This was an appeal in cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence on 7 November 2019.

Mr C was hired by the Portuguese company Vintage Cruises (VC) from 2 June 2017-30 March 2022 as a engineer on the passenger ship SS Delphine, which was registered in Madeira, Portugal, and owned by VC under Portuguese law. VC unilaterally terminated Mr C's employment contract on 17 September 2017. Mr C was authorised by an order of the Marseilles Tribunal de Grande Instance signed on 25 October 2017 to arrest the SS Delphine as security for his wages claim of EUR 310,000. Mr C also brought a claim in the Nice Labour Court to obtain payment by VC of his wages and allowances. On 9 November 2017, the Nice Labour Court held that it was competent to hear the employment dispute.

On 7 November 2019, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence held that if it was correct that Mr C had his habitual residence in the Seine-Maritime region of France, under French domestic law, art R 1412-1 of the Labour Code allowed Mr C to bring his employment claim in the employment tribunal 'of the place where the engagement was agreed', in this case the French port of Nice. However, the arrest carried out on Mr C's application in Marseilles had been lifted following an agreement regularised 'on a date which is not specified'. As a result, the specific jurisdiction of the Court which had ordered the ship arrest for the purpose of establishing a maritime claim and possibly rendering an enforceable title allowing the forced sale of the property, ceased on the release of the vessel. The Court of Appeal thus set aside the judgment of the Nice Labour Court as to its competence.

Held: The judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal is struck down and annulled in its entirety. There is no reason for the proceedings to be dismissed. Mr C's case is to continue on the merits before the Nice Labour Court.

The Court had regard to arts 5 and 7.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952. According to art 5:

The Court or other appropriate judicial authority within whose jurisdiction the ship has been arrested shall permit the release of the ship upon sufficient bail or other security being furnished, save in cases in which a ship has been arrested in respect of any of the maritime claims enumerated in article 1, (o) and (p). In such cases the Court or other appropriate judicial authority may permit the person in possession of the ship to continue trading the ship, upon such person furnishing sufficient bail or other security, or may otherwise deal with the operation of the ship during the period of the arrest. In default of agreement between the parties as to the sufficiency of the bail or other security, the Court or other appropriate judicial authority shall determine the nature and amount thereof. The request to release the ship against such security shall not be construed as an acknowledgment of liability or as a waiver of the benefit of the legal limitations of liability of the owner of the ship.

According to art 7.1 of the Convention, the courts of the State in which the arrest of the vessel was made have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, either if these courts have jurisdiction under the domestic law of the State in which the arrest is made, or in certain other cases, defined by name.

It follows from arts 5 and 7.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 that the release of a vessel from arrest subject to the lodging of a guarantee as security does not have the effect of calling into question the jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which the vessel was arrested to rule on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeal judgment thus violated the aforementioned provisions of the Convention.