This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Rennes Court of Appeal, 5 July 1995. The ship Tevera, owned by Cob Line International, ran aground on 12 April 1990 on a rocky plateau off the island of Noirmoutier. The vessel received assistance from the Société Nazairienne de Remorquage (NR), the Professional Union of Pilots of the Loire and the officers of the Autonomous Port of Nantes-Saint-Nazaire who, after having succeeded in freeing the vessel, claimed remuneration from the shipowner for their salvage operations that the Judges set after hearing expert evidence.

NR complained that its salvage award had been set too low at FRF 900,000, and argued that the Court of Appeal should have taken into account not only the services rendered and the residual value of the salvaged vessel, but also the entire savings produced by the salvage, and in particular the fact that the pollution avoided would have had massive consequences of the order of FRF 65 million. NR based its argument on 'the very foundation of business management or that of unjust enrichment', rather than on the Salvage Convention 1989.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found correctly that the remuneration for assistance due to NR should not be fixed according to the criteria laid down by the Salvage Convention 1989, art 13.1.b of which provides that account must be taken of the skill and efforts of salvors to prevent or limit damage to the environment. In this case, arts 2 and 8 of the Salvage Convention 1910, and arts 10 and 16 of Law No 67-545 of 7 July 1967 relating to maritime incidents were still applicable. The Court correctly deduced from this that the salvage award had to be fixed according to fairness and depending on the circumstances, taking as a basis only the elements enumerated in these provisions, without being able to take into account the efforts of NR to prevent possible pollution. The Court thus did not disregard the subject-matter of the dispute and was not required to respond to NR's arguments, since the remuneration for salvage is governed exclusively by the aforementioned provisions or, where applicable, by the stipulations of the salvage agreement concluded between the parties, and is not based on unjust enrichment or business management. The Court of Appeal was not required, in deciding on the distribution of the award amongst the salvors, to follow the expert's opinion, and justified its decision by holding that it would be better to take into account, within the limits of this total remuneration, the merits and special efforts of some of the other salvors.