This case arose from the salvage of a yacht. The High Court of Rhodes determined the quantum of the salvage award. The shipowner appealed to the Dodecanese Court of Appeal, which upheld the judgment under appeal. The shipowner appealed to the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Areios Pagos).

Held: The decision of the Dodecanese Court of Appeal 127/2015 is quashed. The case is referred to the same Court of Appeal, composed of other judges.

The Salvage Convention 1989 was drawn up to replace the Brussels Salvage Convention 1910, which Greece ratified in 1911, and the Brussels Protocol of 1967, which extended the provisions of the Salvage Convention 1910 'to a ship of war or any other ship owned, operated or chartered by a State or Public Authority'. According to art 2 of the Salvage Convention 1989, which was ratified by Law 2391/1996 and entered into force in Greece from 3 June 1997, this 'Convention shall apply whenever judicial or arbitral proceedings relating to matters dealt with in this Convention are brought in a State Party'. It follows from the foregoing provision that the above Convention governs matters concerning maritime salvage brought before the Greek courts, irrespective of the nationality of the salved or salving vessels and without the need for any other foreign element in the dispute. Given that Greece did not reserve any of the issues subject to art 30 of the Convention, these provisions, and in particular art 1, also apply to maritime salvage in inland waters, and even salvage by inland waterway vessels.

In the contested decision, the following facts were upheld in the course of the assessment of the evidence: the yacht was found abandoned on a rocky cliff, in a bay with its anchor thrown onto the rocks. It was found that the stranded boat was sinking and there was the risk of consequent contamination of the marine environment by the leakage of oils, fuels and lubricants, of which the vessel was full. Subsequently, the plaintiffs were assigned to rescue the yacht. A professional diver inspected the boat and found that it was leaking from two holes, which he temporarily repaired and sealed. As the boat was very close to the rocky shore and had already taken on a lot of water, there was an obvious danger of its immediate and complete immersion. This would have resulted in the total loss of the boat and damage to its sensitive and high-value equipment. The process of lifting the boat would be extremely difficult and expensive, since it would exceed the value of the ship, which was subsequently sold as scrap metal. At the time, strong gales were blowing, which were buffeting the boat and increased the risk of sinking. The plaintiffs approached the hazardous vessel with difficulty in order to provide effective rescue assistance. The vessel was temporarily sealed up and towed to safety. In view of the foregoing, it is demonstrated that the direct and co-ordinated efforts of the salvors prevented further damage and eventually sinking, given that the pumping out of water alone could not have prevented the vessel from sinking.

The Court held that the value of the rescued vessel (which was maintained and in excellent condition) after the incident and its successful rescue amounted to EUR 1,650,000. However, no agreement was reached between the parties as to the remuneration due. Therefore, the Court held, in accordance with the provisions of the Salvage Convention, having regard to the successful outcome of the rescue of the endangered vessel, the efforts and the zeal of the plaintiffs, which contributed significantly to the rescue of the defendant's endangered property, the risk posed by the rescue, the machinery and tools used, the time allotted, and the costs of EUR 1,500 incurred by the master of the vessel for the salvage of the ship, that the plaintiffs' reasonable remuneration was EUR 37,000, which amounted to approximately 2% of the value of the ship being rescued.

The shipowner alleged that the contested decision is vitiated by an irregularity in that the Court of Appeal did not take into account documents proving that the value of the rescued vessel did not amount to EUR 1,650,000, as the contested decision accepted, but only to EUR 800,000, an essential issue for determining the amount of the fair remuneration, and submitted two opinions which corroborated his claim. It is not absolutely certain that these opinions have been taken into account and assessed by the Court of Appeal to reach its evidentiary finding and in particular that the value of the rescued vessel amounted to EUR 1,650,000.

Therefore, the above ground of appeal is well founded. Consequently, the contested decision must be set aside in its entirety.