This was an appeal and cross-appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 23 February 1995. The vessel Multitank Arcadia, belonging to Mr X, Partenreederei Multitank Arcadia and CF Ahrenkiel Ship Management Cyprus Ltd (the shipowners), struck a jetty at the Port of Marseille's oil terminal de Lavera, causing damage to BP Chemicals, Geogaz Lavera and the Autonomous Port of Marseille (the creditors). The shipowners constituted a fund to limit their liability by means of a guarantee provided by the Monte dei Paschi di Siena Bank (the bank) by order of the President of the Commercial Court. The creditors disputed its amount, in the absence of any provision providing that this fund would produce interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the creditors' claim, holding that the fund was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the LLMC 1976 and that 'a surety or an independent guarantee cannot, by reason of its nature as a personal security, be itself productive of interest'. The Court interpreted art 63.2 of the Decree of 27 October 1967 as meaning that interest is due 'only from the apprehension of the limitation fund by the liquidator until the payment to each creditor of the dividend due to it'.

Held: Partial cassation.

It follows from arts 11.1 and 14 of the LLMC 1976, together with arts 62.2 and 63.2 of Decree n° 67-967 of 27 October 1967 on the statute of ships and other seagoing vessels, that the limitation fund that a shipowner can constitute must include, in addition to the amount corresponding to the liability limit in question, the interest on this sum accrued from the date of the event giving rise to liability until that of the constitution of the fund. No provision of the international Convention excludes the sum thus calculated from itself producing interest, as determined by the law of the place of the constitution of the fund to which art 14 of the Convention refers. It follows from the last two provisions referred to above that, whatever the form of the constitution of the fund, it bears full interest in favour of the creditors.

The Court of Appeal therefore violated the aforementioned provisions and its judgment is struck down and annulled, but only in that it says that the limitation fund should not produce interest since its constitution. The case and the parties are therefore returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment and the case is referred to the Montpellier Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.

[For subsequent related proceedings, see Cour de Cassation, Chambre commerciale, 8 octobre 2003, N° de pourvoi: 02-10.202 (CMI1211).]