Netherlands. Chapter. Van Traa Advocaten N.V. 1 Marine Casualty. Maarten Claringbould. Pieter den Haan

Transcription

1 Chapter Maarten Claringbould Van Traa Advocaten N.V. Pieter den Haan 1 Marine Casualty 1.1 In the event of a collision, grounding or other major casualty, what are the key provisions that will impact upon the liability and response of interested parties? In particular, the relevant law / conventions in force in relation to: i) Collision The are a party to the Collision Convention Under Dutch law there is fault of the vessel (Art. 3 and 4 Convention) if the damage results from (Supreme Court 30 November 2001, NJ 2002, 143 ann. K.F. Haak; S&S 2002, 35): a. a fault of the owner itself or a person for whom the owner of the vessel is liable, such as its servants and independent contractors acting within the scope of their employment; b. a fault by a person performing work in the interest of the vessel or the cargo, for instance a fault by stevedores appointed by charterers; or c. an (inherent) defect of the vessel. The owner of the vessel which was at fault must compensate the damage (Art. 8:544 Dutch Civil Code). The liability of the owner of the vessel which was at fault remains intact in the event that the collision has been caused by the fault of a pilot, even if its use is obligatory (Art. 8:547 DCC). These rules of law with regard to collision cases also apply to allision cases, that is to say if damage has been caused by a vessel without there having been a collision (Art. 8:541 DCC). ii) Pollution The are a party to the CLC plus Protocol 1992 as well as the IFC plus Protocol The conventions have also been incorporated in the Act Liability Oiltankers and Act for Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. The are a party to the Bunker Oil Pollution Convention The Water Act may also apply if the protection of the environment is involved. iii) Salvage / general average a. Salvage The are a party to the Salvage Convention The salvage renumeration shall be due exclusively by the owner of the vessel (Art. 8:563, par. 3, DCC). LOF 2012, including the SCOPIC clause, is often used by Dutch salvors. b. General average The York-Antwerp Rules 1994 are applicable to general average (Art. 8:613 DCC), however parties may agree in the contract of carriage (b/l, cp) to another version of the York-Antwerp Rules but this is seldom the case. iv) Wreck removal The Wrecks Act applies in Dutch territorial waters to the removal of wrecks and lost cargo giving the Dutch State the authority to remove the wreck and/or cargo and have additional recourse for the costs against the owner of the vessel or of the cargo insofar as such costs could not be recovered from the possible proceeds of the wreck/remains of the cargo (Art. 10 Wrecks Act). The Dutch State bases its authority to remove wrecks on the Dutch Exclusive Economic Zone on UNCLOS III and the Water Act, giving the State authority, if the protection of the environment is involved and particular requirements are fulfilled, to clean up pollution and/or to remove wrecks/cargo. v) Limitation of liability The are a party to the London Limitation of Liability Convention 1976 and Protocol The made the reservation as per Article 18, par. 3, with regard to the claims of Article 2, par. 1 (d) and (e) (claims in respect of removal of wrecks and cargo) and instituted a separate wrecks limitation fund for such claims. The limits of liability for this wrecks fund are the same as the limits of the limitation fund for property under the Protocol 1996 (Art. 8:755, par. 1, DCC in conjunction with Article 6, par 1b Protocol 1996). It should be noted that this Dutch wrecks limitation fund may lead to forum shopping as in other jurisdictions there may be an unlimited liability for wrecks and cargo removal or these claims may simply fall under the property limitation fund. The Supreme Court has decided that the judgment of a Swedish Court allowing the institution of a property fund under the LLMC for a wreck removal claim should be recognised in the (Supreme Court 29 September 2006, NJ 2007, 393 ann. K.F. Haak; S&S 2007, 1 (Seawheel Rhine/Assi Eurolink)). The court also referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice EC 14 October 2004, case C-39/02 (Maersk/De Haan). This meant that the owners of the Seawheel Rhine did not have to put up the wrecks limitation fund in the for the costs made by the Dutch State to remove the wreck of the Assi Eurolink. 1.2 What are the authorities' powers of investigation / casualty response in the event of a collision, grounding or other major casualty? Dutch criminal law applies also outside territorial waters to Dutch

2 vessels, their crew and even to pirates taken on board of such vessels, as well as to Dutch citizens, even on board of foreign flag vessels; Dutch criminal law applies to all vessels and crew within Dutch territorial waters. Dutch criminal law gives the authorities extensive powers for investigation into criminal acts. Besides the criminal law aspect, the Dutch Board for Transport Safety has extensive powers with regard to Dutch vessels wherever in the world, to investigate incidents such as collisions, groundings, etc. and gather information in respect of these incidents. In some cases captain and/or crew members have to appear before the Maritime Disciplinary Tribunal. 2 Cargo Claims 2.1 What are the international conventions and national laws relevant to marine cargo claims? The Hague-Visby Rules including the SDR Protocol have direct effect if the bill of lading has been issued in a contracting state, the carriage takes place from a port in a contracting state or the contract embodied in the bill of lading (that is the Paramount Clause) provides that that contract is governed by the HVR or by any legislation that declare those HVR to be in force or has incorporated the HVR in its legislation (Art. 8:371, par. 3, DCC). The have incorporated the HVR in Book 8 of the Dutch Civil Code (Articles 8: and Art. 8:1712 DCC). Time charterers and voyage charters are considered to be contracts of carriage (Art. 8:373 DCC). The liability, laytime, demurrage, etc., are regulated in Book 8, Title 5 section 4 of the DCC but these rules on charter parties are not mandatory law; the c.p. clauses prevail. 2.2 What are the key principles applicable to cargo claims brought against the carrier? i) Title to sue There are three types of bills of lading: the order b/l; the bearer b/l; and the b/l to a named consignee (straight b/l) (Art. 8:412 DCC). The HVR apply to all these types of b s/l, see question 2.1. The lawful holder under an order b/l is the person to whose order this b/l has been endorsed. An endorsement in blank changes the order b/l into a bearer b/l; the person who holds such order b/l endorsed in blank becomes the lawful holder. The lawful holder under a straight b/l is the consignor, as long as this consignor (or its bank) holds the b/l and subsequently the named consignee becomes the lawful holder from the moment the b/l comes into its possession (Supreme Court 29 November 2002, NJ 2003, 374 ann. K.F. Haak; S&S 2003, 62 (Ladoga 15)). The b/l holder, in order to receive the goods, has to hand over the b/l to the carrier and sign it for discharge (Art. 8:481 DCC). Only the lawful holder of a bill of lading has title to sue and claim for damages even if the b/l holder has not suffered any damage in its own property (Art. 8:441, par. 1, DCC). ii) Identity of carrier In case a b/l has been issued, under Dutch law (Art. 8:461 DCC) more than one person may become the carrier under the b/l. Each of these carriers can be sued for cargo claims. Carrier under a b/l can be: 1. The person who signed the b/l or the person for whom another person signed. 2. The person whose form was used for the b/l (this is a special feature under Dutch law). 3. If a master b/l has been issued: a. The owner or if the master is in the service of a bareboat charterer the bare-boat charterer. b. The last time charterer or voyage charterer who concluded a contract of carriage with the consignor (this is also a special feature under Dutch law). 4. Only the owner or bare-boat charterer, excluding the other carriers under a b/l, if such owner or bare-boat charterer is clearly identified (name and address) in the b/l. A general Identity of carrier of Demise clause, such as The contract evidenced by this b/l is between the merchant and the owner of the vessel named herein ( ), is of no effect. iii) Incorporation of charter party provisions in the b/l A clear incorporation clause including referral to the arbitration clause in the c.p. is valid under Dutch law. For instance, the Congenbill 2007 clause: All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf, including the law and Arbitration Clause/Dispute Resolution Clause, are herewith incorporated. (See also Art. 8:415 DCC.) Quality/quantity unknown clauses are valid with regard to the quality or quantity of the goods for which the carrier had no reasonable means of checking (Art. 8:399, par. 3, in conjunction with Art. 8:414, par. 2, DCC). Deck cargo clauses stamped on front of the b/l (Loaded on deck at the shipper s risk) are valid (Art. 8:382, par. 2 c, DCC). iv) Time limits The time limit under any contract of carriage of goods by sea, including charter parties, is one year (Art. 8:1711 DCC). This time bar can be extended by contract between the parties (Art. 8:1701 DCC). Such prescription of a right of action (i.e. a cargo claim time bar) can also be interrupted by a written communication in which the claimant clearly states and claims the suffered damage (Art. 3:317 DCC); such notice from the cargo claimant is a unilateral legal act and no consent of the debtor (carrier) is needed. However, such interruption of the time bar is not possible with regard to a claim under a bill of lading; only extension of the time limit by mutual consent between the carrier under the b/l and the lawful b/l holder has effect (Art. 8:1712, par. 3, DCC). v) Limits of liability Under a b/l the limits of liability are the same as under the HVR: 666,67 SDR per package; or unit or 2 SDR per kilogram of the damaged goods, whichever shall be higher (Art. 8:388, par 1, DCC). The carrier (that is the carrier itself, the alter ego of the carrier, and it does not include its servants) may not limit its liability, when it is proven that the damage has arisen from an act or omission of the carrier done either with the intent to cause damage or recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result therefrom (Art. 8:388, par. 5, DCC). It should be noted that the conscious reckless act comes very close to intent and is not equivalent to wilful misconduct (Supreme Court 5 January 2001, NJ 2001, 391 and 392 ann. K.F. Haak; S&S 2001, 61 and 62). vi) Non-contractual claim against the carrier It is definitely possible for the owner of the goods to claim under tort against the carrier, except for a cargo claim under a b/l: only the lawful b/l holder has title to sue, see question 2.2 (i). Book 8 DCC contains a complicated set of rules in case of claims under tort (Art. 8: DCC), but they boil down to the following concept: A carrier against whom a claim under tort has been instituted shall

3 be liable towards the claimant no further than he would be if he were a party to the actual contract of carriage which has been entered into by the claimant itself (Art. 8:363 DCC) or if the claimant is the owner of the goods and not the contracting shipper the last contract of carriage in the chain of contracts of carriage of the goods (Art. 8:364 DCC). In short: The claimant gets a taste of its own medicine. 2.3 In what circumstances may the carrier establish claims against the shipper relating to misdeclaration of cargo? Such claims are regulated in Art. 8:383, par. 3, DCC (a translation of Art. 4, par. 3, HVR) with regard to carriage under a b/l, and Art. 8:423 DCC (a translation of Art. 4, par 6, DCC) in case of dangerous goods carried under a b/l. The general rules with regard to a shipper s liability applying to all contracts of carriage by sea, including charter parties, are laid down in Art. 8:397 DCC (general shippers liability) and Art. 8:398 DCC (dangerous goods). The shipper is liable towards the carrier for damage caused by the goods or the handling thereof, unless the damage has been caused by a fact which a prudent shipper has been unable to avoid and the consequences of which such shipper has not been able to prevent (shipper s force majeure) (Art. 8:397 DCC). Art. 8:398 DCC refers to dangerous goods but this has to be taken in a broad sense. It concerns goods which a prudent carrier would not have wanted to receive for carriage, had he known that, after taking receipt thereof, they could constitute a risk. All IMDG- Code goods will be considered dangerous, but also non-imdg- Code goods can be a dangerous good in the sense of Art. 8:398 DCC, for instance solidified resin in drums (not being a dangerous good under the IMDG) becoming liquid because of external heat and leaking out of the drums. The same might be true if the goods fall under international sanctions and the shipper has not informed the carrier about the sanctions. As soon as the goods become dangerous, as described in Art. 8:398, par. 1, DCC, the carrier may unload, destroy or otherwise render harmless such goods and the shipper is liable for all costs and damage. 3 Passenger Claims 3.1 What are the key provisions applicable to the resolution of maritime passenger claims? The EC Regulation 392/2009 incorporating the Athens Convention entered into force on 31 December The are bound by this Regulation. The ratified the Athens Convention on 26 September 2012 and this Convention will enter into force on 23 April The Regulation and Convention contain a two tier liability system: Risk liability up to and amount of 250,000 SDR per passenger (Art. 3, par. 1, Convention) or fault liability of the carrier limited to 400,000 SDR per passenger (Art. 7, par. 1, Convention). Keep in mind that the LLMC plus Protocol 1996 (see question 1.1 (v)) with its passenger fund may still apply in certain cases depending on the number of passengers the vessel may carry. 4 Arrest and Security 4.1 What are the options available to a party seeking to obtain security for a maritime claim against a vessel owner and the applicable procedure? i) Arrest of ships The are a party to the Arrest Convention The made the reservation allowed for in Art. 10 Arrest Convention. This means that the arrest of a sister ship for a mortgage claim is possible under Dutch national law and that with regard to claims enumerated in Art. 1, par. 1 (o) and (p) Arrest Convention, Dutch national law also applies. For such claims arrest of sister ships is always possible. Art. 3, par. 1, Arrest Convention allows for the arrest of a sister ship. Also the sister ship owned by the owner may be arrested for a maritime claim which is related to another vessel of the owner. Art. 3, par. 4, first sentence of the Arrest Convention applies the same rule to maritime claims against a bare-boat charterer. The particular ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose may be arrested, even though the owner of that vessel is not the debtor of the maritime claim (Art. 8:360 DCC) or a vessel owned by the bareboat charterer may be arrested for such claim. Recently there was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Art. 3, par. 4, second sentence of the Arrest Convention (Supreme Court 9 December 2011, NJ 2012, 243 ann. K.F. Haak, S&S 2012, 24, European Transport Law , p. 24 (Costanza M)). The court judged that the second sentence of Art. 3, par. 4 should be interpreted in a broad sense meaning that when a time charterer or voyage charterer is liable for a maritime claim, a vessel owned by such charterer may be arrested for this claim which claim was related to the chartered vessel and not related to the arrested vessel. For instance a time charterer owes freight to the owner, such owner may now arrest a vessel owned by the time charterer though the maritime claim is not related to the arrested vessel. ii) Outline of arrest procedure An arrest of a vessel can be made within a couple of hours. In the petition to arrest, the claim (amount) and debtor have to be described and usually the President of the Court in which the arrest will be made signs the petition without much ado and grants the arrest for the claim amount to be increased with 30% for costs. Usually no countersecurity is required and the debtor is not heard in these application proceedings. If the debtor thinks that the arrest was unlawful, it can start summary proceedings within one or two days to lift the arrest. iii) Acceptable forms of security The standard Rotterdam Guarantee Form issued by a reputable P&I Club or first class (Dutch) bank will be accepted to lift the arrest. iv) Garnishment/attachment Garnishment of bank accounts or attachment of any other assets such as containers or bunkers of the debtor are fairly easy under Dutch law. The proceedings are more or less the same as the arrest of vessels. The garnishment of bank accounts resembles a freezing injunction; the bank can no longer pay any monies under the attached account and it has to declare what amount of money is in the account.

4 4.2 Where security is sought from a party other than the vessel owner (or demise charterer) for a maritime claim, including exercise of liens over cargo, what options are available? Bunkers In case of arrest of bunkers owned by the time charterer, the vessel is not allowed to sail and if no security is put up, the owner may be forced to pump the bunkers out of the vessel. Lien over cargo Under Dutch law the carrier may exercise a right of retention (lien) over the goods for unpaid freight and other costs in connection with contract of carriage with regard to those goods (Art. 8:489, par. 2, DCC). This lien over the cargo can be invoked against third parties such as the owner of the goods not being a party to the contract of carriage. The parties to the contract of carriage, such as a charter party or b/l, can agree to a contractual right of retention (lien) for unpaid freight and costs with regard to earlier contracts of carriage between such parties. For instance: The carrier shall have a lien to the goods for any amount due at any time to the carrier from the merchant. However, this contractual lien for freight and costs due under earlier contracts of carriage cannot be invoked against the consignee or b/l holder who was not a party to the contract of carriage (under Dutch law a consignee or b/l holder becomes a party to the contract of carriage by accepting the goods for delivery or in case of loss or damage to the goods by claiming damages). This contractual lien cannot be invoked against the owner of the goods not being a party to the contract of carriage, unless under certain special circumstances it is proved that such owner clearly benefitted from the earlier contracts of carriage for which the carrier did not receive freight. Freight prepaid bill of lading Freight under the contract of carriage is due by the shipper as well as the consignee or b/l holder (Art. 8:484 DCC). But with regard to a b/l which is clearly marked as freight prepaid the b/l holder, not being the shipper, is not a debtor for the freight even if the freight has not yet been paid by the shipper. Notwithstanding the words freight prepaid, the shipper remains the debtor of the freight. 5 Evidence 5.1 What steps can be taken (and when) to preserve or obtain access to evidence in relation to maritime claims including any available procedures for the preservation of physical evidence, examination of witnesses or pre-action disclosure? Art. 843 a Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) regulates the right of access to information. A party with a legitimate interest may demand in court (even if no proceedings on the merits have started) inspection or copies of documents from another party which whom the applicant has a legal relationship. There is a lot of caselaw on Art. 843 a CCP and quite often the court refuses such inspection as the court considers the application as a fishing expedition. It should also be noted that the applicant should clearly indicate which documents he wants to inspect. Pre-examination of witnesses (Art. 186 CCP) and experts (Art. 202 ff CCP) is possible under Dutch procedural law. 5.2 What are the general disclosure obligations in court proceedings? In the we do not have disclosure proceedings as in common law jurisdictions but since last decade more weight has been attached to uncovering the actual truth in court proceedings. Art. 21 CCP prescribes that a party is under a duty to assert the relevant facts fully and truthfully and Art. 22 CCP provides that in all instances and in all stages of the dispute the court may order the parties to provide information or to submit records. If parties do not provide the required information or records the court may draw the conclusion that it deems appropriate to decide the dispute. Nevertheless there are limits to uncovering the actual truth. The court may not independently browse through the exhibits submitted, and pursuant to Art. 149 CCP it must accept as established all facts asserted by the one party that are acknowledged by the other party or insufficiently contested by the latter. In this way too much interference by the court is barred. 6 Procedure 6.1 Describe the typical procedure and time-scale applicable to maritime claims conducted through: i) national courts (including any specialised maritime or commercial courts); ii) arbitration (including specialist arbitral bodies); and iii) mediation / alternative dispute resolution. Up until now we do not have specialised courts with jurisdiction over maritime claims, except for global limitation proceedings in which the Court of Rotterdam has jurisdiction (Art. 642 a CCP). But it is advisable to engage the Rotterdam Court in maritime matters as this court has longstanding expertise with maritime claims. The writ of summons has to contain a description of the claim, the grounds of the claim and an offer to provide evidence to support the claim. Commencement/service out of jurisdiction Proceedings start with a writ of summons which may be served out of jurisdiction pursuant to the EC Service Regulation 1393/2007 or outside the European Community pursuant to the Hague Service Convention 1965; if the EC Regulation or Hague Convention does not apply service out of jurisdiction is regulated by Articles 54, 55 and 56 CCP which give rules to serve the writ of summons to a party with no known place of business in the or to a party with a known place of business outside the in case neither the EC Regulation or the Hague Convention apply. All these rules make it possible to serve a writ to any party inside or outside our jurisdiction. Recognition of jurisdiction clauses Jurisdiction clauses referring to an EC jurisdiction are recognised by the Dutch courts according to the requirements of Art. 23 of the Brussels I Regulation 44/2001 and case law of the EC Court of Justice on this matter. Bill of lading holders are bound by jurisdiction clauses referring to an EC jurisdiction or to EVEX jurisdiction (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland). In case of a jurisdiction clause for a court outside EC or EVEX jurisdiction, the have a particular rule on jurisdiction in maritime matters. Art. 629 CCP states that in case of a contract of carriage of goods by sea, be it under a charter party, b/l or sea waybill, to the, the court at the final place of destination will be the competent court. This rule is mandatory law unless the contract of

5 carriage contains a jurisdiction clause which declares competent the court of a named place in the country where either the carrier or the receiver of the goods has its place of business. Art. 629 CCP only refers to jurisdiction clauses and not to arbitration clauses. For the validity of arbitration clauses see hereunder. But at the same time this procedural rule of law nullifies principal place of business jurisdiction clauses because in such clauses there is no named place of business of the carrier. Arbitration clauses are recognised according to the requirements of the New York Arbitration Convention 1958 and the extensive rules on arbitration in Book 4 of the Code on Civil Procedure (Articles CCP). Pleadings/submission Proceedings start with a writ of summons, in fact a statement of claim, describing the claim (amount) and the grounds on which the claim is based. The defendant replies with a written statement of defence after which the court may order a personal appearance of the parties to give information or to try to reach a settlement. If no settlement is reached, judgment can be delivered or the plaintiff may continue with a written statement of reply and the defendant reacts with a written rejoinder. Depending on the complexity of the case a party or both parties may ask for an oral hearing. If no further written statements after the oral hearing are exchanged, the court will render judgment. Exchange of evidence Documents, survey reports, etc., evidencing the facts as written down in the statements are usually exchanged together with the particular statement. Exchange of documents, etc., before the trial has started is unusual in the. Indicative timescale It very much depends on the complexity of the case and the number of statements exchanged as to how long a trial will last. If no oral hearing takes place, and in fact fewer and fewer oral hearings take place these days, judgment may be delivered within six months after the writ was issued but it may easily take a year or more in complex cases with an oral hearing before a judgment is given. Interest on claims Statutory legal interest starts to run from the day that the damage (cargo, vessel, etc.) occurred and it is compound interest (Art. 6:119 DCC). The statutory interest is fixed by regulation and amounts at the moment to an interest rate of 3% per year. Costs rules The winning party is awarded the fixed court fee which depends on the amount at stake and which fee has to be paid by the plaintiff as well as the defendant before proceedings have started. The winning party is also awarded a fixed fee based on a graduated scale, depending on the amount at stake and the number of statements exchanged and whether or not oral hearings took place. This means that the winning party receives its court fee back plus it receives this graduate scale fee ; all fees are to be paid by the losing party. However, in practice, these fees usually cover only a (small) part of the lawyers fees. Mediation/ADR There is no such rule (yet) that mediation/adr is required before parties go to court. Mediation has become more popular in the but not so much yet in maritime and transport cases. Arbitration The Dutch arbitration institute on maritime and transport law is Transport And Maritime Arbitration Rotterdam-Amsterdam (TAMARA), see On this website the arbitration rules can be downloaded, as well as the hourly fee of the arbitrator and the administrative costs, based on the claim amount in a graduated scale. Administrative costs range from 250 for claims up to 50,000 to 2,000 for claims above 1,000,000. The hourly fee ranges from 100 for claims up to 50,000 to 325 for claims above 1,000,000. Arbitrators are selected (legal) experts in the shipping industry. E- Arbitration is also possible. TAMARA-arbitration has become more popular over the last few years. 6.2 Highlight any notable pros and cons related to the that any potential party should bear in mind? Are costs recoverable? See question 6.1 on Costs rules. What interest is payable on claims? See question 6.1 on Interest on claims. Specialist knowledge/experience Maritime and transport law are considered as a highly specialist field of law. The Grotius Academy, a collaborative venture of Dutch Law Faculties, organises nine-month post-graduate courses on maritime and transport law; the diploma for this course is highly regarded. Most lawyers [advocaten] acting in the shipping industry are members of the Association on Maritime and Transport Law. Litigation delays See also question 6.1 on Indicative timescale. Serious litigation delays may occur when evidence (documents, witnesses) has to be gathered from countries abroad, in particular from non-english, non-french or non-german speaking countries. Rights of appeal Judgments from the District Court (the court in first instance) can be appealed in the Court of Appeal; usually appeals need to be within three months after judgment, but in case of limitation proceedings, an appeal has to be instituted within two weeks, and with regard to summary proceedings, the period for appeal is four weeks. After judgment has been given by the Court of Appeal, appeal is possible to the Supreme Court. Principally, the Supreme Court deals with issues on the interpretation of the law. Evidential issues Documents which are evidence do not have to be notarised. Only in case of a verification of a signature a notarial deed may be required. Cross-examination of witnesses Whenever witnesses are heard in court, the judge as well as both parties lawyers [advocaten] may ask questions. The court clerk or judge himself summarises what has been said and writes it down in the record of the witness examination. Such record is not a verbatim account of what has been said.

6 7 Foreign Judgments and Awards 7.1 Summarise the key provisions and applicable procedures affecting the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Judgments from EC or EVEX countries are rather easily recognised and enforced in an exequatur procedure in accordance with the rules of the Brussels I Regulation or EVEX Convention. If there is no treaty between the and the state in which the court judgment was given (for instance between the and the USA) the proceedings between parties should be dealt with again by the Dutch Court (Art. 431 DCC). But in general the foreign judgment will be recognised and enforced without going into the merits of the case if it meets three minimum requirements: a. the foreign court had jurisdiction on an internationally respected basis; b. the foreign judgment is a final and binding judgment in the state where the judgment was delivered; and c. the foreign judgment should not be in conflict with the (Dutch) public order and the principles of fair trial. 7.2 Summarise the key provisions and applicable procedures affecting the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards. Arbitration awards are also recognised and enforced under the 1958 New York Convention to which the are a party (see also Art CPP). If the arbitration award is delivered in a state not being a party to the New York Convention, Art CPP applies; only on certain grounds such as no valid arbitration agreement between parties or recognition is against the public order, such arbitration award will not be recognised by the court in the exequatur procedure, otherwise such award will be recognised. 8 Updates and Developments 8.1 Describe any other issues not considered above that may be worthy of note, together with any current trends or likely future developments that may be of interest. Please note that all the Conventions mentioned in this overview do have direct effect; the court is bound to apply the authentic text (usually English) of the Convention and construe the meaning of the wordings in accordance with the Articles of the Vienna Convention of the law of treaties (1969); much weight is given to the uniform interpretation of (maritime) conventions. Book 8 DCC on the Law of Carriage and Means of Transportation entered into force in Though Book 8 incorporates the texts of the maritime private law conventions it also gives directory provisions on subjects not regulated in these conventions, such as rules on damage caused by a vessel without collision, also called allision. For that reason, the wording of the provisions of the Convention or of Book 8 is more important to construe the meaning of that provision than case law with regard to such provision. It should be noted that the are well known for their easy and fast way to arrest vessels as well as if it comes to an execution of the vessel the so-called Dutch auction.

7 Maarten Claringbould Van Traa Advocaten N.V. Meent JP Rotterdam The Tel: Fax: URL: Professor Maarten Claringbould (1949) graduated from Utrecht University in He travelled for two years in India, South-East Asia and Japan. In 1975 he was admitted to the Rotterdam bar as advocaat with a leading shipping law firm. In 1995 he was appointed as part-time professor of maritime law at Leiden University. In 2001 professor Claringbould joined as a partner the law firm Van Traa Advocaten in Rotterdam. He is head of the Research and Education Bureau of Van Traa Advocaten. Maarten Claringbould is a board member of the Maritime and Transport Law Association. He is also senior lecturer of the post-graduate Grotius Course on Transport Law. Professor Claringbould lectures regularly on maritime and transport law topics and he has published widely in these fields of law. Pieter den Haan Van Traa Advocaten N.V. Meent JP Rotterdam The Tel: Fax: denhaan@vantraa.nl URL: Pieter specialises in handling 'maritime casualties' in marine navigation, admiralty, inland shipping and yachting. He advises his clients on collisions, salvage and wreck removal matters. In addition, Pieter advises shipyards, shipowning companies and private clients on shipbuilding and repair contracts. He also deals with enforcing claims against ships and ship arrests. The Europe edition of Chambers says about Pieter: "On the wet side Pieter Den Haan works on major marine collisions and insurance cases. He was recently involved in the landmark 'Seawheel Rhine' and 'Assi Eurolink' cases." Founded in 1898, the firm has grown through the years into a law firm with an international scope. Van Traa is specialised in international trade, transport & logistics and insurance & liability. All these areas of activity often involve complicated legal cases. At Van Traa we try to get to the essence of the problem quickly and to create clarity. There are over 35 lawyers in the firm - a size that makes it possible to deal with larger cases that require a specialised team. On the other hand it is also a size where everyone knows each other well and where know how and specialised knowledge is shared and passed on from the older generation to the younger. We do not have any alliances with law firms in other countries. Instead we have built up a worldwide international network of a large number of firms. For maritime casualties contact Pieter den Haan, denhaan@vantraa.nl and for dry shipping contact Vincent Pool, pool@vantraa.nl.