This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Poitiers Court of Appeal, 9 June 2015. MW Afritec, the owner of the fishing protection vessel Enigma XK, entrusted Atlantic Refit Center (ARC) with the transformation of the ship into an exploration vessel. ARC subcontracted the repair of two propellor shafts to Eiffel Industrie Marine (EIM). Once the work was completed, sea trials revealed malfunctions attributable, according to an expert evaluation ordered at the request of MW Afritec, to the engine oil used. EIM proceeded to dismantle and reassemble the propellor shafts. Claiming that its invoices had not been paid, EIM arrested the Enigma XK in the port of La Rochelle.

MW Afritec criticised the Court of Appeal judgment for rejecting its request for the arrest order to be lifted, and for deciding that the vessel's release could be ordered by depositing the sum of EUR 433,394.50. MW Afritec argued that maritime claims within the meaning of art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 are claims arising from damage resulting from the fault of the shipowner. In the present case, EIM relied on invoices relating to work on the ship. It claimed to have, in this regard, a claim against MW Afritec on account of the fault committed by the latter in the choice of oil. By holding that this was a maritime claim, despite the fact that the immediate cause of the claim is not a condition laid down in the provision, the trial Judges violated art 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, even if the three invoices relating to the initial work amounted to a maritime claim; and even if the precautionary seizure of a vessel was possible for the whole, even though the alleged claim was only partly maritime in nature, it was on condition that the maritime portion of the claim constitutes the principal and that the non-maritime fraction can be regarded as incidental. In the present case, the three invoices relating to the initial work, supposing them to be representative of a maritime debt, corresponded only to a marginal fraction of the alleged debt. In this regard, too, the judgment must be censured for lack of a legal basis with regard to art 1 of the Convention.

MW Afritec further contended that, even in the context of preliminary proceedings regarding conservatory seizure, the Judge must decide on the amount of the debt. By refusing to rule on this point, on the basis that only an expert can accurately assess the real cost of the work, the trial Judges violated arts R 511-4 and R 512-1 of the Code of Procedure of Civil Enforcement, together with art 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952. MW Afritec disputed the amount of the alleged debt and availed itself for this purpose of a work estimate established by a third party. The Judges rejected this estimate as irrelevant, violating the aforementioned provisions as well as art 5 of the Convention.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal noted that the alleged claim corresponded to the supply and installation of a crane in execution of the initial contract to transform the vessel into an exploration vessel, as well as the dismantling and reassembly of two propellor shafts of the ship carried out during the trial operations. In doing so, the Court, which did not have to seek the legal basis of this claim, correctly deduced its maritime nature within the meaning of arts 1.1.k and 1.1.l of the Arrest Convention 1952.

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 this Convention is sufficient to justify its right to arrest the ship to which this claim relates. Having noted that the alleged debt was maritime in nature and related to the seized vessel, the Court of Appeal, which did not have to assess the dispute of MW Afritec relating to the amount of this debt, rightly rejected applications for the release of the protective seizure or the security sum deposited.