This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Saint-Denis de la Réunion Court of Appeal, 17 October 1995. The Union Reunionnaise des Coopératives Agricoles (URCOOPA) arrested the Dancing Sister, owned by Dancing Shipping Ltd (the shipowner) in the port of Pointe des Galets. The shipowner applied to have the vessel released from arrest by delivering a letter of guarantee from its bank. The letter stipulated that, failing agreement between the parties, the guarantee provided could only be implemented 'on presentation ... of a final court decision'. URCOOPA opposed the vessel's release on the basis of this wording. The Court of Appeal agreed with URCOOPA.

The shipowner appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeal should not have required it to provide a bank guarantee 'that can be implemented in view of a enforceable court decision'. The shipowner contended that the implementation of such a bank guarantee substituted for the actual conservatory seizure is comparable to a seizure in execution. Article 76 of the Law of 9 July 1991 is not applicable to the seizure in execution of a vessel previously seized conservatively. Both seizures of a vessel, conservatory, on the one hand, and in execution of the other, are governed by specific provisions. If the provision of a bank guarantee must not reduce the rights of the arresting party, it must not increase them either. The solution adopted by the judgment of the Court of Appeal was in violation of art 5 of the Arrest Convention 1952, art 76 of Law n° 91-650 of 9 July 1991, arts 226 ff of Decree n° 92-755 of 31 July 1992, arts 70 ff of Law n° 67-5 of 3 January 1967 relating to the status of ships and other seagoing vessels, and arts 26 ff of Decree n° 67-967 of 27 October 1967.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal rightly stated that the bank guarantee that a debtor can offer as a substitute for the protective seizure of its ship, must be performed on the basis of the Arrest Convention 1952 or of French law, and must cover the execution of all judgments - not merely final, that is to say irrevocable, judgments - but simply enforceable judgments, which would be pronounced, if necessary, against the shipowner.