This was an administrative appeal against the resolution of the Admiral General Chief of Staff of the Navy (Ministry of Defence) of 20 June 2023 confirming the resolution of the Central Maritime Court No 660/00001/23 of 2 March 2023 that the appellant shipowner and its P&I insurer were liable for a salvage reward of EUR 80,000 to the Maritime Rescue and Safety Society (SASEMAR).

The appellant argued that the services provided by SASEMAR's maritime rescue tugboat SAR Gavia to its fishing vessel Sempre Gueto could not be classified as a salvage operation, but rather consisted of a mere intervention ordered by the competent public authority, or a towage operation, without any right to salvage reward or remuneration. In the alternative, the appellants argued that any salvage reward should be limited to EUR 25,317, to be paid by the P&I insurer.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant disputes whether salvage took place. This allegation must be dismissed for the following reasons:

Article 357 of Law 14/2014, of 24 July, on Maritime Navigation (the LNM), provides with respect to salvage:

Salvage operations shall be governed by the International Convention on Maritime Salvage, done at London on 28 April 1989, by the Protocols amending it to which Spain is a State Party, and by the provisions of this Chapter.

Article 358 of the LNM provides:

Salvage is considered to be any act undertaken to aid or assist a ship, vessel, or naval artefact, or to safeguard or recover any other property that is in danger in any navigable waters, with the exception of continental waters that are not in communication with the waters of the sea and are not used by seagoing vessels.

Assistance provided to property permanently and intentionally attached to the coast will not be considered salvage... .

The case law cited in the judgment of 28 October 1987 of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court states that:

the assistance or salvage of one vessel by another is a legal institution in which, although towing is normally involved, its fundamental requirements are constituted, first, by a situation of danger caused either by the state of the sea or by abnormal circumstances of the vessel, a situation of danger serious enough to fear in a rational forecast of events the loss or serious damage of the vessel; and, secondly, by extraordinary services rendered by the salvaging vessel with manifest risk to its crew, risks that exceed those normally required of the tug.

In its judgment of 15 February 1988, the same Court established the parameters of salvage:

[T]he existence or non-existence of danger and thus, salvage, although normally it involves towing, dragging, or pulling, is characterised, in what is relevant here, by two features: First. - A situation of real, imminent and serious danger to the vessel to be saved, either due to the state of the sea, or due to the circumstances of the ship in danger, which must be of such magnitude as to give rise to fear, in a rational prediction of events, of the loss or serious damage to the vessel. Second. - The provision by the salvaging vessel of extraordinary services ... .

Both requirements for a salvage operation were met here.

First, the fishing vessel was in obvious danger of sinking, as it was capsized and listing with its keel in the sun; and its buoyancy depended on an air bubble under the hull, which could disappear or diminish with any wave or unexpected circumstances. Its buoyancy was so poor that the towing of the vessel had to be carried out at minimal speeds.

Second, the salvage tugboat had to provide extraordinary services, as sea conditions were quite adverse, as evidenced by the weather reports. These reports indicated strong winds (even qualifying as rough seas) during the days of the operation, and the first tow cable came loose, leaving the vessel adrift until it was later located due to poor visibility. This posed a risk to the salvage vessel due to the sea conditions. Furthermore, some of the salvage vessel's crew had to be put at risk to deploy the life rafts, which endangered their safety, as the tugboat, traveling at minimal speed, was more vulnerable to the pounding waves.

Therefore, salvage applies.

Article 362 of the LNM provides that:

Salvage operations that have produced a useful result will entitle the salvors to a reward, the amount of which may not exceed the value of the ship and other goods salvaged.

The award shall be paid for all interests linked to the vessel and the other salvaged property in proportion to their respective values, without prejudice to the fact that the award may be paid by the owner of the salvaged vessel, subject to its right to seek reimbursement from the other interests in the salvaged property on board for their respective contributions or as may be appropriate in the case of general average ... .

The evidence from SASEMAR, the owner of the tugboat, proves that it incurred expenses of EUR 32,503.69. COMISMAR reports that the value of the fishing vessel is EUR 351,845. Starting from that figure, and taking into account the salvage expenses of EUR 32,503.69, the sum set as the salvage reward is not disproportionate; since, from the EUR 80,000, the EUR 32,503.69 of expenses (fuel and tugboat personnel) must be deducted, which does not represent a disproportionate net amount; and, in any case, it is less than the value of the fishing vessel after the accident.