On 11 November 1991, Naviera Vasco Catalana SA (the first appellant) sold the Naraval to Agrupación Marítima SA. On 16 November 1992, the vessel was resold back to the first appellant. On 10 March 1993 the first appellant resold the vessel to Flimex SA (the second appellant). The registration of the sale in the Mercantile Registry took place on 18 March 1993. On 2 February 1993 JL Gándara y Cía SA (the respondent) claimed ESP 3,254,812 from Agrupación Marítima SA for the supply of necessaries to the vessel which took place between 5 February and 22 September 1992. The court of first instance extended the action to the appellants, found in favour of the respondent, and held the appellants and Agrupación Marítima SA jointly and severally liable. The appellants appealed to the Provincial Court.

Held: Appeals upheld.

Both the Commercial Code and the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1926 (the MLM Convention 1926) establish certain privileged claims (maritime liens). These privileged claims arise automatically and ope legis (by power of law), without intervention of the will of the parties. It is the law that directly generates them, when wanting to favour certain maritime creditors, and determines - for that is what is relevant here - the responsibility of the owner of the vessel, even when it is not personally responsible, that is to say, even if it was not the party who contracted for the debt.

However, not all maritime credits are protected with these liens. Spanish domestic law regulates differently and separately the real responsibility of the ship, which operates by way of a maritime lien and without taking into account who is the debtor of the secured obligation, and the personal responsibility of the owner and the charterer, which are basically regulated, in their contractual aspects, in articles 586 and 588 of the Commercial Code. International standards also contemplate the same solution. The MLM Convention 1926 states that its provisions are applicable to 'vessels under the management of a person who operates them without owning them or to the principal charterer, except in cases where the owner has been dispossessed by an illegal act or where the claimant is not a bona fide claimant'. (Article 13)

In effect, the doctrinal and jurisprudential interpretation of art 584 of the Commercial Code unanimously establishes that the right to seize and judicially sell the ship survives the voluntary alienation of the ship; the most authoritative doctrine uniformly points out that the rights of maritime creditors, among which are those specified in art 580 of the Commercial Code, enjoy a real guarantee with respect to the vessel. And this characteristic is consecrated expressly and strictly in the MLM Convention 1926, art 8 of which states that '[c]laims secured by a lien follow the vessel into whatever hands it may pass'.

This right of realisation of the value of the ship for the satisfaction of the maritime lien has a very short life. In the Commercial Code, the lien conferred to maritime creditors, in case of voluntary sale of the ship on a voyage (that is, outside the port of registration) is extinguished after the return to port and three months after the inscription of the sale in the Register or, alternatively, in the case of an unregistered sale, three months after the ship's return to its port of registration. The regime of extinction of maritime liens in the MLM Convention 1926 is characterised by ample respect for domestic laws. Article 9 establishes that, apart from other cases foreseen by national laws, maritime liens are extinguished after one year, while in the case of the lien for supplies that period may not exceed six months. Regarding whether these periods are statutes of limitation or expiration, the Court found that they were periods of expiration, referring to art 9 of the MLM Convention 1926 (which states that 'liens for supplies ... shall continue in force for not more than six months'). This is consistent with the MLM Conventions 1967 and 1993, which establish that the period of extinction of maritime liens cannot be the object of suspension or interruption.

Applying the above doctrinal and jurisprudential considerations to the case, the first appellant was no longer the owner of the vessel at the time the supplies were made. It neither incurred liability as a personal debtor nor as the owner of the ship. In respect of the second appellant, whether one applies the expiration period of art 582 of the Code of Commerce (three months from the registration of the sale in the Mercantile Registry, which took place on 18 March 1993), or the criterion applied by art 9 of the MLM Convention 1926 (six months counted from the date of supply, that is, 22 September 1992), the maritime lien must be declared expired.