At the beginning of 2021, Société Anisfer Line (AL), an Algerian company, approached Société Global Maritime Algerie (GMA), the owner of the Algerian-flagged Imedghassen, to charter the vessel. On 1 April 2021, the parties entered into a charterparty for an initial period of one year. The charterparty contained navigation limits and excluded certain jurisdictions. By email of 2 September 2021, AL informed GMA that the vessel was scheduled for a voyage that would involve crossing the Sea of Marmara. GMA opposed this, but on learning that the containers had already been loaded, accepted this voyage as an exception in return for additional payment. On 12 October 2021, AL sent GMA a charterparty amendment aimed at modifying the navigation zone initially provided for in the charterparty in order to include the Sea of Marmara. GMA refused. AL unsuccessfully brought an action before the Court of Bir Mourad Rais (Algeria) to order GMA to sign this amendment.

On 9 November 2021, the Montpellier Commercial Court authorised AL to carry out a precautionary seizure of the Imedghassen. By registered letter dated 21 November 2021, AL withdrew its action before the Bir Mourad Rais Court and sent GMA a letter of cancellation and discharge of the charterparty. On 3 March 2022, the Montpellier Court of Appeal overturned the order of 9 November 2021 and released the Imedghassen. On 23 January 2023 (the contested judgment), the Montpellier Commercial Court held, among other things, that:

• the claim brought by AL was admissible;
• the Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute;
• the charterparty was terminated due to GMA's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations;
• there would be a judicial expert appraisal to collect evidence of all relevant damages and expenses, to provide the Court with all possible information to determine whether the vessel was immobilised due to the actions of GMA or AL, and to assess and quantify the damage suffered by GMA as a result of the immobilisation of the vessel following the precautionary seizure requested by AL;
• the expert appraisal would take be paid for by AL, which would deposit EUR 10,000 to be used as the expert's remuneration.

GMA appealed this judgment. It argued that the Court below had incorrectly ruled inadmissible its preliminary objection of jurisdictional incompetence. GMA asked the Court to hold that it had no jurisdiction in favour of the Cheraga court (Algeria), the location of the registered offices of GMA, pursuant to art 7 of the Arrest Convention 1952, arts 42, 43, 122, 124, 1441, 1442, and 1443 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and arts 640, 641, and 647 of the Algerian Maritime Code.

Held: The judgment under appeal is upheld in as much as it ordered a judicial expert appraisal and determined the experts' brief. The judgment under appeal is overturned in all remaining respects. The exception of jurisdictional incompetence raised by GMA is admissible. The French courts are incompetent in favour of the courts of the Algerian State to hear AL's claims and GMA's counterclaim.

Pursuant to Article 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Exceptions must, under penalty of inadmissibility, be raised simultaneously and before any defence on the merits or plea of inadmissibility. This is the case even if the rules invoked in support of the exception relate to public policy.

GMA rightly criticises the Montpellier Commercial Court for having upheld AL's application to declare its exception of incompetence inadmissible. In its submissions, GMA placed its exception relating to the incompetence of the French courts in favour of the Algerian courts in second position, after having asked the Court to rule 'inadmissible' the summons served on it on 9 December 2021. The judgment mentions this by recalling the claims that were formulated orally by the parties: the two procedural exceptions were placed under a chapeau 'in limine litis', before the substantive claims of GMA.

GMA argued correctly that the charterparty was a domestic law contract concluded between two Algerian companies, which was executed in Algeria (chartering of the vessel and payment of hire in Algeria). The Algerian Maritime Code is applicable, which provides in art 641 that the obligations, terms, and effects of the charterparty are defined by the parties to their freely negotiated contract. Here, the parties in cl 22 of the charterparty expressly opted for the application of Algerian law, which art 3 of the Rome I Regulation allows.

With regard to the precautionary seizure, assuming that French law applies, art 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the territorially competent jurisdiction is that of the place where the defendant resides, which is understood, according to art 43, with regard to a legal person, to be the place where it is established. GMA has its registered office in Algeria.

This must result in the reversal of the judgment under appeal and the incompetence of the French courts to hear the claims of AL under the charterparty. This incompetence must be pronounced in favour of the Algerian courts, without it being necessary to designate more precisely the Court of Cheraga (Algeria), the location of the registered office of GMA, which designates it as the competent Court.

Finally, since no grounds for appeal have been developed by either party to challenge the expert appraisal measure ordered by the trial Judges, this will continue as is. The contested judgment will be entirely overruled, except on this point.