On 27 January 2012, a fire broke out on the defendants' ships that were moored at pier B of a marina and were insured for civil liability, including marine pollution risk. Due to the extent of the fire and the fuel spillage, marine pollution was created in the wider maritime area of the port facilities of the marina which extended over an area of approximately 24,000 m².

Etaireia Akiniton Dimosiou Anonymi Etaireia (ET A D AE) (Public Real Estate Company Societe Anonyme (ET A D SA)), the marina manager and operator, assigned to the claimant the obligation to conduct works for protection of the marine environment and limitation and treatment of pollution. It paid the claimant part of its remuneration for the clean-up work when it was completed, as agreed. The claimant requested that the defendants be ordered to pay the remaining costs (fees and expenses) of cleaning up the marina.

The Court of First Instance accepted the claim against one of the defendants. The claimant appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal annulled it and ordered the shipowners/defendants to pay costs to the claimant.

Two of the defendants appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Held: The Decision 716/2017 of the Three Membered Court of Appeal of Piraeus (Maritime Division) is annulled. The case is remitted for further hearing to the same Court of Appeal, which will be composed of judges other than those who issued the annulled decision.

In order to address risks and problems of pollution due to oil carried by sea, the CLC 1969 was signed. Greece ratified this Convention by Law 314/1976. After the ratification of the Protocols of 1976, 1984, and 1992, this convention is named the CLC 1992 (see Supreme Court in Plenary Session Decision 23/2006) (CMI335). This international Convention establishes objective liability of the shipowner for damage caused by sea pollution due to escape or spillage of oil from its ship, since no fault on its part is required to establish liability.

Law 743/1977 establishes the obligations of those responsible for pollution of the marine environment, and in art 12 establishes their specific civil liability for the compensation of the damage caused by pollution and the costs necessary to prevent or eliminate pollution. This civil liability was not introduced solely in the general interest to safeguard environmental assets but also to protect private rights. It is compensatory in nature and its purpose is to remedy the damage caused to the marine and coastal environment by pollution and to compensate for the costs incurred either proactively, to prevent pollution, or repressively, to counteract its harmful effects. As regards its legal nature, that liability is subjective, since it presupposes fault, that is to say, the fault of a natural person, which (fault) is not presumed but must be proved by the injured party. Thus, although the CLC 1992, ratified by Law 314/1976, established objective liability of the injuring party, the above provision establishes, at the level of national law, subjective liability, which is explained by the wide scope of application of Law 743/1977.

There was no dangerous situation of pollution so as to give rise to an obligation on the part of the appellants to act, as a measure indicated by the circumstances, to place a guard on board the vessel in question, since such an obligation is not imposed by a provision of law, nor is it imposed by good faith, prevailing social customs and the general duty of care as a normal or reasonably expected behaviour. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are well-founded.