The appellant, Furlanetto International SRL, claimed EUR 36,095.98 from the respondent, BECOOL2 Owning Co Ltd, a company domiciled in Belize, in its capacity as owner of the Becool2, for work carried out on the ship in Viareggio, Italy. The ship was arrested on 31 August 2018. The Court of first instance, prior to the admission of the appellant's claim, held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim given that the domicile of the respondent, the place of conclusion of the contract, and the place of provision of the services were not in Spain.

The appellant appealed to the Provincial Court, insisting on the competence of the Court of first instance to hear its claim in accordance with the provisions of art 7 of the Arrest Convention 1999, as it was the Court where the arrest was effected, and the exceptions contemplated in art 7 of the Convention ('unless the parties validly agree or have validly agreed to submit the dispute to a Court of another State which accepts jurisdiction, or to arbitration') did not apply.

Held: Appeal upheld. The decision of the Court of first instance is reversed.

This Court agrees with the Judge below that the jurisdiction to hear the merits of the matter, ie the main proceedings, is determined by the nature and object of the claim that is made, and not by the specific jurisdiction to hear the precautionary measure of arrest of a vessel, because as expressly referred to in the judgment, art 471 of the Law on Maritime Navigation (LNM) establishes alternative jurisdictions at the option of the plaintiff:

1. The Court that has objective competence to hear the main claim, or that of the port or place where the ship is located, or that where the ship is expected to arrive, as chosen by the plaintiff that requests adoption of the injunctive measure, shall be competent to decree the arrest of a ship. Notwithstanding this, if the ship does not reach the port expected, the Court of that port shall lose its competence.

2. When arrest of a ship is ordered, if Spanish Court is competent to hear the substantive matter, the measure resolved shall be maintained as long as the suit is filed within the term set by the Court in keeping with the circumstances of the case.

However, this Court cannot share the reasoning that led the Court of first instance to hold that it lacked jurisdiction.

Article 21.1 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary (LOPJ) establishes that 'the Spanish civil courts will hear the claims that arise in Spanish territory in accordance with the rules established in the international treaties and conventions to which Spain is a party, in the regulations of the European Union and in Spanish law'. It is precisely for this reason that the Arrest Convention 1999 is fully applicable, which in art 7.1 establishes:

The Courts of the State in which an arrest has been effected or security provided to obtain the release of the ship shall have jurisdiction to determine the case upon its merits, unless the parties validly agree or have validly agreed to submit the dispute to a Court of another State which accepts jurisdiction, or to arbitration.

And even when that Court is empowered to waive its jurisdiction, art 7.2 of the Convention requires not only that the national law authorises the Court to do so, but also ('and') that the court of another State accepts jurisdiction.

In this case, none of the exceptions in art 7 of the Convention are relevant.