Nautimill SA claimed a salvage award from Kios SA for an event that occurred on 19 July 2013. The defendant alleged that the claim was time-barred as the defendant was summonsed after the two-year time bar period established in the law. The first instance Court stated that the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea 1910 (the Salvage Convention 1910) did not apply to the claim. Following art 15.2 of this Convention, the national law must apply, as all parties were constituted in, and the ships involved were all flagged in, the Republic of Uruguay. Furthermore, the event occurred in Uruguay territorial waters. That made the national law, not the Convention, applicable to the claim. Article 3 of the Law no 19246 of 2014 established a two-year limitation period for these claims. The Code of Commerce (CCom) did not contain a specific rule, and it was argued that the time bar should be the same as for any credit resulting from a contract, which was 20 years. The Court applied the two-year limitation period and dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Held: The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. The CA stated that the time limit is a matter of public policy. Although the event occurred in 2013 and the Law no 19246 entered into force on 19 September 2014, the time period established in this law applies. When a time limitation has not fully elapsed, and a new law of public policy character establishing a new time limitation enters into force, it is irrelevant when the legal relation was 'born', but only if the legal situation that is discussed in Court has occurred before or after the sanction of the new law. The new time-bar started running from the date the new law entered into force. Therefore, as the summons of the defendant took place on 22 December 2016, it falls outside the two-year limitation period established by the new law.