[PDF] SHIPPING BULLETIN 2 févr. 2015 a





Previous PDF Next PDF



CONVENTION SOLAS :

Le transport par conteneur s'est considérablement développé en quelques décennies seulement. On estime qu'à l'heure actuelle 5 à 6 millions de conteneurs 



PESÉE DES CONTENEURS :

amendement à la Convention internationale sur la Sauvegarde de la vie en mer (SOLAS) afin d'apporter des réponses à cette problématique.



SHIPPING BULLETIN

2 févr. 2015 a major impact on many tanker owners in 2015 – SOLAS regulation V/19 ... amendments to the SOLAS Convention ... usual contact at HFW.



SHIPPING BULLETIN

16 oct. 2012 David Morriss Partner



Shipping Law Review

HFW. IN LAW OFFICE. JORQUIERA & ROZAS ABOGADOS. MAPLES GROUP. MESTRE ABOGADOS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS);.



Shipping Law Review

the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) and other international conventions that adopt various international maritime safety standards.93 Australia's 



AUTONOMOUS SHIPS: SUCCESSFULLY NAVIGATING THROUGH

conventions should be covered: •. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). •. Convention on the International. Rules for Preventing Collisions at. Sea (COLREGs).



AUTONOMOUS SHIPS: DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND?

Our last briefing is available at https://www.hfw.com/Autonomous- of the International Convention on ... manned ships with SOLAS Chapter.



Shipping Law Review

HFW. IN LAW OFFICE. JORQUIERA & ROZAS ABOGADOS. MAPLES GROUP International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) 1978 SOLAS.



Shipping Law Review

of international maritime conventions and treaties to which Australia is party. trading vessels on interstate coastal voyages; SOLAS-certificated ships.

Shipping

January

2015

SHIPPING BULLETIN

Welcome to the January edition of our Shipping Bulletin.

In this edition we begin by reviewing the implications of an international regulation which is likely to have

a major impact on many tanker owners in 2015 - SOLAS regulation V/19 (Electronic Chart Display and

Information System (ECDIS)).

under time charterparties, with a particular focus on the NYPE and Shell time 4 charterparties. An important French Supreme Court judgment concerning the interplay between the 1952 Brussels Collision Convention on one hand, and other EU legislation and French local law on the other hand is analysed. We look at a decision which provides an important reminder to P&I Clubs that they need to follow up with their Members (and, more importantly, ex Members) on the status of any litigation/arbitration, particularly when Letter of Undertakings have been issued.

Finally, we feature our regular Case Update, which provides a brief summary of the major recent English

court cases relevant to shipping law. Should you require any further information or assistance on any of the issues dealt with here, please do not hesitate to contact any of the contributors to this Bulletin, or you r usual contact at HFW.

David Morriss,

Partner, david.morriss@hfw.com

Partner, nick.roberson@hfw.com

2 Shipping Bulletin

Costly non-compliance

on ECDIS

Since 2002, it has been an option

Information System (ECDIS) along

for the vessel to carry nautical

The implementation was set up on a

"roll-out" basis as shown below.

As can be seen from the schedule,

the next phase of the roll out is due to a result, all existing tankers of 3,000

GT and upwards constructed before

backup system) not later than the

In addition to this, companies must

the use of the equipment, the changes in the provision of charts and chart corrections to the vessel from shore, and changes in the Safety Management

System.

In 2013, it was established that about

30% in tonnage of all maritime trade

was conducted by tankers. 1 This equates to about 8,500 ships.

The majority of these ships in the global

according to data published by the (UKHO).

To date, approximately 3,600 tankers

(amounting to 42% of the global tanker (ENC) service. This leaves almost 5,000 (58%) tankers that currently do not.

The UKHO data also reveals a

tanker sizes and types. Overall, 23% approximately 1,700 vessels is already using an ENC service, compared to

44% of crude tankers and 63% of LNG

tankers. amount to a considerable undertaking, whether this involves the physical installation of ECDIS onboard, the crew or the necessary revisions to bridge policies and procedures. With only about six months to go until these amendments to the SOLAS Convention come into force for the global tanker that are not yet ready to comply will wish to ensure they put in place well in advance of the deadline a thorough plan to adopt ECDIS.

For more information, please contact

Andrew Shannon,

Master Mariner, on

+65 6411 5352, or
andrew.shannon@hfw.com, or your usual contact at HFW. 1 Source Compiled by the UNCTAD secretariat, on the basis of data supplied by Clarkson Research Services and previous issues of the Review of Maritime Transport.

July 2012July 2016

Existing Cargo Ships

Existing Cargo Ships

Existing Cargo Ships

The next phase of the mandatory SOLAS requirement to install ECDIS is due to come into effect on 1 July 2015.

ANDREW SHANNON, MASTER MARINER

Shipping Bulletin 3

Ebola and its effect on

time charterparties

Ebola is a viral disease which spreads

or via contaminated environments.

A recent World Health Organisation

report records more than 6,000 deaths in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. ports

Masters may be reluctant to call at

a time charter, however, Owners must orders and can only refuse to do so where compliance may expose the vessel or crew to danger.

Time charterers are usually under an

express obligation to order the vessel to "safe" ports. Factors to consider when deciding whether an Ebola- infected areas, previous cases of infection, risk of stowaways, risk of shore personnel contact. quarantine either at the port or a subsequent port.

Protective measures in place.

The evolving geographical spread of

time. The question of safety, therefore, is largely one of fact and degree.

Deviate?

Owners should consider the facts and

their contractual rights carefully before deviation would probably constitute a repudiatory breach following which the

Charterer could terminate and claim

damages (which may be substantial).

A deviation may also prejudice a

are consulted before a deviation is contemplated.

Owners may also have a contractual

obligation to deliver cargo to third parties at a named discharge port recorded in a bill of lading. Failure to do so could result in cargo claims, and claims for losses arising in respect of deviation and transshipment. Ɉ is to pay hire throughout the charter cases of quarantine, vessel detention, crew illness, port closures etc. shall arise for loss of time resulting from

Where there is

of the crew are ill, it is doubtful that there would be a under the clause. Even if such illness constituted a , this the full working of the vessel for her to catch-all wording is in which case could include the actions of the port authorities, e.g. in detaining the vessel.

4 may allow Charterers to place the

quarantine. However, this will only apply where the delay arises from the master or crew communicating with the shore of the infected area without the prior written consent of the The evolving geographical spread of Ebola can make it difficult to evaluate any particular port's safety at any one time. The question of safety, therefore, is largely one of fact and degree.

WOLE OLUFUNWA, ASSOCIATE

Shipping Bulletin

Owners should consider this when

considering whether to allow crew shore leave involving disembarkation have not consented to this and the vessel is subsequently detained, the

Ebola overreaction?

It should not be presumed that the

presence of Ebola in a particular country will necessitate deviations of a coastal West African oil trader

We recommend obtaining advice on

the incorporation of bespoke Ebola clauses in charterparties to manage risk. Ebola clauses can clarify the lost, costs arising from fumigation, quarantine, medical treatment (including deviation) and preventative measures. Ebola clauses can also make clear when a vessel is obliged to and conversely, when the Charterers are obliged to nominate an alternative port.

For more information, please contact

Wole Olufunwa,

Associate, on

+65 6411 5344, or
wole.olufunwa@hfw.com, or your usual

French Cour de

cassation issues landmark decision regarding jurisdiction in collision cases of the and the interests commenced proceedings before the Civil Court of Dunkirk. The defendants (the interests) challenged the jurisdiction of the

Dunkirk Court arguing that the correct

jurisdiction was Luxembourg. They did so by reference to Article 1(a) of the

1952 Brussels Collision Convention

(the 1952 Convention), which provides that proceedings involving the collision of two (or more) vessels can only be brought in the courts of the place where the defendant has his habitual residence. The Dunkirk Court rejected the challenge to jurisdiction on the basis that the vessels collided in

French territorial waters. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal of Douai which overturned 6 December 2013, which found that the correct jurisdiction was

Luxembourg. The

underwriters then lodged an appeal before the French civil Supreme Court, the "Cour de cassation" which in its

16 September 2014 decision (ref. 13-

13.880) upheld the Court of Appeal

judgment. the 1952 Convention was the key authority, focussing on Article 8. The

Court decided that whilst the collision

had occurred in French territorial waters, it had not taken place in "inland waters" under Article 1(c), which the

Court decided was a more limited

Second, the Court referred to Article

(No 44/2001 of 22 December

2000) concerning jurisdiction and

the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This provides that where prevail over European regulations.

As a result of its interpretation

of the relationship between the

1952 Convention and the Council

found that the 1952 Convention prevails over any other regulations or rules (whether EU rules or French domestic provisions).

In this landmark judgement the Cour de cassation

found that the 1952 Convention prevails over any other regulations or rules (whether EU rules or French domestic provisions.)

STEPHANIE SCHWEITZER, PARTNER

Shipping Bulletin 5

Consequently, the jurisdiction of the

French courts was to be assessed

against the criteria set forth under

Article 1 of the 1952 Convention, which

essentially provides that proceedings involving the collision of two (or more) vessels can only be brought before defendant has his habitual residence or place of business; or (b) where the defendant ship or another ship belonging to the defendant has been arrested, or security provided in response to a threatened arrest; or (c) of collision when the collision has occurred within the limits of a port or inland waters. The interests advanced a further argument before the Cour de cassation that Article 3§3 of the 1952

Dunkirk Court to retain its jurisdiction

where proceedings had already been brought before it. Article 3§3

The Cour de cassation also rejected this argument, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that it was neither the ќprovision to authorize a court to retain its jurisdiction, where, as here, none of the criteria in Article 1 of the 1952 Convention applied.

The Court decided that

than whilst French courts ordinarily have jurisdiction regarding territorial waters, the 1952 Convention provides that the location of the incident is only capable of constituting a ground conferring jurisdiction in collision cases where the incident has occurred within inland also a clear illustration that international conventions take precedence over

French domestic civil procedure rules.

The interested insurers of

were represented by Stéphanie

ѝFor more information, please contact Stephanie Schweitzer, Partner, on +33 (0)1 44 94 40 50, or stephanie.schweitzer@hfw.com, or Associate, on +33 (0)1 44 94 40 50, or jean-baptiste.charles@hfw.com, or your usual contact at HFW.

...whilst the collision had occurred in French territorial waters, it had not taken place in "inland waters" under Article 1(c), which the Court decided was a more limited area

JEAN-BAPTISTE CHARLES, ASSOCIATE

6 Shipping Bulletin

A timely reminder to

P&I Clubs...

TUTOVA

1

The background to the case is

relatively simple. The Cargo Interests (Almatrans) petitioned for the arrest of the in Italy for alleged losses to a cargo. The P&I Club for the

Owners, via their Italian lawyers, issued

27 March 1993.

On 15 September 1995, Almatrans

sent a telex to the Owners claiming damages and threatening legal action.

At about the same time the Cargo

Company Secretary and agents in

the US.wrote again setting out the claim and making it clear that the letter interrupted the time-bar. Then on proceedings against Owners in Italy and asked the court to serve process on Owners and on its Company Secretary in Cyprus. There were ѝCyprus.

requesting the return of the LOU as the limitation period had expired. the time bar had been interrupted byquotesdbs_dbs23.pdfusesText_29
[PDF] Convention internationale pour la Sauvegarde de la Vie - Adminch

[PDF] Convention internationale pour la Sauvegarde de la Vie - Adminch

[PDF] CONVENTION DE STAGE TYPE

[PDF] Chapitre 4: Croissance, divergence et convergence des suites

[PDF] Suites et séries de fonctions

[PDF] Convergence nominale et convergence réelle - bceao

[PDF] Chapitre 9 Convergences d 'une suite de fonctions - Mathématiques

[PDF] SUITES et SERIES DE FONCTIONS

[PDF] Convergencia a las Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad para el

[PDF] HOTEL CONVERSATIONS

[PDF] LE TABLEAU DES MESURES DE VOLUMES

[PDF] Transformation entre systèmes géodésiques - Géodésie

[PDF] définitions et principes - J 'apprends l 'énergie

[PDF] LA CONVERSIÓN DE SAULO (C835)

[PDF] Tableau de conversion Minutes - Centièmes