This case arose out of a collision. The Piraeus Court of Appeal held that the appellant's ship was to blame for its collision with the respondent's moored ship, which as a result of that collision suffered the damages referred to in the lawsuit. This appeal in cassation sought for the decision of the Piraeus Court of Appeal to be struck down on the grounds of: (a) vagueness; and (b) the fact that the Judges below took into account evidence that was not presented in Court.

Held: The decision 588/2007 of the Piraeus Court of Appeal is quashed. The case is referred back to the same Court, composed of other judges.

Where a collision of ships takes place in Greek territorial waters and is judged under Greek law (art 26 of the Civil Code), unless another law applies, according to the Brussels Convention of 1911 [sic], the liability and the obligation to be compensated depend on the degree of fault of each ship. In view of the above, in an action for compensation for damages suffered by one ship during its collision with another ship, the circumstances under which the collision occurred, as well as the specific circumstances, must be invoked and reported to determine the fault of a defendant's ship and in addition to adequately determine the damage caused by a claimant's ship due to the collision. In this case, the lawsuit contains all the legally required elements for its legal foundation and judicial assessment. In particular, its application adequately mentions the circumstances in which the collision of the above moored ships took place, as well as the specific incidents of fault of the appellant's ship, and a detailed determination of the damage of the ship of the respondent was made.

As to the issue that the Court of Appeal took into account evidence that was not presented, this relates to the appellant's defence that at the critical time of the accident in question the operation of its ship was carried out by a third party company under a lease agreement. The Court of Appeal took note of a document which was not invoked by either of the parties, from which the Court inferred an out-of-court confession that the appellant had also managed its ship at the relevant time. Therefore, the Court of Appeal, by taking into account the above document and taking it into account with the other evidence for the inference of its evidentiary finding for the liability of the appellant as a shipowner for the accident, fell into appellate misconduct. This ground of appeal is therefore well founded.