In 2004 the company Angostone Construç​oes e Rochas LDA (the appellant), domiciled in Angola, through its agent in Vigo, Vasco Gallega de Consignaciones SA, entered into a charterparty with Unishipping SA (the respondent), domiciled in France, on the Gencon 1994 form. Under this charterparty the respondent, in its capacity as shipowner of the Ivan Papanin, flying the Russian flag, was obliged to place the vessel at the disposal of the appellant to carry a minimum of 4,000 tons of granite blocks from the port of Namibe (Angola) to the port of Vigo (Spain). The Portuguese entity, Atlantida Granitos e Marmores SA, was named as the consignee in the relevant bills of lading. The shipment was delayed. The appellant sued the respondent for breach of the charterparty. The court below held in favour of the respondent. The appellant appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Among other issues, the Court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The respondent argued that, in the absence of a clause attributing jurisdiction or express submission to the Spanish courts, art 2 of Regulation (EC) 44/01 of 22 December 2000 attributed jurisdiction to the courts of the State of domicile of the respondent, which in the present case was France.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in its decision of 19 April 2006 had addressed the issue of whether the request for a precautionary measure, and in particular, arrest of ships under Act 2/1967 of 8 April 1967 signified a tacit submission to the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had resolved that question negatively by reasoning that art 7 of the Arrest Convention 1952, ratified by Spain, determined that the rules of the Arrest Convention apply in the case of a foreign vessel, regardless of whether the claimant had its habitual residence or principal place of business in Spain. The Arrest Convention 1952 contains specific rules dealing with the situation where the court that ordered the precautionary measure does not have jurisdiction to hear the main matter. Article 7 establishes that in this case the judicial authority of the place of the arrest will set a time limit for the action to be commenced before the competent body (art 7.2) and adds (art 7.3) that, if the court that considers the merits decides it lacks jurisdiction because the issue has been submitted to arbitration, it may 'fix the time within which the claimant shall bring proceedings'. Article 7.3 of the Arrest Convention 1999 is to similar effect. Article 7.4 of the Arrest Convention 1999 establishes that, if the action is not filed within the prescribed period, 'the ship arrested or the security provided shall, upon request, be ordered to be released'.

The Court therefore held that it was clear that the Spanish courts were competent to hear the lawsuit filed, which entailed the rejection of the respondent's jurisdictional argument.