This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 5 June 2014. Norwood Trading Ltd, insured with the company Armeec Insurance JSC (Armeec), entrusted the maritime transport from Odessa (Ukraine ) to Algiers (Algeria) of spare parts for armaments to CMA CGM, who took charge of the goods under a bill of lading on board the Algiers. The cargo was transhipped during a stopover in Malta onto the Fas Provence. During the unloading operations of this ship at the port of destination, an employee of Entreprise Portuaire d'Alger (EPAL) lifted a container, causing the container placed below it to fall into the sea, because the locks fixing the containers together had not been removed. After being advised of the damage, Armeec indemnified its insured and then sued CMA CGM, which called upon EPAL to indemnify it.

The Court of Appeal ordered CMA CGM to pay Armeec 84,043.92 SDRs or its equivalent in USD. CMA CGM appealed, arguing that the delivery of the goods by the maritime carrier to a monopoly company is equivalent to delivery to the receiver. EPAL, which the Court described as a monopoly company, had possession of the container that had fallen overboard, so the damage occurred after the transport phase. The Court of Appeal therefore violated art 7 of the Hague Rules.

CMA CGM also criticised the judgment for rejecting its indemnity claim against EPAL when the expert reports found improper handling during the unloading of the container by the ship's crane operator employed by EPAL, as well as poor slinging and bad handling of the crane by EPAL's crane operator. EPAL's fault had therefore contributed to the damage.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Although the judgment noted that EPAL enjoyed a monopoly for the unloading of ships at the port of destination, the Court also held that it was not part of EPAL's mission to remove the locks fixing the containers together. It was up to CMA CGM, who was responsible for this operation, to check that the containers were no longer fixed together before they were handled by the stevedores. CMA CGM had not done this, as one of the four locks remained in place. Given these findings and assessments, and establishing that until they were unlocked, the containers remained in the custody of the maritime carrier, the Court of Appeal held correctly that delivery had not yet taken place at the time of the incident.

The Court of Appeal was not required to adopt the conclusions of the experts. The Court held that the fault of the maritime carrier was the only cause of the fall of the container into the sea, and therefore of the damage suffered by the goods it contained.