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
2015SHIPPING 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 andInformation 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 ECDISSince 2002, it has been an option
Information System (ECDIS) along
for the vessel to carry nauticalThe 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 3,000GT and upwards constructed before
backup system) not later than theIn 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 ManagementSystem.
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 to44% 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, orandrew.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 charterpartiesEbola 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. portsMasters 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 theCharterer 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 fromWhere 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, theEbola overreaction?
It should not be presumed that the
presence of Ebola in a particular country will necessitate deviations of a coastal West African oil traderWe 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, orwole.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 theDunkirk Court arguing that the correct
jurisdiction was Luxembourg. They did so by reference to Article 1(a) of the1952 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 inFrench 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 its16 September 2014 decision (ref. 13-
13.880) upheld the Court of Appeal
judgment. the 1952 Convention was the key authority, focussing on Article 8. TheCourt decided that whilst the collision
had occurred in French territorial waters, it had not taken place in "inland waters" under Article 1(c), which theCourt decided was a more limited
Second, the Court referred to Article
(No 44/2001 of 22 December2000) 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 the1952 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 underArticle 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 1952Dunkirk Court to retain its jurisdiction
where proceedings had already been brought before it. Article 3§3The 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 overFrench domestic civil procedure rules.
The interested insurers of
were represented by StéphanieѝFor 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 areaJEAN-BAPTISTE CHARLES, ASSOCIATE
6 Shipping Bulletin
A timely reminder to
P&I Clubs...
TUTOVA
1The 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 theOwners, 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 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