Source: http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/shipping-law/shipping-law-2016/belgium
Timestamp: 2016-09-28 15:25:18
Document Index: 53022416

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 46', 'art 18', 'art. 91', 'Art. 91', 'Art. 91', 'art. 91', 'Art. 91', 'art. 91', 'art. 91', 'art. 3', 'art. 91', 'art. 4', 'art. 1', 'art. 1', 'art. 1']

Belgium - Shipping Law 2016 · ICLG - International Comparative Legal Guides
Home Practice area Shipping Law Shipping Law 2016 Belgium
i) Collision The location of the incident, the type of vessel and the persons involved determine the applicable rules. A collision between seagoing vessels in the high seas will succumb to other rules than a collision between barges or seagoing vessels on internal waterways. Specific rules which derogate from the COLREGS rules apply on rivers and canals. This is often disregarded by foreign legal practitioners.
The following Conventions and Regulations are applicable in Belgium:
The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collision Between Vessels, Brussels, 23 September 1910 (“The 1910 Collision Convention”).
The International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, Brussels, 10 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, 10 May 1952 (“The 1952 Brussels Penal Jurisdiction Convention”). The International Regulation 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, 11 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, it is referred to the STCW Convention, the ISM Code, the ISPS, 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 MRCC authority (“MRCC” refers to “Maritime Salvage and Coordination Centre”), which manages the incident for all authorities concerned.
The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 29 November 1969 and Protocol to the Convention, 2 November 1973 (“The Intervention Convention”).
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 12 May 1954, as amended (“Oilpol”).
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 2 November 1973 and Protocol to the Convention, 17 February 1978 (“Marpol 73/78”).
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982 (“The Montego Bay Convention” or “Unclas”).
The 1992 Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 27 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, 27 November 1992, as amended in 2000 (“The 1992 Fund Convention”).
The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, London, 3 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, 30 September 2005 as amended, has been implemented into Belgian law by various Acts.
The Belgian Statute of 20 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 the case of incidents threatening the (marine or other) environment. Substantial fines and possible incarceration are provided for.
The Belgian Statute of 6 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 the Directive 2009/98 EC on Waste (“The Waste Directive”). The above list is by no means complete. Only the most relevant Laws, Treaties and Conventions have been listed. One should also remember that international legislation, be it via the IMO or the European Union, obliges Belgium to regular enactments of these provisions. Usually, the Belgian authorities do so by amending the above local legislation.
iii) Salvage / general average The 1989 London Salvage Convention has been fully enacted “as is” in Belgium.
If the contract provides in specific G/A rules, they may be applied. If not, the Belgian Maritime Code provides, in G/A rules, rules which are similar to an older version of the York/Antwerp Rules.
iv) Wreck removal Belgium is in the process of ratifying the 2007 Nairobi Convention on Wreck Removal. The effect will be limited, as Belgium has its own wreck removal legislation. Under that legislation, it is the duty of the Owner (a definition which includes Owner, Charterer (be it a Time Charterer or a voyage Charterer) or Operator) to remove the wreck.
The Owner, Charterer (be it a Time Charterer or a voyage Charterer) or Operator of a previously seagoing vessel can set up a fund for wreck removal. This fund is separate from the Llmc Overall Limitation Fund. Present case law seems to accept that, notwithstanding the setting up of such a separate wreck removal limitation fund, the authorities are still entitled to demand the Owner, Charterer or Operator to remove the wreck at their expense. This is now contested case law and a final decision is still to be rendered in this highly contested area of law.
An allegedly liable party who is the Owner of a seagoing vessel can set up a wreck removal fund. However, this fund is, in principle, only for claims of the authorities.
Regarding recovery claims for wreck removal by the Owner of the wreck against another responsible person, it may depend on the exact cause of action as to how a claim against the liable party, other than the Owner, is to be brought:
- against the Llmc 1996 property fund set up by that party (if possible);
- against a separate wreck removal limitation fund to be set up by that party (if possible); or
- if no limitation for wreck removal whatsoever can be invoked by the liable party other than the Owner of a seagoing Vessel.
Case law prior to “Rome II” at an interlocutory stage exists. It does not enlighten what a Court judging on the merits may decide at present. Recently, two Court of Appeal decisions sitting in interlocutory proceedings confirmed a decision ordering an Owner who had set up a limitation fund to continue to proceed with the removal of his wreck at his cost, awaiting a later decision of the Court. The first order regarded a barge (not a seagoing vessel) where there is only one fund for property claims and wreck removal. This decision has not been annulled by the Belgian Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation). The other one regarded a seagoing vessel (2016) and is pending before the Supreme Court.
Limitation of liability in Belgium has been ruled since 1 December 1989 by the London Convention regime. At present, the applicable legislation is the following:
1. The London Convention dated 19 November 1976 (“The Llmc Convention”).
2. The Protocol of 1996 dated 2 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).
Limitation of liability can be invoked in Belgium notwithstanding the fact that a limitation fund has not been constituted.
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
Note that Belgium issued reservations as per art 18Llmc. One cannot limit liability in Belgium under the Llmc Regime for:
-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, and
-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. Belgium is in the process of ratifying the Nairobi Convention on Wreck Removal. In Belgian waters, there is a specific wreck removal legislation with a possibility to limit liability, but the exact circumstance in which liability can be limited instead of executing the statutory duty to remove the wreck is, at present, unclear. A decision of the Supreme Court is expected (also see question1.1 (iv)).
A limitation fund is set up in two stages. Both stages can be dealt with within a few days.
Firstly, a person (potentially) liable requests the Court for an authorisation 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 find that a fund was constituted in a second decision.
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.
Informative Authorities (FOSO/Ofean) have the task to collect evidence in order to advise on how to avoid a similar incident in the future. The EU Directive 2009/18, O.J., 28 May 2009, obliges Member States to set up such a body. FOSO has authority for marine casualties and incidents whenever at least one of the following criteria is met:
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 inclusive of hearing witnesses without anyone being entitled to hamper them. FOSO can detain ships and any objects involved in the 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. The regulatory framework for this investigative body is not fully set up yet, even considering the fact that the Belgian Statute Law (2 June 2012) has already been enacted. Administrative Authorities can, within their jurisdiction, decide what happens in the case of maritime incidents. They can investigate, impose securities (P&I letters or bank guarantee), 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 adheres to the Hague-Visby rules with the SDR protocol. The rules are incorporated in art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code.
Art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code is of mandatory application for all carriage under a negotiable 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 details below).
Art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code is not of mandatory application on carriage which is not to or from a Belgian port or if it is by way of a non-negotiable document such as a seaway bill. If Belgian law applies on such carriage (by virtue of contract (a jurisdiction clause in the B/L) 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, it should be referred briefly to the carriage of goods over the interior waterways where different legal provisions and International Conventions such as the CNMI apply containing provisions regarding liabilities, as well as exonerations and limitations thereof.
(i) Who to sue
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.
(ii) Title to sue
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 principle, 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.
(iii) The relationship between the holder of the Bill of Lading and the carrier – the principles
In some countries, the receiver under a Bill of Lading acquires the rights of the shipper. In others, the receiver’s rights and obligations are derived from the title issued by the carrier only i.e. the Terms of Carriage as per the Bill of Lading without any rights under the initial contract of affreightment having transferred to the receiver.
The Belgium Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) has, on many occasions, confirmed that the third party holder of a Bill of Lading does not acquire the rights from the shipper. The holder derives his rights against the carrier independently and directly out of the Bill of Lading. The third party holder accedes to the Bill of Lading under the terms set out therein only.
Consequently and as between the carrier and the shipper, Charterer or the one who concluded the Contract of Carriage, that Contract of Carriage will apply. This may be as per the Terms of Carriage as per Bill of Lading but if the Charter party provides in conflicting terms, it is the Charter party terms which will prevail. The protection given by the Hague-Visby rules does not apply in principle.
(iv) Bill of Lading terms
Towards the receiver or third party holder of the Bill of Lading, the Bill of Lading terms 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 Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules). Art. 91 of the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules) 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).
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 bearer of the Bill of Lading, unless it is established that the foreign Court/Tribunal would give the same protection as a Belgian Court. In practice, this no longer seems to be the case.
A demise or Identity of Carrier clause equals an exoneration of liability by the carrier and is therefore contrary to the Belgian Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules) and cannot be opposed to the third party holder. It can be opposed to the shipper or Charterer if he were (entitled) to claim.
An “unknown or similar clause” is valid only if it is not a standard but a special clause, and under the conditions set out in art. 3 of the Hague-Visby rules.
(v) Incorporation of Charter party provisions into the Bill of Lading 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 art. 91 of the Maritime Code (Hague-Visby rules); and
in favour of the third party holder of the Bill of Lading.
In applying these principles, the Antwerp Court of Commerce recently accepted a referral to a Charter party without specific reference (to a date or otherwise identifiable) and found that there was only one Charter party. The fact that this Charter party provided in a seaworthiness warranty resulted in the carrier losing its due diligence defence under the Hague-Visby rules.
(vi) Claims in tort
A cargo claim being a contractual claim, there is no need to consider a claim in tort under Belgian law.
Uncharacteristically dangerous cargo
The shipper has the obligation to deliver the goods as contractually agreed and must take all precautions to avoid that the goods shipped do not damage the vessel, other goods or harm the interest of another party.
The shipper is liable for all consequences of mis-declaring 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 it, this brings the shipper and its cargo in the firing line of art. 4.6 of the Hague-Visby rules. The liability may well be an objective one.
A distinction is to be made depending on whether the sanctions are prior or after sailing. If the sanctions precede the sailing, the contracts are annulled. If they arise after the sailing and the vessel with cargo is obliged to return, only the freight will be due for the trip one way. The Contract of Carriage may provide in a different regime.
Passenger rights are determined by the normal rules of contract. Passengers also benefit from the protection instituted by EU Regulations and the Athens Convention as amended by the 2002 Protocol. Some Belgian legislation is also of relevance. The following pieces of legislation apply:
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 PAL1974).
The 2002 Protocol to PAL 1974 (“The PAL Protocol 2002”), as from 23 April 2014 (but see application by virtue of Regulation 392/2009).
Regulation (EU) No 392/2009, 23 April 2009, on the Liability of Carriers of Passengers by Sea in the Event of Accidents. Remember that this Regulation makes the PAL Protocol 2002 already applicable.
Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010, 24 November 2010, which concerns the rights when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) 2006/2004.
The Belgian Statute Law on Travel contracts, B.S., 1 April 1994, as amended (“The Travel Contracts Act”).
A) Arrest of a seagoing vessel
Belgium adhered to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing vessels, 10 May 1952 (“The 1952 Arrest Convention”).
One may arrest a seagoing vessel for maritime claims only. These are the claims as listed in art. 1.1 of the 1952 Arrest Convention.
If one has such a maritime claim, the arrest may be on:
- all the ships owned by the debtor of the claim; and
- 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 (e.g. arrest of a vessel for claims against a Charterer of that vessel).
B) Arrest of other assets
There may be possibilities to arrest other assets, such as bunkers on board of 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.
This aspect of arrest law is in full development. Applications are pending on various issues arising out of the arrest of a vessel for claims of a contractual or physical bunker supplier.
Any firm opinion expressed on these points is, at present, speculative at best. If this is taken on board, one could, at present, understand from case law that unless the bunkers have already been paid by the Owner or the Charterer of the ship to the one who contracted with the Owner or the Charterer, the physical supplier can arrest the vessel for unpaid bunkers. Depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court application, the possibility to arrest could be extended.
A) Claims relating to a vessel – Arrest of the “guilty” seagoing vessel:
If one has a maritime claim, one may arrest:
- 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 (e.g. arrest of a vessel for maritime claims against a time or voyage Charterer of that vessel).
A seagoing 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 of the vessel or funds in the hands of third parties such as the ports-agent of the debtor or banks. These arrest possibilities exist, even if one does not have a maritime claim as per art. 1.1 of the 1952 Arrest Convention.
C) Lien on cargo
In order for a carrier to exercise a lien on cargo, it is necessary but sufficient when receiving the goods 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, as carriers in general may believe that the party which delivers the goods for carriage, even if it is not the Owner of those goods, is entitled to conclude contracts in respect of such goods.
This principle does not alter the rights that holders of Bills of Lading may have. If they are the holders of freight pre-paid Bills of Lading, a lien on cargo is, in principle, not possible.
D) Sister ships, associated ships, piercing of the corporate veil
Sister ships are those where all the shares in the vessel (not all 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.
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 takes only a few hours.
The release from arrest
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 release.
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 another entity than the Owner, it is that claim against that other 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 the 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 takes a few hours only. Even if there is an exclusive foreign Arbitration or Jurisdiction clause, the Belgian Courts have authority to appoint a Court Surveyor, also under the 1958 New York Convention regime (Arbitration) or the Brussels I Bis regime (Regulation 1215/2012). This is the case if the Court Survey is at least partially to be executed in Belgium. Two decisions of 2015 confirm as much.
The Court Survey is a defended action. This means that any party having a conflicting interest must be invited to any step of the Court Survey if one wants to have the Survey 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 procedure 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 being a defended action, 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 towards the Court, thus not towards one 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 that 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.
(i) Proceedings: Timing
A distinction needs to be made between fact-finding proceedings and the 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 straight forward cargo damage due to leaking hatch covers. Due to the Court surveying proceedings being a defended action, parties are perfectly well aware of the evidence being collected by the Court Surveyor. Nowadays, the Court Orders appointing Court Surveyors provide that the final Survey report of the Court Surveyor is to be filed within a few months of the appointment.
Proceedings on the merits begin or proceed once all 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 added party.
Interlocutory proceedings in transport and maritime matters are usually fast. 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 and seriously contested claims.
(ii) Proceedings: The Courts
Transport and Maritime Matters are brought before a maritime and transport Chamber of the Commercial Court. Such a Court consists of one full-time professional Judge and two lay Judges who in their professional life are usually working within a field of shipping, transport or marine insurance. At an 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, they are available out of Court office hours.
(iii) Proceedings: The Stages
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 a schedule. (iv) Proceedings: The Costs
The losing partypays 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 goes from €82.50 for low amounts claimed in easy matters to €33,000 for difficult proceedings in claims of over €1,000,000. This IfP can be considered as a part of the lawyers’ due.
A tax of 3% on the amounts condemned to is due by the losing defendant (no tax is due for condemnations under €12,500).
(v) Proceedings: Interest
Interest is set by law on a yearly basis where the calculation is based on the average Euribor of the preceding year + 2%. (vi) Arbitration
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, this is, at present, not used in maritime disputes.
A mature maritime market holding a cluster of expertise, including:
a maritime bar with over 200 years of experience (created in 1810);
various specialised maritime lower Courts exclusively dealing with shipping and transport matters (Maritime Chambers within the Courts of Commerce);
a specialised maritime and transport Chamber before the Court of Appeals;
highly specialised marine surveyors, exclusively working for the Courts, being appointed by the Court to give an independent report on facts in a defended action; and
language flexibility of most maritime players where, at a minimum, three languages and up to five are being spoken, enabling swift and cheap usage of evidence in Court in the original language;
swift dealing in Court (about one year) for normal marine work. This is the substantial change of the last number of years;
an extended case law on almost any point of shipping law enabling reasonable predictions for those who are in the know; and
lawyers’ fees are low in comparison with most other jurisdictions.
The losing party should be aware that 3% taxes will be due on the amounts condemned to.
Lawyers’ fees are not recoverable by the winning party. An Indemnity for Proceedings (“IfP”) is due (see question 6.1, part (iv)).
The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction regime is to be considered. This regime is determined by the 1968 Treaty on Jurisdiction, the Lugano Conventions and EU Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussel I Bis regime”).
The Belgian Judicial Code.
The Belgian Code on International Private Law.
A foreign decision is recognised without the necessity of initiating 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”).
European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21 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 is being drafted which, once enacted, may have profound consequences on the answers given above.