On 16 June 2017, the Cyprus-flagged passenger ferry CJ2 entered the port of Naxos, Greece, and docked at the pier for passenger vessels. This manoeuvre created waves, and the moored Dutch-flagged sailing boat T, owned by a Swiss citizen, allided with the pier.

The owner of the T brought a civil case against the operator of the CJ2. The One Member Court of First Instance of Piraeus considered arts 1, 3, and 13 of the Collision Convention 1910 (ratified by Greece in Law GOPST/1911). The Court held that the civil proceedings were brought correctly because:

1. the incident in question took place in Greek territorial waters;
2. the Netherlands had ratified the Convention; and
3. Greece had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Court therefore concluded that Greek law, as the lex fori, applied. The Court examined the proceedings on the merits and dismissed them as essentially unproven, holding that there was doubt as to the circumstances of the incident which, according to the claim, caused the destruction of the swimming pool platform on the claimant's boat. The claimant appealed to the One Member Court of Appeal of Piraeus.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

According to art 12, the Convention is applicable in cases of collisions of vessels of different nationalities in Greek waters when the relevant vessels fly the flags of State Parties to the Convention, whereas domestic law applies to other issues not regulated by the Convention. If one of the involved vessels has the nationality of a non-Member State, the private international law of the State in which the action is brought apply. When the action is brought before a Greek court, art 26 of the Greek Civil Code and art 4 of Regulation (EC) 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (the Rome II Regulation) apply.

Also, if the Convention applies, it regulates the shipowner's liability exclusively, as opposed to general provisions of tort law. Furthermore, arts 2 and 3 of the Convention provide that in the event of a collision between ships, liability and the obligation to pay compensation are regulated according to the degree of fault of each ship. In the case of joint fault, each ship is liable to pay compensation in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to it, whereas if the collision was caused by the fault of one of the ships, the owner of the ship becomes liable to compensate for the damage to the other ship or to the cargo or persons on board. If the collision of ships occurred by accident, or by force majeure, or if there is doubt as to its cause, then the damages are to be borne by those who suffered them. The ship is liable if the owner and/or the persons engaged by it for the use of the ship (the master, other members of the crew, etc) are at fault, either as regards the equipment, or the condition of the ship, or as regards its handling, or its navigation, and the observance of the rules, regulations, and customs which include the rules of good seafaring.

The party liable for the above liability 'of the ship' is the one who operates the ship, ie in principle the shipowner. Moreover, art 241 of the Code of Private Maritime Law of Greece (CPML) provides that the collision rules extend to the making good of damages which a vessel has caused to another vessel, or to goods or persons on board either vessel, either by the execution or non-execution of a manoeuvre or by the non-observance of the regulations, even if no collision had actually taken place, in accordance with art 13 of the Collision Convention 1910. As a consequence, the existence of a collision does not always require physical and direct contact between ships. Thus a collision occurs where a ship, on entering the port at a speed in excess of that laid down in the General Port Regulation, creates a high wave displacing a safely anchored boat, causing it to have an allision with the quay.

The Court nonetheless dismissed the appeal because it was not proven by the appellant that the allision of the platform of the boat was caused by the fault of the servants of the defendant, considering that no other boat was damaged during the aforementioned manoeuvre. There was also no evidence of the manner of mooring of the vessel (to determine whether it was appropriate) at the time of the incident, or the distance of the swimming pool platform of the boat from the edge of the quay. In the light of the above, the Court considered that the damage caused by the incident should be borne by the appellant.