Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/shipping-laws-and-regulations/belgium
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:32:17+00:00

Document:
The location of the incident, the type of vessels and the persons involved determine the applicable rules. A collision between sea-going vessels on the high seas will be subject to different rules from a collision between barges or sea-going vessels on internal waterways. Specific rules which derogate from the COLREGS apply on rivers and canals. This is often disregarded by foreign legal practioners.
■ The International Convention for the Unification of certain rules of Law with respect to Collision between vessels, Brussels, 23rd September 1910 (“The 1910 Collision Convention”).
■ The International Convention on certain rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, Brussels, 11th May 1952 (“The 1952 Brussels Civil Jurisdiction Convention”).
■ The International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, Brussels, 10th May 1952 (“The 1952 Brussels Penal Jurisdiction Convention”).
■ The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 as amended from time to time (“The COLREGS”).
■ The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended (“SOLAS”) and its annexes.
■ EU Regulation 864/2007, 11th July 2007 (“Rome II”).
■ Various local navigation regulations regarding the territorial sea, the ports, the rivers and canals (“The Local Navigation Regulations”).
The above list is not complete but contains the most essential provisions. Once it comes to determining liability, other provisions may be relevant. As an example, please refer to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, the International Safety Management Code, the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, etc.
Also, if refuge is needed as per the EU Directive 2002/59 (as amended), various legal provisions empowering authorities to take all necessary measures, inclusive of indicating a place of refuge, are applicable. The cooperation between Federal, Regional and local authorities, with each of them having separate legislative powers and the resulting ever-changing legislation, is solved by the existence of the Maritime Salvage and Coordination Centre (“The MRCC”), which manages the incident for all authorities concerned.
■ The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 29th November 1969 and Protocol to the Convention, 2nd November 1973 (“The Intervention Convention”).
■ The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 12th May 1954 as amended (“OILPOL”).
■ The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 2nd November 1973 and Protocol to the Convention, 17th February 1978 (“MARPOL 73/78”).
■ The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10th December 1982 (“The Montego Bay Convention” or “UNCLAS”).
■ The 1992 Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 27th November 1992, as amended in 2000 (“The CLC 1992”).
■ The 1992 Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 27th November 1992, as amended in 2000 (“The 1992 Fund Convention”).
■ The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, London, 3rd March 2001 (“The 2001 Bunker Oil Convention”).
■ The 2003 Protocol Establishing a Supplementary Fund (“The 2003 Supplementary Fund”).
■ EU Directive 2005/35, O.J. L255/11, 30th September 2005 as amended, has been implemented into Belgian law by various Acts.
■ The Belgian Statute of 20th January 1999 on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Sea-areas under Belgian Jurisdiction, as amended (“The Marine Protection Act”). This Statute implements various International Treaties and EU Directives. It holds criminal liability provisions, reverses the Burden of Proof and authorises authorities to intervene in case of incidents threatening the (marine or other) environment. Substantial fines and possible incarceration are provided for.
■ The Belgian Statute of 6th April 1995 for the Avoidance of Pollution by Vessels, as amended (“The Discharging of Polluting Substances Act”). This Statute also implements various International Treaties and EU Directives. It holds criminal liability provisions, reverses the Burden of Proof and authorises authorities to arrest vessels which are not in compliance. Substantial fines and possible incarceration are also provided for.
■ Various legal instruments, by the Federal State and the Regions, each within their authority in the implementation of Directive 2009/98 EC on Waste (“The Waste Directive”).
■ The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004 (“The Ballast Water Management Convention”), which entered into force in Belgium on 8th September 2017.
The above list is by no means exhaustive. Only the most relevant laws, treaties and conventions have been listed. One should also remember that international legislation, whether originating from the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) or the European Union, obliges Belgium to enact these provisions regularly. Usually the Belgian authorities do so by amending the above local legislation.
■ The 1989 London Salvage Convention has been fully enacted “as is” in Belgium.
■ If the contract provides for specific G/A rules, they may be applied. If not, the Belgian Maritime Code provides for G/A rules, which are similar to an older version of the York/Antwerp Rules.
The 2007 Nairobi Convention on wreck removal has been applicable since 17th April 2017. The effect will be limited, however, as Belgium has its own wreck removal legislation.
Under that legislation, it is the duty of the owner (a definition which includes the owner, charterer (be it a time charterer or a voyage charterer) or operator) to remove the wreck and its contents when demanded by the authorities to do so.
Case law as to the relationship between the obligation to remove the wreck and the right to limit liability has been developing in recent years.
The owner, charterer (be it a time charterer or a voyage charterer) or operator of a previously sea-going vessel can set up a Fund for Wreck Removal. This fund is separate from the LLMC Overall Limitation Fund. In January 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that once a wreck removal fund is set up for a sea-going vessel the authorities are no longer entitled to demand the owner, charterer or operator to remove the wreck at the owner’s expense.
The owner, charterer (be it a time charterer or a voyage charterer) or operator of an interior barge can benefit from the Belgian Overall Limitation Fund. The Overall Limitation Fund for barges is set up with principles similar to the LLMC but with lower thresholds, and with the possibility to set up limitations within that one fund, not only for oil pollution and wreck removal, but also for all other claims as per art. 2 LLMC. A Court of Appeal ruled that, at an interlocutory stage and provisionally only, the existence of an overall limitation set up for a sunken barge does not stop the authorities from ordering the owner to remove the wreck. This decision was not annulled by the Supreme Court. The non-annulment of that Court of Appeal decision may well have been due to the specificities of the particular case and, consequently, not be standing law. This view is strengthened by a later decision of the same Supreme Court ruling, in a case on the merits, that the owner of a barge is entitled to limit liability for wreck removal.
An allegedly liable party who is the owner of a vessel can also set up a wreck removal fund. But this fund is, in principle, only for claims of the authorities.
■ if no limitation for wreck removal whatsoever can be invoked by the liable party other than the owner of a sea-going vessel.
Limitation of liability in Belgium has been ruled since 1st December 1989 by the London Convention regime.
1. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, dated 19th November 1976 (“The LLMC Convention”).
2. The Protocol of 1996 dated 2nd May 1996 (“The 1996 Protocol”).
3. The 2015 Leg 5(99) IMO resolution raising the amounts (“The Imo Resolution”).
4. The Belgian Code of Commerce (Book II – Maritime Code – Title II, Chapter I, art. 46 and following of the Maritime Code).
For non-sea-going vessels, a specific limitation regime is applicable.
Limitation of liability can be invoked in Belgium without setting up a limitation. This is useful in circumstances where there is only one claim arising out of an incident.
At the level of jurisdiction and opposability of the Limitation Fund, the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction regime should also be considered. This regime is determined by the 1968 Treaty on Jurisdiction, the Lugano Conventions and EU Regulation 1215/2012.
A Limitation Fund is set up in two stages. Both stages can be dealt with within a few days.
First, a person who is (potentially) liable requests authorisation from the Court to set up a fund and indicates the amount of security to be issued. Unless a cash payment is proposed, the identity of the guarantor must be acceptable to the Court. The Court Order determines the period within which the amounts must be paid or secured. A fund administrator is appointed.
Secondly, and as soon as the amount of the fund has been paid, the Fund administrator will draft a report and present it to the Court, which will then, in a second decision, find that a fund was constituted.
A distinction needs to be made between the regime for sea-going vessels and interior barges.
■ Claims in respect of the raising, removal, destruction or the rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, stranded, or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board of such ship.
■ Claims in respect of the removal, destruction or the rendering harmless of the cargo of the ship.
Limitation for these claims may be possible under other legal provisions such as the Belgian wreck removal legislation referred to above.
For non-sea-going vessels, one Limitation Fund can be set up for all claims arising out of an incident. This fund therefore also covers pollution and wreck removal liabilities.
A distinction is to be made between Informative Authorities, Administrative Authorities, the Public Prosecutor and Judicial Authorities, and the Court Surveyors appointed at the request of a party having an interest.
■ The investigative authorities (“FOSO”/“OFEAN”) have the task of collecting evidence in order to advise how to avoid a similar incident in the future. EU Directive 2009/18, O.J, 28th May 2009, obliges Member States to set up such a body.
■ A Belgian flagged vessel was involved, irrespective of the location of the casualty.
■ The casualty occurred within the Belgian territorial sea or Belgian internal waters, irrespective of the flag of the ship.
■ A substantial Belgian interest was involved, irrespective of the location of the casualty or the flag of the ship.
FOSO can investigate such cases, including the hearing of witnesses, without anyone being able to hamper their efforts. FOSO can detain ships and any objects involved in an incident. It may also destroy objects for public health and safety reasons. Removing any object involved in an incident without the permission of FOSO is prohibited. Findings of FOSO are for a different purpose from that of the findings of others. A recent incident in Belgian waters had FOSO and a Court Surveyor analyse the same facts. A comparison of FOSO findings with those of the Court Surveyor indicated that the Court Surveyors had carried out a more in-depth investigation.
■ The Administrative Authorities can, within their jurisdiction, decide what happens in case of maritime incidents. They can investigate, impose securities (P&I letters or bank guarantees), direct the vessel in one way or another, prohibit passage, impose conditions on passage, etc. Findings by their investigators are presumed correct unless the contrary is proven. These findings may be used to initiate criminal proceedings.
■ The Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Authorities can, within their Jurisdiction, undertake any kind of action inclusive of incarceration in respect of persons presumed to have committed a crime. Here also the location of the alleged crime and its consequences on the Belgian territory are of importance to determine the authority.
■ The Court Surveyor is appointed by the Court at the request of a party having an interest in determining specific facts. He/she is not appointed by a party but by the Court and his/her mission is to inform the Court as to the facts. Every step taken is to be defended and all parties to the Court surveying proceedings must be invited. The Court Surveyor remains under the order and control of the Court who appointed him/her.
Belgium adhered to the Hague-Visby rules with the SDR protocol. The rules are incorporated in art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code.
The application of art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code is mandatory for all carriage under a negotiated Bill of Lading from and to a Belgian port. Note the addition of “and to” in the Belgian Maritime Code. This is an amendment to the Hague-Visby regime which only applies on all carriage “from” a convention state. But beware: this mandatory application applies in favour of the third-party bearer of the Bill of Lading only (see further).
■ by way of a non-negotiable document (such as a sea waybill).
If Belgian law applies on such carriage (by virtue of contract (for example, an applicable clause in the Bill of Lading or by application of Rules of International Private Law)) the Hague or Hague-Visby Convention applies, if given force of law or enacted in the country of loading.
For the sake of completeness, we should refer briefly to the carriage of goods over the interior waterways, where different legal provisions apply; and in international carriage, International Conventions such as the Budapest Convention on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Inland Waterway (“The CMNI”) apply. The CMNI contains provisions regarding liabilities as well as exonerations and limitations thereof.
A cargo claim can be brought not only against the carrier under the Bill of Lading but also against the owner of the vessel even if the owner is not the contractual carrier. The owner is considered liable in rem for losses or damages to the cargo. The owner’s liability, which is in rem, is to be determined as if he were the contractual carrier. The claim can also be brought against both the carrier and the owner, who are jointly liable towards the cargo claimants for loss and damage.
In principle, only the holder of the Bill of Lading has title to sue. If the Bill of Lading is held by an agent for an undisclosed principal, which is the standard situation in Belgium whenever a freight forwarder presents the Bill of Lading to the carrier, it is only the agent who has title to sue.
In some countries, the receiver under a Bill of Lading acquires the rights of the shipper. In other countries, the receiver’s rights and obligations are derived from the title issued by the carrier only, i.e. the Bill of Lading and its Terms of Carriage without any rights under the initial contract of affreightment having transferred to the receiver.
■ As between the Carrier and the shipper, charterer or the one who concluded the Contract of Carriage, such Contract of Carriage will apply. This may be as per the Terms of Carriage in the Bill of Lading, but if the Charter party provides conflicting terms, these Charter party terms will prevail. The protection given by the Hague-Visby rules does not apply in principle.
■ As between the Carrier and the receiver who is a third-party holder of the Bill of Lading, the Bill of Lading terms only will apply. Here there is an important correction: the terms are not opposable to the third-party holder if they conflict with art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules). Art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules) then applies mandatorily if a negotiable Bill of Lading is issued to cover the transport of goods from or to a Belgian port.
A choice-of-law clause contained in the Bill of Lading does not alter the mandatory application of art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules). Those rules are applicable irrespective of the Law chosen in the Bill of Lading.
A foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause is in conflict with the protection given by art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules) and can therefore not be opposed to the third-party holder of the Bill of Lading unless it is established that the foreign Court/Tribunal would give the same protection as a Belgian Court. A demise or Identity of Carrier clause equals an exoneration of liability by the carrier, is therefore contrary to the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules) and cannot be opposed by the third-party holder of the Bill of Lading. It can be opposed to the shipper or charterer. An “unknown or similar” clause is valid only if it is a special clause and under the conditions set out in art. 3 of the Hague-Visby rules.
■ in favour of the third-party holder of the Bill of Lading.
In applying those principles, the Antwerp Court of Appeal accepted in May 2017 that a carrier is bound by a referral in the Bill of Lading to an identifiable Charter party. Now that the Charter party referred to provided in a permanent seaworthiness warranty the carrier lost its due diligence defence under the Hague-Visby rules. Clauses in the Charter party which were contrary to the Hague-Visby rules (such as the arbitration clause) could be disregarded by the cargo interests.
Referral to a Charter party in the Bill of Lading results in incorporation of those terms insofar as the terms are not in conflict with rules of a protective nature.
A Court of Appeal ruled in 2018 that when the shipper and receiver are the same person, he is not a third-party holder of the Bill of Lading, and therefore the Bill of Lading terms incorporating the Charter party inclusive of its Arbitration clause are opposable to the receiver who presented the Bill of Lading to the Carrier for delivery of the goods.
Cargo claims against a shipowner who did not issue the Bill of Lading are dealt with as per the above principles based upon the in rem liability of the shipowner.
The shipper has the obligation to deliver the goods contractually agreed and must take all precautions to avoid the goods damaging the vessel or other goods, or harming the interests of another party.
The shipper is liable for all consequences of misdeclaring goods. A fault, neglect or act of the shipper, his agents or his servants is to be proven by the one who suffered damages.
If the goods are uncharacteristically dangerous without the carrier being made aware of such fact, the shipper is liable under art. 4.6 of the Hague-Visby rules. Such liability may well be objective.
A distinction is to be made between sanctions that were imposed prior to sailing and those imposed after sailing. If the sanctions preceded the sailing, the contract is annulled. If they are imposed after the sailing, the vessel with the cargo is obliged to return the freight and payment will be due for a one-way trip. The Contract of Carriage may provide for a different regime.
■ The Maritime Code (arts. 165 to 178).
■ The Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (“The Athens Convention” or PAL 1974).
■ The 2002 Protocol to PAL 1974 (“The PAL Protocol 2002”) as from 23rd April 2014 (but see application by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 392/2009).
■ Regulation (EU) No 392/2009, 23rd April 2009, on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents. Note that this Regulation reinforces the PAL Protocol 2002, which was already applicable. Also Belgian legislation (Act of 13th January 2012 and Royal Decree of 13th June 2012) incorporating the Regulation.
■ Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010, 24th November 2010, concerning rights when travelling by sea and inland waterways, amending Regulation (EC) 2006/2004. Also Belgian legislation (Act of 22nd June 2016) incorporating the Regulation.
■ The Belgian Statute Law on Travel Contracts, B.S., 1st April 1994, as amended (“The Travel Contracts Act”).
Belgium adhered to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Vessels, 10th May 1952 (“The 1952 Arrest Convention”).
One may arrest a sea-going vessel for maritime claims only. These are the claims as listed in art. 1.1 of the 1952 Arrest Convention.
■ the vessel in respect of which the maritime claim arose, even if the debtor of the claim is not the owner of the arrested vessel (example: arrest of a vessel for claims against a charterer of that vessel). In September 2016, the Belgian Supreme Court decided that if such arrest includes deliveries such as bunkers made to the vessel, the order must have been placed by the owner, the charterer or by someone else but attributable to the owner or the charterer.
There may be a possibility to arrest other assets such as bunkers on board the vessel or funds in the hands of third parties such as the ports-agent of the debtor. These arrest possibilities exist even if one does not have a maritime claim as per art. 1.1 of the 1952 Arrest Convention.
In September 2016, the Belgian Supreme Court decided that if an arrest includes deliveries such as bunkers made to the vessel the order must have been placed by the owner, the charterer or by someone else but attributable to the owner or the charterer. Case law since then seems to generally accept that, with deliveries (such as bunkers) to a vessel, there is an apparent authority from the owner or the charterer so that, unless the supplier explicitly indicates not to consider the owner or the charterer as the debtor, the order is attributable to such owner or charterer.
■ the vessel in respect of which the maritime claim arose, even if the debtor of the claim is not the owner of the arrested vessel (for example, arrest of a vessel for maritime claims against a time or voyage charterer of that vessel).
A sea-going vessel is considered to be the guarantee for all maritime claims related to it, irrespective of the identity of the debtor of the claim. If the debtor of the maritime claim is a person other than the owner, the vessel can still be arrested. In other words, even if the owner is not the debtor and is not bound personally, his vessel serves as a guarantee for maritime claims in this respect.
There may be possibilities to arrest other assets such as bunkers on board the vessel or funds in the hands of third parties such as the ports-agent of the debtor or of a bank. These arrest possibilities exist even if one does not have a maritime claim as per art. 1.1 of the 1952 Arrest Convention.
When receiving goods, it is sufficient to believe that the party presenting the goods is the owner thereof or is entitled to conclude contracts in respect of such goods which may give rise to a lien.
Owners of cargo carried by sea will have difficulty avoiding a lien because carriers in general tend to believe that the party which delivers the goods for carriage is entitled to conclude contracts in respect of such goods, even if such party is not the owner of the goods in question.
This principle does not alter the rights of holders of Bills of Lading. If a party is a holder of a freight prepaid Bill of Lading, a lien on the cargo is in principle not possible.
Sister ships are those where all the shares in the vessel (not all of the shares in the corporations which own separate vessels) belong to the same physical or legal person. Sister ships can be arrested if they belong to the debtor of the claim.
There is no such thing under Belgian law as a right to arrest just on the basis of beneficial ownership.
In order to arrest the assets of one for claims against another, one must either pierce the corporate veil, prove collusion or establish fraud. In order to come to such a finding Belgian case-law applies factors which are similar to the ‘alter-ego’ relationship findings in US case-law.
An authorisation to arrest a vessel must be obtained from an Arrest Judge. This is a specialised Judge within the Court of First Instance.
An ex parte request indicating the parties, the facts and the claim is presented to the Judge, together with the evidence. The arrestor must allege a maritime claim.
If an arrest authorisation is obtained, the order is to be served by a Court bailiff to the master of the vessel and to the debtor of the claim.
The most time-consuming part of an arrest is the analysis of the file and the preparing of the arrest papers. Obtaining the order itself and having it served usually only takes a few hours.
Once arrested, the vessel can only be released by agreement between the parties or by Court order.
A Court order ordering release usually means that the case was brought in Court again, all parties to the conflict were heard and the Judge ordered the release.
Arrest proceedings do not initiate the case on the merits itself. Separate proceedings in Belgium or elsewhere must be initiated to that effect.
An agreement is reached usually when adequate security is given.
The security is to be given by a first-class bank within the jurisdiction, unless parties agree on an alternative.
The security is to guarantee the claim. If the vessel is arrested for a claim against someone other than the owner, it is that claim which must be secured. An owner cannot release his vessel from an arrest by having a bank issue a guarantee securing claims against the owner when the claim is against the charterer. The bank guarantee is to secure claims against the charterer.
Any party having an interest can ask the President of the Commercial Court to appoint a Court Surveyor with a mission to determine the causes and circumstances of the incident and determine the extent of the damages. In case of cargo claims or utmost necessity, this can be requested by way of an ex parte application. The most time-consuming part of the application is the analysis of the file and the preparation of the application. Obtaining the order itself and having it served usually only takes a few hours. Even if there is an exclusive foreign Arbitration or Jurisdiction clause, the Belgian Courts have authority to appoint a Court Surveyor, including under the 1958 New York Convention (Arbitration) regime or the Brussels I bis regime (Regulation No 1215/2012) on condition that the Court Survey is to be executed at least partially in Belgium. Two Court decisions of 2015 clearly confirm this.
The Court Survey is a defended action. This means that any party having a conflicting interest must be invited at any step of the Court Survey if one wants the Survey to be opposable to that party. An invited party is entitled to bring his own private surveyors and legal counsel.
The Court Surveyor usually proceeds immediately with the necessary fact-finding. In maritime incidents the experience is that the first investigative steps are taken by the appointed Court Surveyor within a few hours of being appointed. This is an advantage for those who wish to be aware of the facts as soon as possible. A Court Survey is a defended action and all parties will obtain the same factual information at the same time.
The Court Surveyor is appointed by the Court and remains under the Court’s control. The Court Surveyor’s duty is to the Court and thus not to any of the parties to the incident. This results in an objective “fact-finding report” which constitutes a factual basis for a Belgian or foreign Court.
Belgian law does not have a general obligation to disclose all available evidence within Court proceedings. Every party must prove its case on the basis of the evidence it presents. If another party can prove that it is likely that someone holds relevant evidence, it may ask the Judge to order the submitting of such evidence. In order to obtain such an order from the Court, one must establish that the evidence exists, that the party who is asked to surrender the evidence has it in its possession, and that the evidence is relevant to the case.
A distinction needs to be made between fact-finding proceedings and proceedings on the merits.
Fact-finding proceedings depend to a large extent on the complexity of the case. A collision matter resulting in a wreck removal by a specialised salvor which takes over a year will take longer than straightforward cargo damage due to leaking hatch covers. Due to the fact that Court surveying proceedings are a defended action parties are perfectly well aware of the evidence being collected by the Court Surveyor. Nowadays, the Court Order that initially appoints the Court Surveyors provides that the final Survey report must be filed within a few months of the appointment.
Proceedings on the merits begin or proceed once all of the evidence is available. It takes about 10 months between start-up and decision if there are only two parties to the proceedings. One should add two months per additional party.
Interlocutory proceedings in transport and maritime matters usually do not take as long. Depending on the specific circumstances, a judgment is obtained within a few hours of issuing the writ when no real defence or an unreasonable defence is put up, to a few weeks in heavily contested claims.
Transport and maritime matters are brought before a maritime and transport chamber of the Commercial Court. Such Court consists of one full-time professional Judge and two lay Judges who in their professional life usually work within a field of shipping, transport or marine insurance. At Appeal level there is a specialised Maritime Chamber with the Court of Appeal.
All arrest matters are brought before the Arrest Judge. For urgent arrest matters, out-of-Court office hours are available.
Writs are served by a Court bailiff. The writ will indicate the parties to the proceedings, the essential facts, the reasons for liability, the date on which to appear, the Court before which to appear and the claim (usually in that order).
If the defendant does not appear on the date indicated in the writ, a default judgment may be obtained by the claimant at the hearing.
If the defendant appears, the Court will invite the parties to give their idea of the time schedule and, within a few weeks, issue an order holding specific dates for exchange of written submissions and a date for a hearing. Quite often, parties mutually agree on a schedule and the Court will then confirm such schedule.
The losing party pays the legal costs of the proceedings, with the exception of the lawyers’ fees, which remain for the account of the party who instructed the lawyer.
The legal costs of the proceedings are in essence the cost of the writ and service thereof, of the Court Surveyor, the Court and a symbolic Indemnification for Proceedings (“IfP”) calculated on the basis of the amount claimed. This IfP varies from €82.50 for low amounts claimed in easy matters to €33,000 for complicated proceedings in claims of over €1,000,000. This IfP can be considered as a part of the lawyers’ costs.
A tax of 3% on the costs is due by the losing defendant (no tax is due on damages under €12,500).
Interest is set by law on a yearly basis where the calculation is based on the average Euribor of the preceding year + 2%. For the year 2018, it is 2%.
There is very little arbitration in maritime incidents. Most arbitration is in marine insurance. Arbitration is usually on an ad hoc basis.
Other than counsels trying to come to a settlement, mediation is not commonly used in purely Belgian maritime disputes. In multi-jurisdictional disputes where the same facts give rise to disputes in various jurisdictions and tribunals, there is a tendency to mediate.
lawyers’ fees are low in comparison to most other jurisdictions.
lawyers’ fees are not recoverable by the winning party. An IfP is due (see question 6.1, part (iv)).
■ The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction regime should be considered. This regime is determined by the 1968 Treaty on Jurisdiction, the Lugano Conventions and EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).
■ The Belgian Judicial Code.
■ The Belgian Code on International Private Law.
A foreign decision is recognised without the need to initiate proceedings. If the decision needs to be enforced, an ex parte application to the Court asking for the decision to be declared enforceable in Belgium needs to be filed.
■ The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“The 1958 New York Convention”).
■ The European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21st April 1961 (“The Geneva Arbitration Convention”).
If an award is to be enforced, an ex parte application to the Court asking for the award to be declared enforceable in Belgium needs to be filed.
The reader should be aware that a new Belgian Maritime Code has been drafted. It is now going through the usual process prior to being presented to Parliament. At present, is being reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court (“Raad van State”). Once enacted, such Code may have profound consequences on the answers given above.

References: art. 2
 art. 46
 art. 91
 art. 91
 art. 91
 Art. 91
 art. 91
 art. 91
 art. 3
 art. 4
 art. 1
 art. 1
 art. 1