This was a cassation appeal brought by the Algerian company Anisfer Line against the 3 March 2022 judgment of the Montpellier Court of Appeal (2nd Civil Chamber) in the dispute between it and Global Maritime Algérie (GMA).

Anisfer Line voyage chartered the Algerian-flagged vessel Imedghassen, which was owned by GMA. On 9 November 2021, Anisfer Line was authorised to arrest the Imedghassen in France as a precautionary measure for security for its claim arising out of the charterparty. On 19 November 2021, GMA successfully sued Anisfer Line for the lifting of the arrest and for compensation for its loss.

On appeal, Anisfer Line complained that the Court of Appeal judgment incorrectly ordered the lifting of the arrest, arguing as follows:

• The Arrest Convention 1952 is applicable to the precautionary arrest of a vessel flying the flag of a Contracting State.
• Pursuant to art 6 of the Convention, only the procedural rules relating to the arrest of a vessel, obtaining authorisation for arrest, and all other procedural incidents that an arrest may raise are governed by the law of the Contracting State in which the arrest was carried out.
• The conditions relating to an application for the lifting of an arrest are not governed by the law of the Contracting State in which the arrest was carried out.
• By applying art 6 of the Convention to hold that French law, and in particular art L 5114-22 of the Transport Code [which provides that '[a]ny person whose claim appears to be well-founded in principle may request the judge to authorise the seizure of a vessel'], was applicable to GMA's application for the lifting of the ship arrest, and the Court ordering the lifting of this arrest, the Court of Appeal violated, by false application, art 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952, together with art L 5114-22 of the Transport Code.

Held: Cassation appeal upheld.

Having regard to arts 1, 2, and 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952, it follows that if the procedural rules relating to obtaining authorisation to arrest a ship are governed by the law of the Contracting State in which the arrest was requested, the mere allegation by the person arresting the ship of the existence, in its favour, of one of the maritime claims referred to in art 1 of the Convention is sufficient to establish the plaintiff's right to arrest the ship to which that claim relates.

After stating that, under art 6.2 of the Convention, the procedural rules relating to obtaining authorisation for seizure are governed by domestic law, the Court of Appeal judgment held that although Anisfer Line was relying on a claim that fell within the scope of art 1 of the Convention, this claim did not appear to be sufficiently well-founded in principle within the meaning of art L 5114-22 of the Transport Code, given the status of the production of the contracts and the substantive proceedings brought before the Montpellier court.

The Montpellier Court of Appeal thereby violated arts 1 and 2 of the Convention, and misapplied art L 5124-22 of the Transport Code.

Cassation of the head of judgment ordering the lifting of the arrest of the Imedghassen also entails cassation of the head of the judgment ordering Anisfer Line to pay damages for the loss caused by the arrest, which is connected to it by a necessary dependency link.

The Court therefore quashes and annuls the Montpellier Court of Appeal, restores the case and the parties to the state they were in before this judgment, and refers them back to the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal.