This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, 1 September 1999. The Regent Spirit was sold at public auction. Hallmark Cruise Services (Hallmark) filed a claim for a certain amount in respect of a maritime lien (privileged maritime claim) over the ship and applied for its claim to be satisfied from the judicial sale price. Berliner Bank, one of the creditors, disputed the privileged nature of this claim, and challenged its inclusion. The judgment under appeal held that Hallmark's maritime lien had prescribed. Hallmark appealed.

Held: Cassation.

The judgment confines itself to noting that Hallmark, which ordered the seizure of the vessel Regent Spirit on 28 October 1995, never had the subpoena on the merits delivered to its debtor; that the declaration of Hallmark's claim on the bankruptcy of its debtor in August 1996, that is to say more than a month after the protective seizure, does not meet the delay conditions required by the Decree of 31 July 1992; and, given the last debt of Hallmark was due in October 1995, that its maritime lien was time-barred during the production of the debt securities at the Registry of the Nice Tribunal de Grande Instance on 7 October 1996.

Articles 7.3 and 7.4 of the Arrest Convention 1952 provide that if the parties have agreed to submit the dispute to the jurisdiction of a particular Court other than that within whose jurisdiction the arrest was made or to arbitration, the Court or other appropriate judicial authority within whose jurisdiction the arrest was made may fix the time within which the claimant shall bring proceedings, and if the action or proceeding is not brought within the time so fixed, the defendant may apply for the release of the ship or of the bail or other security. The Court of Appeal noted that there was a clause conferring jurisdiction on another Court, but did not investigate whether the judicial authority which had authorised this seizure had fixed a time limit within which Hallmark had to initiate its action on the merits; and whether, in this case, the defendant had requested and obtained the release of this seizure because of the failure to respect this time limit. The Court of Appeal therefore did not provide a legal basis for its decision.

Consequently, the judgment is struck down and annulled in its entirety, the case and parties are returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment, and the case is referred back to the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, otherwise constituted, to be decided correctly.