On 14 August 2016, the Maltese-flagged commercial yacht GP arrived at Naousa Bay, Paros island. Due to strong winds (up to 8 on the Beaufort Scale), a no-sailing order was issued, and the yacht remained anchored. As the wind increased, the GP's anchor broke loose, and it began to drift towards the rocky shore. The master started the yacht's engines to move it away from the shore, but without success. A dinghy needed to be used to push the vessel to a new anchorage. Later the same day, the GP changed its anchorage with the help of fishing boat Z to move to a safer position. Subsequently, the GP experienced a small inflow of seawater, which was at first controllable. However, on the following day, when the wind started to blow with more intensity, the inflow of water became uncontrollable. The master of the GP asked the Greek-flagged defendant NH to tow the GP to Tourkou Ammos, located on the opposite side of the bay. The fishing boat G also pushed the GP so that it would not be affected by the northerly winds.

With the assistance of the defendant NH, the GP was slowly driven to the safety of the shoals. Approximately 200 m before the destination, the AA was passing by the area to which a passenger from the defendant's boat signaled to assist in the towing effort while the master of the GP also requested the AA's assistance. Consequently, the master of the AA sided the starboard side of the GP and pushed it in a straight line, thus preventing it from running into the boats alongside, while the NH was slowly pushing the GP to the shoals. There were other vessels at the spot, including the fishing vessel G which was also assisting in the safe approach to shore, but these vessels did not assist in the pushing effort made by the claimant's vessel with the assistance of the passenger vessel AA.

The claimant initiated legal proceedings asking for EUR 200,000 as a reasonable salvage reward. The First Instance Court of Piraeus partially accepted the claim and ordered the defendant to pay the claimant EUR 30,000.

Both the claimant and the defendant appealed the decision before the Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal A is accepted, and the appeal B is dismissed. The First Instance Court Decision 157/2019 is annulled. The claim is upheld in part and the defendant is ordered to pay the claimant EUR 40,000.

The Court of Appeal jointly decided on the appeal of the claimant against the defendant (appeal A) and on the appeal of the defendant against the claimant (appeal B).

The Court of Appeal reviewed the decision of the First Instance Court in respect of arts 1, 1.a, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.3, 14, 15, 17, 24, 29 of the Salvage Convention 1989 and concluded the following.

The Salvage Convention 1989 was ratified by Law 2391/1996 and entered into force in Greece on 3 June 1997, as provided for in art 29 of the Convention. It repealed the Salvage Convention 1910, and the provisions of the CPML regulating the same issues, and replaced them with the Salvage Convention 1989.

Article 2 of the Convention provides that it governs judicial or administrative proceedings concerning matters covered by it, whenever such proceedings are initiated in a Member State: ie, it governs cases brought before national courts, irrespective of the nationality of the salvor or the salvaged ship, and without requiring any other foreign element in the dispute. Moreover, since Greece has not expressed any reservation to the Convention, these provisions also govern inland maritime salvage, ie assistance provided in inland waters and by (or to) inland waterway vessels.

Under art 1.a, a maritime salvage operation means any act or activity aimed at assisting a ship or any other property in danger in any waters, navigable or otherwise. Furthermore, it is divided into: a) salvage governed by law; b) salvage governed by a contract concluded under the influence of the peril; and c) salvage governed by a contract prior to the peril.

Salvage, when governed by the Convention, gives rise to a claim for remuneration in favour of the salvor. The statutory right to remuneration under arts 12 and 13.3 presupposes a useful result and limits the claim for remuneration to the value of the salved property.

Salvage contracts may be freely concluded. As referred to in arts 6, 14, and 17, salvage contracts exclude the creation between the parties of legal obligations or claims for remuneration and expenses, unless the contract provides otherwise (Court of Appeal of Piraeus Decision 55/2008).

The amount of remuneration is determined by the Court on the criteria set out in art 13.1, irrespective of the order in which they are listed (Court of Appeal of Piraeus Decision 297/2009). In particular, as is clear from the combined provisions of arts 1, 12, and 13 of the Convention, the conditions required for the right to remuneration to arise from acts of maritime salvage are: a) an act or activity of assistance to a ship or any property in waters fit for navigation or in any other waters; b) a risk of loss or damage; and c) a useful result.

As regards the risk of loss or damage to the assisted ship, this must be real, even if not immediate, but expected with probability, existing before the salvage services and not caused by them, without requiring the ship in distress to be incapable of traction or self-propulsion (Court of Appeal of Piraeus Decision 961/2000). It is also sufficient that, at the time the assistance was given, the object of the assistance was subject to any mishap or probability of mishap which might have exposed it to loss or damage if the assistance services had not been provided.

The risk also must be serious, and its existence and degree must be assessed by an overall examination of the circumstances of the particular case. Such circumstances which may indicate a risk are: a) abandonment of the voyage; b) the use of distress signals, where these are used to call for assistance, due to, eg, damage to the ship; c) total or substantial loss of means of propulsion, resulting in reduction in the ship's ability to cope with difficulties; and d) loss of anchors and chains etc.

It was proved by the witnesses that the claimant boat participated throughout the rescue of the defendant's boat. It was fully established that when the claimant's boat NH was called upon for assistance, the defendant's boat was indeed in serious, real, and expected danger of sinking as it was already suffering from an uncontrolled inflow of seawater from the rupture it had already suffered, and moreover, was unable to move under its own power. Also, because of the intensity of the winds prevailing in the area there was a serious, immediate, and real danger of colliding of the GP with the vessels alongside. These risks existed prior to the services provided by the claimant's vessel.

With the above towage services at the time when the defendant's vessel was facing the aforementioned dangers, in combination with the services of the fishing vessel G and of the vessel AA, it was rescued from a danger: first, of sinking and then, secondly, of collision, and it successfully landed on the sandy shoals of the beach. That is why the defendant's assertion that the services provided are merely towage and not a maritime salvage service is contrary to the rules of logic. A towage contract is drawn up in advance in writing and, in the case of towage services, the occupants of the towed vessel do not desperately request the assistance of the vessels alongside, nor does the master request assistance from the coastguard and the vessels alongside. Moreover, because of the rupture suffered by the defendant's vessel, the Coast Guard issued a prohibition to sail and requested that the appropriate certificate of class be produced by the supervising classification society.

It was further proved that the value of the defendant's ship is at least EUR 1,500,000 and may be as high as EUR 2,200,000 to 2,500,000. In view of: 1) the aforesaid value; 2) the effort made by the salvage vessels; 3) the magnitude of the success achieved and the useful result; 4) the nature and extent of the risk incurred by the defendant's vessel; 5) the time allocated by the salvage vessels, in particular with regard to the claimant's vessel which assisted for a period of approximately one hour; 6) the size of the vessels; 7) the timeliness of the services provided; and 8) the degree of readiness and adequacy of the equipment of the salvage vessel in view of the value of the defendant's vessel and after taking into account the offer of rebuilding of EUR 102,380, it is considered that, for the salvage provided by the salvage vessels, the Court should fix a total fee of EUR 100,000. Of the above total remuneration, the claimant is entitled to EUR 40,000 on the basis of all the above criteria, since it was one of the three vessels that assisted and helped throughout the whole duration of rescue operation.

The Court of First Instance, which held that the fee should amount to EUR 30,000, incorrectly assessed the evidence. Therefore, appeal B is dismissed on the grounds relating to the assessment of evidence, whereas the reasons raised in appeal A are accepted, and the judgment under appeal is set aside. The Court retains the case and hears it on its merits. The legal action has a legal basis in the provisions of arts 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 24 of the Salvage Convention 1989. Consequently, the claim is upheld in part as being well-founded in substance and the defendant is ordered to pay the claimant the total amount of EUR 40,000.