In March 1987, the Arno sailed from La Spezia, Italy, carrying different goods. The ship sank off the coast of Sardinia. Caisse Algérienne des Assurances Transports (CAAT) insured part of the cargo. CAAT compensated the insured and then sued Marimar Srl (Marimar) as the agent of the carrier, Rhein Maas & See Dept France (RMS), as well as the shipowner, Fischbecker Schiffahrts GmbH, in the Tribunal of La Spezia. Marimar argued that the Italian Judge lacked jurisdiction, and that RMS was not the carrier.

Comar Assicurazioni SpA and SIAT SpA, insurers of other parts of the cargo, sued Marimar, as the agent of RMS, and also RMS, as the agent of Sanara Dept RMS (Sanara). The Tribunal of La Spezia unified the claims into a single case and, in December 1993, upheld the claims. RMS appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Genoa. In the view of RMS, the French jurisdiction applied under cl 17 of the bill of lading and the Hague-Visby Rules. Moreover, the carrier identity clause was valid, establishing that the contract of carriage was concluded between the shipowner, Fischbecker Schiffahrts GmbH, and the shipper. RMS also invoked excepted perils, on the basis that the cargo loss occurred because of a collision with an unidentified object. RMS further invoked force majeure to be exempted from liability.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Court stressed that the clause in question was not cl 17, but cl 3 of the bill of lading, which did not mention the French jurisdiction, and established that disputes arising under the bill of lading should be decided in the country where the carrier had its principal place of business. The fact that RMS referred to the French jurisdiction implied that RMS was the carrier. The Court also noted that the Hague-Visby Rules were irrelevant, as the uniform rules were unsuitable for identifying the link with a particular jurisdiction.

The Court decided that the carrier identity clause was invalid under art 3.8 of the Hague-Visby Rules, as it exempted the carrier from liability. The Court found that RMS constituted a department of Sanara and therefore RMS was the carrier.

Concerning excepted perils, the Court noted that the decision appealed applied the principles of burden of proof in relation to art 4 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The Court also found that there was no force majeure.

In conclusion, the Court emphasised that the carrier must provide a seaworthy ship before and at the beginning of the voyage. The Court recalled that the notion of seaworthiness also includes cargoworthiness. In this regard, the Court considered that only four crew members out of five were on board, and that this crew was already reduced as the ship was flying the German flag. The Court highlighted that the class certifications on the ship’s seaworthiness did not create a presumption of seaworthiness. The Court doubted the controls over seaworthiness, as the radar had not been working since the day before the event. The Court also found that the certificates did not fulfil the requirements of art 3 of the Hague-Visby Rules regarding the temporal scope of the carrier's seaworthiness obligation.