This was an appeal in cassation against the decision of the Rouen Court of Appeal, 5 September 2002. The Jerba, belonging to Tunisian Sea Transport, lost 800 logs off the autonomous port of Rouen on 24 January 2002. The maritime prefect of the Channel and the North Sea implemented preventive measures. Pursuant to arts 2.1.d and 2.1.e of the LLMC 1976, the shipowner was authorised to set up a liability limitation fund for the maritime incident.

The judicial agent of the French Treasury argued that France, authorised by art 18 of the LLMC 1976, had reserved the application of arts 2.1.d and 2.1.e so that no limitation of liability could be imposed on the State's claim. The judgment under appeal held that the reservation relating to this limitation of liability issued by France upon ratification of the LLMC 1976 was ineffective. The Court held that France had only reserved a future option to have recourse to art 18, and that France had not notified the Secretary-General of the IMO, which is the Convention's depositary, of the effective exercise of its right to implement the reservation and to exclude the application of arts 2.1.d and 2.1.e of the Convention. The judicial agent of the Treasury appealed.

Held: Cassation.

The instrument of approval of the LLMC 1976, signed by France, was deposited on 1 July 1981 with the Secretary-General of the IMO, the depositary organisation of the Convention, with the following comment: 'in accordance with Article 18 § 1 the Government of the French Republic reserves the right to exclude the application of subparagraphs d) and e) of § 1 of Article 2'. This text was then published by the Decree of 23 December 1986 with mention of this reservation. Despite the ambiguous nature of this formulation in the French language, it constituted on the part of the French State, not merely a simple declaration of intention devoid of legal effect, but a unilateral decision aimed at excluding, as other signatory countries have done, the application of the aforementioned provisions. The judicial agent of the Treasury cannot be faced with a limitation of liability. The Court of Appeal violated the first of the aforementioned provisions by its refusal of application.

For these reasons, the judgment under appeal is struck down and annulled in its entirety. The case and parties are consequently returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment, and the case is referred to the Paris Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.