This was an appeal in cassation filed by a Portuguese company, International Service Company Shipping (ISCS), against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (Chamber 1-9) on 6 February 2020 in a dispute between ISCS and Ms T.

Ms T claimed damages for wrongful termination of her employment contract, balance of paid leave, a precariousness premium, damages for the lack of a medical examination on employment, and fixed compensation for concealed work owed by ISCS under Portuguese law. On 24 September 2018, the High Court of Grasse ordered the arrest of the MY Lady Jersey belonging to ISCS under the Arrest Convention 1952. ISCS applied for the revocation of the arrest order and for the yacht's release. When this was denied, ISCS appealed in cassation.

First, ISCS complained that the Court of Appeal judgment determined Ms T's alleged claim at EUR 28,774, granting the release of the arrested yacht on security of a bank guarantee for the same sum. ISCS argued that in respect of the claims authorising ship arrest, art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 covers the wages of crew. By deciding to include in the scope of the security sums requested for reasons other than wages, strictly speaking, or paid leave, the trial Judges violated arts 1 and 5 of the Convention.

Secondly, ISCS complained that the Court of Appeal judgment disregarded art 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952, which provides that '[n]othing in this Convention shall be construed as creating a right of action, which, apart from the provisions of this Convention, would not arise under the law applied by the Court which was seized of the case'. ISCS argued that the judgment incorrectly held that it was sufficient for the arresting party to affirm that she had a maritime claim under art 1, without any obligation to demonstrate its plausibility or seriousness, when according to the French law of the forum, ship arrest can only be carried out on the basis of a claim appearing to be founded in principle. The trial Judges thus violated arts 1, 2, and 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952, together with art L 5114-22 of the Transport Code.

Finally, ISCS complained about the setting of the bank guarantee at EUR 28,774. Even if it was sufficient, in order to obtain a ship arrest, to allege a claim falling within the scope of art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1952, under art 5 of the Convention it was up to the judge to rule on the sufficiency of the security and to determine accordingly the amount of the security in consideration of the plausibility or seriousness of the alleged claim. By refusing to rule on this point, the trial Judges violated art 5. Since art 5 gives the judge the power to assess the sufficiency of security, without in any way deciding that the amount of this security should correspond to the debt alleged, the trial Judges were required, by virtue of the human right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, to rule on the probable or serious nature of the claim invoked. Since art 5 does not preclude this, the trial Judges were obviously required to confine the amount of the security required to the amount of the fraction of the claim which could not only be alleged, but could also be considered probable or serious.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

First, the Court of Appeal, having found that Ms T's claim corresponded to damages linked to the premature and abusive termination of the employment contract, balance of paid leave, a precariousness bonus, the absence of a medical examination upon employment, and a lump sum compensation for hidden work, correctly deduced its maritime nature within the meaning of art 1.1.m of the Arrest Convention 1952. This plea is therefore unfounded.

Secondly, it follows from the provisions of the Arrest Convention 1952 that the simple allegation by the arresting party of the existence, for its benefit, of one of the maritime claims referred to in art 1.1 of the Convention is sufficient to establish its right to arrest the vessel to which this maritime claim relates. The alleged claim was of a maritime nature and related to the arrested vessel. The Court of Appeal rightly rejected ISCS's application for retraction of the arrest order and for the yacht's release. This plea is also unfounded.

Finally, it follows from art 5 of the Arrest Convention 1952 that the court orders the release of the ship when 'sufficient' security has been provided and that, in the absence of agreement between the parties on the sufficiency of the security, it fixes the amount. The Court of Appeal did not have to assess ISCS's challenge relating to the amount of this claim. The Court correctly, without violating art 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, confined the alleged claim to the sum of EUR 28,774, and allowed the release of the vessel in return for the provision of a bank guarantee fixed at this sum. This plea is therefore unfounded.