A clean-up company appealed a decision of the Multimember Court of First Instance of Piraeus, which had decided that the claimant’s claim of EUR 349,404.48 plus legal interest and expenses which it brought against the IOPC Fund was time-barred due to the submission of the claim in a civil action more than six years from the oil pollution incident from the shipwreck of the Alfa I.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal analysed the interconnection between the CLC 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992, noting that art 6 of the Fund Convention 1992 and art 8 of the CLC 1992 provided for a limitation period of three years after the damage occurred, and the extinguishing of a right to compensation after the passing of six years after the incident causing the damage. The Court of Appeal also explained that the IOPC Fund's liability is secondary to the primary liability of the shipowner, and that the Fund is called upon to cover expenses for restoration of the environment where the shipowner fails to do so because of financial incapability (arts 2.1.a and 4.1.b of the Fund Convention 1992). The Court of Appeal noted that the meaning of 'ship', 'oil', 'pollution damage' and 'preventative measures' is the same in both the CLC 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992 (art 1.2 of the Fund Convention 1992). The Court of Appeal also analysed art 4 of the Fund Convention 1992, in terms of which IOPC Fund additional compensation is paid where claimants did not receive full compensation on the basis of the CLC 1992. This may happen in the following cases: a) the loss or damage exceeds the shipowner's limited liability under the CLC 1992; b) the shipowner is not liable under the CLC 1992 because the damage was caused by serious natural disaster or was exclusively caused by a third party intentionally or by the negligence of a public authority in relation to the maintenance of lighthouses, beacons and other navigation aids; or c) the shipowner is not in a financial position to completely comply with its responsibilities under the CLC 1992 and insurance is inadequate. In accordance with the CLC 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992, reasonable expenses are compensated.

The Court of Appeal then addressed the objection from the IOPC Fund regarding the time-barring of the claimant's claim. The claimant did not initiate civil proceedings against the defendant within three years from when the damage occurred, nor within six years from the incident causing the damage (art 6 of the Fund Convention 1992). The simple notification to the defendant of the civil proceedings against the insurer (art 7.6 of the Fund Convention 1992) did not affect the time bar. The Court of Appeal also rejected the claimant's claim that the IOPC Fund partially recognised the disputed claim in August 2016. There was no interruption of the limitation period due to the partial recognition of the claim and no beginning of a new limitation period and even if there was, the civil claim submission was more than three years after that date, and in any case more than six years from the incident causing the damage. Moreover, the Court of Appeal rejected the claimant's submission that an offer of EUR 100,000 from the defendant to the claimant in February 2017 during unsuccessful settlement negotiations established the defendant's recognition of the disputed claim.