This was an appeal in cassation from the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 7 September 2015 (and see CMI1222 for related proceedings). Benoît X was injured on 7 August 2005 while executing a jibe on board the yacht Pido. Mr X, his parents, and Mrs Agnès Y, who was also on the yacht, claimed from the Center Nautique les Glénans as the yacht owner. The Center Nautique les Glénans argued for limitation of liability on the basis of the LLMC 1976, while Mr X based his claim on an application of the limit fixed by the amending Protocol of 2 May 1996 (the LLMC 1996). During the proceedings, the Center Nautique les Glénans was authorised to set up a limitation fund, the amount of which, initially set in accordance with the LLMC 1976, was increased, at the request of the victim to the increased limit provided for in the LLMC 1996.

In order to justify the application of the ceiling set by the Amending Protocol of 2 May 1996, the judgment held that the limitation fund was governed by the law in force, not on the date when the damage was caused by the maritime event following which it was constituted, but on the date of the order constituting the limitation fund. In this case, this order was issued on 14 August 2012, after the entry into force of Decree No 2007-1379 of 22 September 2007 introducing into domestic law the LLMC 1996.

Held: Partial cassation.

Considering arts 9.3 and 11 of the Protocol of 2 May 1996 amending the LLMC 1976, and its publication in Decree No 2007-1379 of 22 September 2007, together with the Law of 3 January 1967 relating to the status of ships, it follows that the limitations of liability in matters of maritime claims laid down in the amending Protocol of 2 May 1996 are only applicable to claims arising from events subsequent to 23 July 2007, the date of its entry into force in France. By ruling thus, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned provisions.

For these reasons, the judgment rendered on 7 September 2015 between the parties by the Paris Court of Appeal is struck down and annulled, except in that it declares inadmissible the claims of Mrs Agnès Y. Consequently, on the other points, the case and the parties are returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment, and the case is remitted to the Paris Court of Appeal, differently constituted, to be decided correctly.

[See further Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre commerciale, 24 mars 2021, N° de pourvoi: 19-13.325 (CMI1355).]