The Court of first instance upheld a claim of EUR 31,305.14 by Coma y Ribas SL (Coma) against CT Shipping Ltd (CT) in a default judgment, and recognised the maritime lien status of Coma's claim against CT, and its priority in relation to other existing claims against CT, the Claudia Trader, and/or its owners, by virtue of the international Conventions to which Spain is a party. The Claudia Trader was arrested under the Arrest Convention 1952 for port fees and tariffs, and compulsory waste collection costs incurred by Coma as the ship's agent, which claimed a maritime lien under art 2.1 of the MLM Convention 1926, or under art 4 of the current MLM Convention 1993. The Barcelona Port Authority (BPA) intervened as an interested third party and appealed. BPA had become the owner of the Claudia Trader in an administrative abandonment procedure.

BPA argued in respect of Coma's claim that: a) the total amount claimed included items or concepts that did not have a privileged character according to art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993; b) the maritime lien had expired in accordance with art 9 of that Convention; and c) the declaration that the claimed maritime lien enjoyed 'priority' or preference with respect to any other claims was inadmissible. This could only be discussed in execution of the judgment in connection with the third party with the best right.

Held: Appeal dismissed except in respect of the costs order against BPA.

The Court of first instance did not breach any procedural rules. It should be noted that the statement contained in the judgment on the 'priority' of Coma's claim cannot be understood in the sense of a statement of preference over any other claims with respect to the Claudia Trader, but in the generic sense, that is, the priority that corresponds to the claim in accordance with the applicable regulations in the possible concurrence with other claims, but not a preferential right of distribution with respect to those other claims, since the order of priority or preferences cannot be determined in the declarative phase, but only in the execution phase, and taking into account the better rights of any third parties that may be interposed.