This appeal in cassation is directed against a judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 by the Ghent Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal in cassation dismissed.

Article 1 of the Maritime Code provides, for the application of this Code, a definition of the vessels to be regarded as seagoing vessels. The definition of the term seagoing vessel in art 1 of the Maritime Code does not apply to arts 1467-1480 of the Judicial Code regarding the arrest of seagoing vessels and inland vessels. The ground of appeal which assumes that art 1 of the Maritime Code, the violation of which is alleged, should be taken into account when assessing the regularity of a ship arrest under arts 1467 ff of the Judicial Code, therefore fails.

A seagoing vessel which is subject to arrest pursuant to arts 1467 ff of the Judicial Code on the basis of the allegation of a maritime claim, must still be regarded as a seagoing vessel in the assessment of the regularity of this arrest at the moment of seizure. The ground of appeal which assumes that, in order to assess the regularity of the ship arrest, it is sufficient for the seagoing vessel to have had that capacity at the time of the creation of the maritime claim fails in accordance with law.

The Court of Appeal held that it is difficult to argue that the heavily damaged ship, which was sold for scrapping, was at the time of its arrest a seaworthy seagoing vessel normally and mainly intended for seagoing shipping and of a nature to face the dangers of the sea. Furthermore, they held that, if the ship was indeed intended to be navigated before the fire damage, it had subsequently 'definitively lost this capacity, without at any time being eligible to be rescued and repaired', in other words that the ship had become 'a shipwreck', to which the provisions of ship arrest do not apply. The ground of appeal which assumes that the Court of Appeal ruled that the arrest was irregular on the basis that at the time of the arrest the ship no longer complied with the concept of a seagoing vessel within the meaning of art 1 of the Maritime Code, when in reality the Court held that the irregularity of the arrest was based on a finding that the ship had definitively lost its maritime character, is based on an incorrect reading of the Court of Appeal's judgment and lacks a factual basis.

A seagoing vessel within the meaning of the Arrest Convention 1952, and within the meaning of arts 1468 and 1469 of the Judicial Code, includes any vessel that is suitable for navigating the sea and is intended for that purpose, even if it is not used or is not intended for any profitable shipping operation on sea waters, as referred to in art 1 of the Maritime Code. A ship which has lost its capacity for navigation at sea due to damage can no longer be regarded as a seagoing vessel within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions.

The specific system of ship arrest of a seagoing vessel, whereby, with the permission of the competent judicial authority, a seagoing vessel can be detained on the basis of the mere allegation of a maritime claim must be considered. The fact that the ship was a seagoing ship at the time of the creation of a maritime claim does not prevent the subsequent definitive loss of this capacity from standing in the way of an arrest of this ship. The Court of Appeal, which ruled that the arrest was irregular because at the time of the arrest the ship was no longer seaworthy due to irreparable damage, and could therefore be regarded as a shipwreck that had definitively lost its capacity for going to sea, therefore did not violate the relevant provisions of the Arrest Convention 1952, even if the ship concerned was to have been considered a seagoing ship at the earlier time of the emergence of the maritime claim for assistance and salvage.