dissatisfied with this decision, the defendant applied for a new trial of amparo directo, alleging that, as the shipowner, it was affected by the exercise of a maritime lien caused by alleged debts to the crew, since it was not the crew members themselves who appeared in the trial, but a company which claimed to be subrogated into the payment of their salaries, despite the fact that these types of liens were not subject to assignment in terms of the Federal Labour Law.

Held: The amparo appeal is upheld.

Within the framework of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), belonging to the United Nations system, a Conference of Plenipotentiaries of the IMO was held from 19 April-6 May 1993, in Geneva, Switzerland, for the elaboration of an agreement on maritime liens and ship mortgages. The Mexican State was represented at this multilateral event. During the preparatory work, the members of the Mexican national delegation made declarations (general and final) regarding the draft Convention, essentially stating that some articles of the instrument were incompatible with domestic legislation; specifically, art 4 of the Convention. That statement made by the Mexican delegation was logical if one considers that art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993 established the order of priority of privileged claims secured over the ship, which was not compatible with the then Law of Navigation and Maritime Commerce 1963, particularly with regard to fiscal claims 'related to the ship', which in the national legislation were seen as privileged debts with security over the vessel and ranking behind debts for 'labour relations', while in the Convention, only those claims related to port, canal, and other waterways and pilotage rights were included. Mexico has not signed the MLM Convention 1993, nor has it acceded to it.

Six months after the conclusion of the work at the international Conference that gave rise to that Convention, the then President of the Republic presented a legislative proposal to the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of the Union, which was intended to harmonise national legislation with international regulations on maritime navigation and trade. The Navigation Law resulting from this initiative entered into force on 5 January 1994. It is illustrative to note how maritime liens were regulated in Ch V 'Maritime liens on vessels and equipment'. In the first place, it was emphasised that the 'privilege' associated with a maritime claim is predicated on the vessel and its equipment. In addition, it should be noted that the new regulation incorporated some aspects of the MLM Convention 1993: 1) the priority order of privileged claims over the vessel; 2) the exclusion of certain claims from the security of maritime liens in the case of contamination by hydrocarbons, or radioactive, toxic, or explosive properties of nuclear origin; 3) the term of extinction of the maritime lien for not exercising any action; 4) the autonomous subsistence of the claim with respect to the maritime lien; and 5) the possibility of assigning or subrogating claims secured with a maritime lien.

The First Chamber considers that if a creditor demands the payment of a privileged maritime claim through the seizure of the proceeds of the judicial sale of the vessel, the vessel's legal owner must be called to the Court, even when the status of main debtor is not attributed to it. This is so because if the trial results in the forced sale of a vessel over which the owner exercises real property rights, it is necessary for the owner to intervene so that, while respecting the essential formalities of the procedure, it can allege and prove any defences, prior to a possible ruling ordering the expropriation of the ship, since this determination has exclusive effects on the domain it exercises over it.

In this case, the appellant alleges that it is a party to the joint venture which owns the ship and that, therefore, it should be called to trial. The Unitary Court of the 31st Circuit should have analysed the configuration of the joint venture to see if this argument was essentially well-founded. Therefore, as the violation of the appellant's fundamental rights has been demonstrated, it is necessary to grant protection, the immediate and direct effect of which is the legal ineffectiveness of the judgment appealed from.

In compliance with this ruling, the responsible Court must do the following:

a) Issue a new decision in which, without being limited to the grievances raised by the appellant regarding the configuration of the joint venture, assess whether it should reconsider its decision.

b) Conclude whether there are elements which reasonably justify the need to allow the appellant to intervene in the special trial on the recognition of the relevant maritime lien.