This was an appeal brought by the appellant, BP Skip Afrika EHF, the owner of the Carpe Diem, against its vessel's arrest by the respondent, Sakia El Hambra SARL.

Held: The appeal is partially upheld, in the sense that the security of EUR 570,977.40 as principal and EUR 25,000 for interest and costs is reduced to EUR 41,492.31, and EUR 13,830, respectively.

Article 1.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 enumerates, in a closed list, the maritime claims that can be adduced to the Court in order to decree a ship arrest, by means of the mere allegation of the same. In respect of this case, several maritime claims, which are not maritime liens, are put forward: those under arts 1.1.d, 1.1.e, as well as 1.1.k and 1.1.l. Article 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 allows any plaintiff not only to seize the vessel to which the maritime claim refers (the offending ship), but also any other ship (a sister ship) that belongs at the time of the arrest to the person who, when the maritime claim was created, was the owner of the offending ship. In conclusion, therefore, the arrest of any of the ships owned by the owner of the offending ship at the time of the arrest is authorised, but only one, and with two exceptions: if the claim for which the arrest is requested is of a proprietary nature provided for in arts 1.1.o or 1.1.p, or relates to ship mortgages under art 1.1.q.

The appellant argues that the arrest of the Carpe Diem should only be maintained to guarantee the maritime liens generated by the ship, which amounts to a total of EUR 41,492.31, plus a reasonable amount, since it is alleged that the other invoices and complementary documentation correspond to the Quo Vadis, also owned by the appellant, and another vessel, the Que Sera Sera. The evidence indicates that this is correct, and that the appeal must be upheld.