This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 20 June 2003. The Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie Nice Côte-d'Azur (the arresting party), having carried out maintenance, security and mooring services for the ships R One, R Two and R Five, which were owned by Renaissance One at the time, obtained an order to arrest the ships on 13 March 2002 from the President of the Marseille Commercial Court. After the arrests were carried out on 18 March 2002, the companies Cruise Invest One, Cruise Invest Two, and Cruise Invest Five, declaring themselves to be the owners of the ships, having acquired them by judicial sales either in London or in Gibraltar after 29 September 2001, the date on which the bankruptcy of Renaissance One was declared in the United States, requested the withdrawal of the orders and the vessels' release from arrest.

The Court of Appeal reversed the arrest order. The arresting party appealed, arguing that art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952 stipulates that any claimant with a maritime claim within the meaning of art 1 may seize the vessel to which the claim relates, even if its debtor is not, or is no longer, the owner of the said property, while art 9 does not require the arresting party to be the holder of a resale right. The Court of Appeal thus violated arts 3 and 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

By holding that, on an application of arts 3 and 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952, the seizure of a vessel no longer belonging to the debtor can be authorised only if the arresting party avails itself of a maritime lien within the meaning of the law of the forum, the judgment holds that the arresting party, a creditor of a former owner of the vessel, was not a creditor of its current owner. The maritime lien attaching to the debt of the arresting party by application of art 31 of the Law of 3 January 1967 was extinguished by the judicial sale of the vessel. The Court of Appeal legally justified its decision.