This was an appeal in cassation from the decision of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal of 4 December 2013. X bought the yacht Shangai Belle IV from Chantier Naval Couach (Couach). The parties agreed on the execution of additional work by Couach and the postponement of the delivery of the vessel to 25 August 2012. Invoking the failure of Couach to deliver the yacht on time, X obtained an order issued on 11 April 2013 authorising the seizure of the yacht. Couach requested the retraction of this order, but the Court of Appeal rejected its request and validated the seizure claim.

Couach argued that under art 8.2 of the Arrest Convention 1952, a vessel flying the flag of a non-Contracting State may be seized in one of the Contracting States, by virtue of one of the claims listed in art 1 of the Convention, or any other claim allowing seizure under the law of that State. The seizure of a non-flagged vessel must be assimilated to that of a vessel flying the flag of a non-Contracting State, and is therefore necessarily covered by the Brussels Convention regardless of the status of the arresting party. By refusing to apply the Brussels Convention, and by stating that X was acting in the context of the seizure as the owner of the boat as tangible movable property and not under a maritime claim, and that X's action was governed by the provisions of ordinary contract law and civil enforcement procedures, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned Convention provision.

Relying on art 8.2, Couach claimed that the Arrest Convention 1952 was applicable in the present case, having regard to the element of foreignness inherent in the international nature of the contract and to the status of the vessel without nationality, because it had no flag pending registration in Monaco. By ruling as it did, without ruling on these elements capable of establishing that the disputed seizure was covered by the Arrest Convention 1952, the Court of Appeal violated art 455 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Couach contended that by ruling that the seizure of the vessel, regardless of the status of the arresting party, is exclusively subject to the provisions of arts L 5114-20 ff of the Transport Code, when these special provisions exclude any attachment and allocation of the vessel by the creditor, violated the aforementioned provisions, together arts L 222-2 and R 222-17 to R 222-25 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal correctly ruled that the provisions invoked, whether they are arts L 5114-20 ff of the Transport Code, governing protective seizure and seizure of ships in execution of a judgment; or those of the Arrest Convention 1952, which only concern protective seizure, do not exclude the possibility of a seizure claim.