Flotamar SA (the plaintiff), the owner of the MV Masso 35, claimed against Société Genérale D'Armement et Peche SA (the defendant), the owner of the MV Leyla, flagged in Morocco, for damage resulting from a collision that occurred on 25 September 1983. Don Lucio and Don Andres, crew members of the MV Masso 35, also claimed against the defendant for the loss of their personal effects during the collision.

The first instance Court dismissed the claims. On appeal, the decision was reversed, and the defendant was ordered to pay compensation to the plaintiff and the crew members. The Court of Appeal (CA) considered that the collision was caused by the unilateral fault of the defendant according to art 3 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (the Collision Convention 1910). The defendant recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC affirmed the CA's decision. The defendant argued that arts 6 and 12 of the Collision Convention 1910 were unduly applied because the plaintiff and crew members grounded their claims exclusively on the provisions of the Code of Commerce (CCom). Article 6 of the Convention establishes that an action for damage resulting from a collision is not conditioned to the presentation of a protest or any other requirement, while art 12 of the Convention provides for the application of the principle of reciprocity. The defendant alleged that the applicable provisions were arts 612.15 and 835 of the CCom. Article 612.15 of the CCom establishes the obligation of the master to submit a protest at the first port called in the case of shipwreck. Article 835 of the CCom provides that if the master fails to submit a protest within 24 hours following an incident before a competent authority at the port where the collision occurred or at the first port called, no action for damage resulting from the collision is allowed. The SC stated that ratification of the Collision Convention 1910 produced an evident dichotomy in the Spanish legal system. The result of this dichotomy is that the application of the governing regime for maritime accidents depends on the nationality of the parties involved. That requires the Court to distinguish between the local and international legal regimes. Considering this, and according to the Constitution and the Civil Code, it was clear that the Collision Convention 1910 was the legal regime that the Judge must apply to this case because the colliding ship was flagged in Morocco. Therefore, art 12.1 of Collision Convention 1910 obliges the Court to apply the principle of reciprocity. The respective provisions of the Code of Commerce of Morocco were duly proven in the proceeding. They demonstrated that the governing regime for maritime accidents in that country is identical to the provisions of arts 1-7 of the Collision Convention 1910. Hence, there is no necessity to submit a protest or to comply with any other requirement as a precondition to claim damages resulting from the collision other than filing the claim within the two years of the time bar established in art 7 of the Convention. Therefore, as the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on time, the exact date on which the protest was submitted was irrelevant.