{"id":3021,"date":"2026-10-08T23:57:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T21:57:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/example.invalid\/?p=3021"},"modified":"2026-11-13T17:03:23","modified_gmt":"2026-11-13T16:03:23","slug":"creance-maritime-creance-privilegiee-saisie-navire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abdennour-avocat.fr\/en\/creance-maritime-creance-privilegiee-saisie-navire\/","title":{"rendered":"Maritime claim or maritime lien: what is the difference when arresting a ship?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In ship arrest, two related concepts have very different effects: the maritime claim<\/strong> and the preferential maritime claim<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The distinction becomes essential where the debtor no longer owns or operates the ship that the creditor seeks to arrest.<\/p>\n

A maritime claim can provide a basis for arrest under the Convention<\/h2>\n

Article 1 of the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952<\/a> lists maritime claims, including damage caused by a ship, salvage, chartering, carriage of goods, supplies, shipbuilding and repairs.<\/p>\n

Where the Convention applies, this classification may provide a basis for arrest under its conditions.<\/p>\n

Holding a maritime claim does not, however, automatically entitle the creditor to pursue the vessel in the hands of any owner.<\/p>\n

A maritime lien may follow the vessel<\/h2>\n

Under French law, Article L. 5114-8 of the French Transport Code<\/a> lists the claims secured by a maritime lien.<\/p>\n

The effect is particularly important: Article L. 5114-18<\/a> provides that these liens follow the vessel into whosesoever hands it may pass<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Not every maritime claim under the 1952 Convention is therefore necessarily secured by a maritime lien under the applicable law.<\/p>\n

Why is the distinction decisive?<\/h2>\n

The French Court of Cassation reiterated this on 19 November 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That case concerned a bunker supply claim owed by the vessel\u2019s former charterer. When arrest was sought, the charter had ended and the ship had been redelivered to its owner.<\/p>\n

The Court held that arrest was then possible only if the maritime claim was secured by a maritime lien that follows the vessel<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This follows in particular from Article 9 of the Brussels Convention<\/a>, which states that the Convention does not itself create a right to follow the vessel that would not otherwise exist under the applicable law.<\/p>\n

Before seeking arrest, distinguish three questions:<\/p>\n