This appeal was filed by Incargo SL against an order of the Court of first instance dismissing its claim for EUR 49,518.01 against Aegean VII Shipping Ltd, for services provided to the ship Sikinos in Puerto de la Luz and Las Palmas. The respondent admitted to being the shipowner, but argued that it was completely unrelated to the legal relationship established between the appellant and Aegean Bunkering Combustibles Las Palmas SA, or Aegean Bunkering Services Inc. The appellant contended that it had received clear and precise instructions to invoice the shipowner for the services that it had provided to the vessel.

Held: Appeal allowed.

The nature of the services in question must be taken into account, which generate a maritime claim, in accordance with the provisions of the Arrest Convention 1952, and Law 2/1967, of 8 April, on the preventive arrest of ships. This regulation has been replaced by the Arrest Convention 1999 (BOE No 104, of 2 May 2011), which is currently reflected in the final 26th provision of the Law of Civil Procedure, and which provides that ship arrest will be regulated by the Arrest Convention 1999, and by the provisions of that law. The provisions of the Arrest Convention 1999 also apply to ships flying the flag of a State that is not a party to this Convention. In order to decree the arrest of a ship, it will suffice to allege the maritime claim and the cause that motivates it. In any case, the court will require a deposit in a sufficient amount to respond for the damages, losses and costs that may be caused by the ship arrest. Once the arrest has been effected, opposition may only be based on non-compliance with the requirements set forth in the Arrest Convention 1999.

The dispute on appeal lies in determining whether the respondent should pay the amounts claimed. In terms of the burden of proof, the general criteria apply: the party that alleges the existence of a contract with another entity must prove it. The appealed judgment has not violated the rules of burden of proof, since it found that, if the evidence did not prove the existence of a contract between the appellant and the respondent, the claim should be dismissed.

From the documentation presented by the appellant, it appears that it was commissioned to carry out services for the Sikinos by Aegean Bunkering Services Inc. This commission was subsequently terminated. The appellant requested confirmation of the details of the company to which the Sikinos invoices should be made out. The reponse identified the respondent, and the invoices were accordingly issued exactly in those terms. The appellant maintains that these were the instructions received from Aegean Bunkering Services Inc to bill the respondent, which justifies the claim being filed exclusively against the latter. It maintains that they are part of the same group of companies, although what can be verified through the corporate pages on the internet is that the contact details of the Aegean group in Las Palmas refer to Aegean Bunkering Combustibles Las Palmas SA.

The Court considers that the assessment of all these pieces of evidence and the applicable regulations in maritime law, together with the principle of burden of proof, lead to the conclusion that the respondent must respond for the appellant's debt, since it was invoiced in its name by virtue of specific instructions provided by whoever externally operates the ship and acts on its behalf against third parties in good faith.