On 26 September 2000, passenger vessel G1 sank. The claimant brought a claim against the shipowner, its chair, the chief officer, another defendant, and the insurance company. The Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus Decision 569/2003 was appealed. The Court of Appeal of Piraeus, in Decision 473/2004, partially accepted the claim and ordered EUR 35,000 as compensation for non-material damage to the claimant's health due to the shipwreck.

Both the claimant and the first defendant appealed Decision 473/2004 to the Supreme Court.

Held: Both appeal A and appeal B were dismissed.

The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals against Decision 473/2004. The first appeal (appeal A) was of the claimant against the shipowner, its chair, two other defendants, and the insurance company. The second appeal (appeal B) was against the claimant by the first defendant, the shipowner.

Regarding appeal A, the Court concluded:

Greece ratified the Hague-Visby Rules and the amending Protocols of 1968 and 1979 (the Hague-Visby Rules with SDR Protocol) by art 1 of Law 2107/1992. They constitute, pursuant to art 28 of the Constitution, an internal rule of law with supra-legislative force. From the combination of the provisions of art 2 of the Law 2107/1992 and arts 1.b, 2, 3.1, 5, 10.b, and 10.c of the Hague-Visby Rules, it follows that the Hague-Visby Rules apply in Greece to:

a) any contract for the carriage of goods by sea in which the ports of loading and unloading are in different States, provided that such carriage is covered by a bill of lading or other similar document which constitutes title to the carriage of goods by sea; and

b) any carriage by sea between Greek ports, whether or not a bill of lading has been issued.

This is what the legislator has permissibly done, ie extend the application of the Hague-Visby Rules to inland waterway carriage, in accordance with the discretion provided by art 10.c of the Hague-Visby Rules, as replaced by art 3 of the Visby Protocol 1968.

Moreover, arts 148, 187, and 289 of the Private Maritime Law Code (PMLC, Law 3816/1958) are not applicable because such provisions 'on the carriage of goods' are contained in the Hague-Visby Rules which also govern inland carriage of goods by sea, whether or not a bill of lading is issued. As a consequence, this Convention, through art 187 of the PMLC, now regulates, among other things, the claims of passengers against the carrier for compensation for loss, damage, or delayed delivery of luggage and the limitation period for such claims, in respect of which the above provisions of the PMLC relating to the carriage of goods between Greek ports are deemed to have been repealed with effect from the entry into force of the Convention.

Such an interpretation also corresponds to the intention of the Greek legislator, which was to make the Hague-Visby Rules the internal law for all national maritime carriage. Article 3.6 of the Convention, as in force after its amendment by art 1.2 of the Visby Protocol, establishes a short annual limitation period, starting from the date of delivery of the goods, or the date on which they should have been delivered. That this is a limitation period and not a period of extinction is clear from the same provision, which goes on to state that 'this period may, however, be extended if the parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen', but there is no extension of the period of extinction for the exercise of a right which has been extinguished.

This one-year limitation period is established due to the nature of the carrier's activity, who, being occupied with many obligations, which give rise to many disputes, must be able to make its calculations within a reasonable limitation period, and it applies irrespective of whether the right is based on the maritime contract of carriage or on a tort/delict, in accordance with art 4bis.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules, added by the Visby Protocol (see Supreme Court Decision 1002/2002, which addresses a similar issue of limitation period in the Athens Convention 1974, which was ratified by Law 1922/1991).

Furthermore, baggage is understood, within the meaning of the above provisions, as the items packed (in travel bags, suitcases etc) that accompany the passenger and are intended for his/her personal use. This includes, but is not limited to, items of clothing, accessories, and the like. Finally, given that the PMLC and the Hague-Visby Rules do not contain any reference to the liability of the carrier by sea in respect of money, valuables, and similar precious objects carried by the passenger, the provisions on other luggage also apply in respect of such articles.

Here, the appellant, claiming that the respondents were liable in tort, sought an order that they should pay EUR 688,000 as compensation for the loss, as a result of the shipwreck, of personal belongings. The Court of Appeal accepted the plea of limitation under the Hague-Visby Rules raised by the first defendant. In so holding, the Court of Appeal did not infringe art 187 of the PMLC and the Hague-Visby Rules.

In consequence of the above, appeal A is dismissed.

The Supreme Court then examined appeal B of the defendant shipowner and dismissed it on the basis of national law.

Note: This decision derived from the same incident as the decision 376/2008 of the Supreme Court (see Supreme Court Decision 376/2008 (CMI2414)).