Seychelles; France

Title (English):
Date of document:
Type of document:
Court name:
Seat of court:
Justice(s):
Reference number:
Available web site:
Number of pages:
Language of document:
Translation of document:
Abstract:

The Monte Confurco case (Seychelles v. France)

18 December 2000
International court
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Hamburg
Rao Chandrasekhara; Nelson; Caminos; Rangel Marotta; Yankov; Yamamoto;
Kolodkin; Park; Engo Bamela; Mensah; Akl; Anderson; Vukas; Wolfrum; Treve
Marsit; Eiriksson; Ndiaye; Jesus
List of cases No. 6
http://www.itlos.org/cgi-bin/cases/case_detail.pl?id=5&lang=en
27
English
French
The Monte Confurco was a fishing vessel, flying the flag of Seychelles. Its own
was the Monteco Shipping Corporation, a company registered in Seychelles.

On 27 August 2000, the Monte Confurco left Port Louis (Mauritius) to engage i
long-line fishing in the Southern seas.

On 8 November 2000, the Monte Confurco was boarded by the crew of a Frenc
surveillance frigate in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands in
the French Southern and Antarctic Territories.

The Monte Confurco was escorted under the supervision of the French navy to
Port-des-Galets, Runion, where it arrived on 19 November 2000. The Master
the vessel was charged and placed under court supervision.

In its order of 22 November 2000, the court of first instance at Saint-Paul note
among other things, that the vessel Monte Confurco entered the exclusive
economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands without prior authorization or declarin
the tonnage of fish carried on board (in violation of the provisions of article 2 o
Law 66-400 of 18 June 1966, as amended by the Law of 18 November 1997).
These circumstances raised the presumption that the whole of the catch was
unlawfully fished in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands.

The court declared that the release of the vessel and its Master would be subje
to the payment of a bond in the amount of 56,400,000 FF.

The Applicant submitted that the bond set by the court of first instance at Sain
Paul was not a reasonable bond or other security within the meaning of artic
73, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), and that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should, in
exercise of its powers under article 292 of the Convention, fix a reasonable
bond and order the release of the vessel upon the posting of such a bond, as
well as the release of the Master without a bond, since he could not be subject
to imprisonment.
The Government of the French Republic requested the Tribunal to reject the
submission made by the Republic of Seychelles.

The Tribunal examined the question of non-compliance with article 73,

paragraphs 2, of the Convention. It was accordingly necessary for the Tribunal
to determine whether the bond imposed by the French court was reasonable

The Tribunal found that Article 73 identified two interests, the interest of the
coastal State to take appropriate measures as may be necessary to ensure
compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it on the one hand and th
interest of the flag State in securing prompt release of its vessels and their
crews from detention on the other. It provided for a fair balance between the
two interests.

Similarly, the object of article 292 of the Convention was to reconcile the
interest of the flag State to have its vessel and its crew released promptly with
the interest of the detaining State to secure appearance in its court of the
Master and the payment of penalties.
The balance of interests emerging from articles 73 and 292 of the Convention
provided the guiding criterion for the Tribunal in its assessment of the

reasonableness of the bond. In this connection, the Tribunal would treat the la
of the detaining State and the decisions of its courts as relevant facts.

In the view of the Respondent, illegal fishing was a threat to the future
resources and the conservation of toothfish. The Tribunal had also taken note
the range of penalties which, under French law, were imposable for the alleged
offences. These penalties underlined that under French law such offences were
grave.

The Applicant, however, argued that the only offence committed by the Master
of the vessel had been his failure to notify the entry of the Monte Confurco into
the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands and the tonnage of fish i
carried on board, and that the vessel had not fished in the said zone.

The Tribunal considered that the value of the fish and of the fishing gear seized
was also to be taken into account as a factor relevant in the assessment of the
reasonableness of the bond.

On the basis of the above considerations, the Tribunal considered that the bon
of 56,400,000 FF imposed by the French court was not reasonable within the
meaning of article 292 of the Convention.

The Tribunal found that the Application with respect to the allegation of noncompliance with article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention was well-founded
and that, consequently, France had to release promptly the Monte Confurco an
its Master upon the posting of a bond to be determined by the Tribunal.
Subject(s): Fisheries; Sea
authorization/permit; fishing area; fishing vessel; international agreement-tex
Keyword(s):
marine area; marine fisheries; maritime zone; offences/penalties
Court decision ID number: COU-143755

Court decisions: record details (return)

Country:
Title (English):
Date of document:
Type of document:
Court name:
Seat of court:
Justice(s):

Belize; France
The Grand Prince Case (Belize v. France)
20 April 2001
International court
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Hamburg
Rao Chandrasekhara; Nelson; Caminos; Rangel Marotta; Yankov; Yamamoto; Kolodkin; Park; Engo Bamela;
Mensah; Akl; Anderson; Vukas; Wolfrum; Treves; Marsit; Eiriksson; Ndiaye; Jesus; Cot
List of cases No. 8
http://www.itlos.org/cgi-bin/cases/case_detail.pl?id=7&lang=en
24
English

Reference number:
Available web site:
Number of pages:
Language of document:
Translation of
French
document:
Abstract: The Grand Prince was a fishing vessel. At the time of its arrest on 26 December 2000, it was flying the flag of
Belize.

The vessel had sailed from Durban, South Africa, early in December 2000 in order to fish for Patagonian toothfish
and lobster in the international waters of the Southern Ocean.

On 26 December 2000, the Grand Prince was boarded by the crew of a French surveillance frigate in the exclusiv
economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories. The Grand Prince was
escorted to Port-des-Galets, Runion.
A procs-verbal of violation was drawn up on 26 December 2000 against the Master of the Grand Prince for
having:

(a) fished without authorization in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands under French jurisdiction
(b) failed to announce his entry into the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands and to declare some
twenty tonnes of fish carried aboard.

Approximately 18 tonnes of toothfish were found on board. The Commander of the frigate recorded the
apprehension of the Grand Prince, the fishing gear, the electronic and electric fishing gear, the navigation and
communication equipment, the ships papers, and the fish catch.

In January 2001, the court of first instance (tribunal dinstance) at Saint-Paul confirmed the arrest of the Grand
Prince and declared that its release would be subject to the payment of a bond in the amount of 11,400,000 FF in
cash.

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that the vessel did not catch any fish inside the Kerguelen exclusive economi
zone and that the bond fixed by the court of first instance at Saint-Paul was not a "reasonable bond or other
security" within the meaning of article 73, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea i
terms of its amount, form or nature; and that the rejection on 22 February 2001 by the court of first instance at
Saint-Paul of the application for the release of the vessel upon presentation of a bank guarantee of 11,400,000 F
was in violation of the provisions of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Applicant requested the Tribunal to determine that France failed to comply with article 73
paragraph 2, of the Convention and that France should promptly release the vessel upon the posting of a bond or
other security to be determined by the Tribunal.
France contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application.
The Tribunal emphasized that it had to examine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the Application. More
specifically, it had to satisfy itself that the Application was "made on behalf of the flag State of the vessel", as
required by article 292, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

According to the provisional patent of navigation issued by the International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize o
16 October 2000, the owners of the vessel were the Paik Commercial Corporation of 35A Regent Street, Belize
City. According to the vessels certificate of class dated 23 June 1999, the owners of the vessel were NOYCAN B.L
-MOANA- VIGO, Spain.

On the basis of an overall assessment of the material placed before it, the Tribunal concluded that the
documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant failed to establish that Belize was the flag State of the vessel
when the Application was made. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction under article 292 of th
Convention to hear the Application.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not in a position to deal with the submissions of the parties on the meri
of the Application.
Subject(s): Fisheries; Legal questions; Sea
fishing area; fishing vessel; international agreement-text; legal proceedings/administrative proceedings; marine
Keyword(s):
area; marine fisheries; maritime zone
Court decision ID
COU-143752
number:

Ireland v. United Kingdom (MOX Plant Case)

The conflict between Ireland and the United Kingdom about the building and operation of the Mox Plant at Sellafield, on the
Irish Sea, dates back to 1993. The plant is designed to recycle the plutonium produced during the reprocessing of nuclear
fuel. Ireland contested this project since its beginning and requested access to information from the UK about the plant in
order to protect the marine environment of the Irish Sea.
Both states are parties to the two treaties addressing the issue of environmental information: the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic (OSPAR Convention). In 2001, Ireland commenced dispute settlement proceedings under these treaties.
Furthermore, it also applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) for provisional measures that would
restrain the UK from commissioning the plant. In this context, waiting for the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted
under the UNCLOS, the ITLOS prescribed a provisional measure in December 2001, ordering the parties to co-operate and
to engage in consultations, including the exchange of information, without further delay.
Ireland formally notified the Arbitral Tribunal of the withdrawal of its claim against the United Kingdom on 15 February 2007.
On 6 June 2008, the Tribunal issued Order No. 6 terminating proceedings.

The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration served as registry in the arbitration proceedings initiated
pursuant to Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Court decisions: record details (return)

Country:
Title (English):
Date of
document:
Type of
document:
Court name:
Seat of court:

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Guinea-Bissau

The Juno Trader Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea-Bissau)
18 December 2004
International court

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Hamburg
Nelson; Vukas; Caminos; Marotta Rangel; Yankov; Yamamoto; Kolodkin;
Justice(s): Park; Bamela Engo; Mensah; Chandrasekhara Rao; Akl; Anderson; Wolfrum;
Treves; Marsit; Ndiaye; Jesus; Xu; Cot; Lucky
Reference
Case No. 13
number:
Available web
http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2004/document_en_249.pdf
site:
Number of
35
pages:
Language of
English
document:
Translation of
French
document:
Abstract: The Juno Trader was a refrigerated cargo vessel flying the flag of Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines. It received a transshipment of 1,183 tones of
frozen fish to be discharged in Ghana. In September 2004, the Juno Trader
crossed into the EEZ of Guinea-Bissau at a distance of about 40 nautical mils
from the coast, unknown and undeclared to Guinea-Bissau. A navy vessel of
Guinea-Bissau arrested the Juno Trader and conducted it to the port of
Bissau, Guinea-Bissau. The respondent stated that the vessel had violated the
provisions of the fishing legislation of Guinea-Bissau. A fine was imposed on
the vessel and its Master.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines made an application under Article 292 of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea requesting the Tribunal to make several
orders.
The applicant requested, inter alia, a declaration that the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea had jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 292 of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 to hear the
Application, and a declaration that the Respondent had violated Article 73,
paragraph 2, of the Convention in that the conditions set by the Respondent
for the release from detention of the vessel Juno Trader and the release of
19 members of its crew were not authorized pursuant to Article 73, paragraph
2, and were not reasonable in terms of Article 73, paragraph 2. Furthermore
the applicant requested an order to release the Juno Trader from detention
and to release its officers and its crew.
Guinea-Bissau requested the Tribunal to declare, inter alia, that the
application was not well founded.
The Tribunal first examined the question of its jurisdiction in accordance with
Article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and held
that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application.
It analyzed Art. 73 Paragraph 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting
of reasonable bond or other security.

The applicant alleged that a bond in the amount of 50,000 euros, was posted, in the name of the ship-owner, with
the competent authorities of Guinea-Bissau and that [to] date, neither the release of the detained vessel nor of i
crew has been obtained.

The Tribunal examined the relevant factor for determining a reasonable bond and finally found that the allegation
made by the Applicant that the Respondent had not complied with the provisions of article 73, paragraph 2, of the
Convention for the prompt release of the Juno Trader and its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other
financial security was well-founded.

Furthermore, it decided that Guinea-Bissau should promptly release the Juno Trader, together with its cargo, upon
the posting of a bond or other security to be determined by the Tribunal, and that the crew should be free to leave
Guinea-Bissau without any conditions.
Subject(s): Fisheries
Keyword(s): court/tribunal; fishing area; fishing vessel; marine area; marine fisheries; maritime zone
Court decision ID
COU-143719
number:

Court decisions: record details (return)

Country:
Title (English):
Date of document:
Type of document:
Court name:
Seat of court:
Justice(s):
Reference number:
Link to full text:
Number of pages:
Language of document:
Translation of document:
Abstract:

Japan; Russian Federation

Hoshinmaru Case (Japan v. Russian Federation)
06 August 2007
International court
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Hamburg
Wolfrum, Akl,Caminos, Marotta Rangel, Yankov, Kolodkin, Park, Nelson, Chandrasekhara Rao, Treves, Ndiaye,
Jesus, Cot, Lucky, Pawlak, Yanai, Trk, Kateka, Hoffmann.
No. 14
COU-159684.pdf (English)
104
English
French
The Hoshinmaru was a fishing vessel flying the flag of Japan. On 14 May 2007, Russia provided the Hoshinmaru
with a fishing licence for drift net salmon and trout fishing in three different areas of its EEZ. According to the
fishing licence, the Hoshinmaru was authorized to fish, inter alia, 101.8 tons of sockeye salmon and 161.8 tons o
chum salmon. On 1 June 2007, a Russian patrol boat boarded the Hoshinmaru and arrested it after finding out
that approximately 20 000 kg of sockeye salmon had been recorded as cheaper chum salmon in the fishing log
and daily vessel report. Russia set a bond at 22 000 000 roubles (approximately US $862 000), taking the
following into account: (a) the maximum fine imposable on the master: 500 000 roubles; (b) the maximum fine
imposable on the owner: 2 001 364.05 roubles; (c) the procedural costs of 240 000 roubles; (d) penalty for
damages caused by illegal fishing or harvesting of protected marine living resources: 7 927 500 roubles; (e) the
value of the vessel: 11 350 000 roubles.

The key issue in this case was the gravity of the alleged offences. Japan maintained that the alleged offence was
not of the same degree of gravity as overfishing or fishing without a licence but falsely recording a catch that the
vessel was entitled to take under its licence; therefore, it was unreasonable to take account of the value of the
vessel when calculating the bond. Further, since the amount of sockeye salmon on board the Hoshinmaru was w
within the limit the vessel was licensed to fish, the sockeye salmon stock could not be considered to have been
damaged or endangered. According to Japan, the amount of the bond should not be more than 8 000 000 rouble
(approximately US $313 000) considering the potential penalties in this case. On the other hand, Russia
considered the offence to be a grave one, a classic manifestation of IUU fishing. Russia argued that fishing could
be legal only when it was carried out in compliance with all the applicable rules and norms established by the
coastal State, including timely and full reporting of data on species and amounts of the catch to its competent
bodies.

The ITLOS emphasized that the present case was different from cases it had previously dealt with, since this cas
did not entail fishing without a licencethe Hoshinmaru held a valid fishing licence and was authorized to be
present and to fish in the Russian EEZ, though it was of the view that the offence alleged should not be consider
as a minor offence or an offence of a purely technical nature. Although the ITLOS recognized that a violation of
the rules on reporting may be sanctioned by the detaining State, however, it did not consider it reasonable that
bond should be set on the basis of the maximum penalties which could be applicable to the owner and the Maste
nor does it consider it reasonable that the bond should be calculated on the basis of the confiscation of the vesse
given the circumstances of this case. For these reasons, the ITLOS determined that the bond of 22 000 000
roubles was not reasonable, and that the security should be in the total amount of 10 000 000 roubles.

Australia, Japan and New Zealand should each ensure that no action was taken which might prejudice the carryi
out of any decision on the merits which the arbitral tribunal may render.

Australia, Japan and New Zealand should resume negotiations without delay with a view to reaching agreement
measures for the conservation and management of southern bluefin tuna.
Subject(s): Fisheries; Sea
fishery management and conservation; marine fisheries; fishing licence; marine fishes; offences/penalties; data
Keyword(s):
collection/reporting
Court decision ID
COU-159684
number:

Brief Fact Summary. The Russian Federation (D) detained the Hoshinmaru a
Japanese registered ship, along with its crew because the Hoshinmaru violated a
fishing license which it had earlier issued. Japan (P) applied for the ships release.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The seriousness of an offense and the degree of

cooperation between the detaining nation and the nation seeking release must be
reflected by the amount of security to be posted by a nation seeking the release of a
fishing vessel flying its flag that has committed a reporting offense in the context of an
otherwise satisfactory cooperative framework.
Facts. The Hoshinamaru, a fishing ship registered in Japan with crews made up of
Japanese nationals, obtained a fishing license from the Russian Federation (D) which
permitted it to fish certain amounts of specified fish in its waters of exclusive economic
zone of the Russian Federation (D) including 101.8 tons of sockeye salmon and 161.8
tons of chum salmon. The offense of the Japanese was that the Russians discovered
sockeye salmon under the chum salmon and the master of the ship had declared 20
tons of sockeye as the cheaper salmon. Japan (D) applied to the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea for release of the ship and its crew after they were detained. The
Tribunal as part of its judgment determined the amount of the bond or other financial
security that Japan (P) would have to post to secure such release.

Issue. Must the seriousness of an offense and the degree of cooperation between the
detaining nation and the nation seeking release be reflected by the amount of security
to be posted by a nation seeking the release of a fishing vessel flying its flag that has
committed a reporting offense in the context of an otherwise satisfactory cooperative
framework?

Held. Yes. The seriousness of an offense and the degree of cooperation between the detaining
nation and the nation seeking release must be reflected by the amount of security to be posted
by a nation seeking the release of a fishing vessel flying its flag that has committed a reporting
offense

in

the

context

of

an

otherwise

satisfactory

cooperative

framework.

The rules set forth in the Convention and other rules of international law which are not
incompatible must by applied by the Tribunal in the determination of the appropriate amount,
nature and form of the bond or other financial security to be posted. Russia (P) did not take the
offense committed by the Japanese lightly because if they had not detected the fraudulent
activities of the Japanese, the 20 tons of sockeye would have been stolen and illegally taken out
of the exclusive economic zone. Hence, this justifies a bond of 22,000,000 rubles. But the
Japanese asserted that the offense they committed was not fishing without license or
overfishing but the falsification of the catch that the vessel was entitled to take under its license.
Although Russian (P) is right by applying and implementing such measures but the provisions of
article 61 paragraph 2 of the Convention should also be taken into account to ensure through
the proper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the living
resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation. Therefore,
based on these ground, the amount of security to be posted by Japan (D) should be 10,000,000
rubles, to be paid to the bank account chosen by the Russian Federation (D) or in a form of a
bank guarantee.

Discussion. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention)
is the Convention at issue in this case. Article 73(2) of the LOS Convention stipulates
that Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of
reasonable bond or other security. In this case, the depletion of marine life is taken into
consideration by the flag state seeking prompt release by the posting of a reasonable
security. The flag state should also serve to deter the plundering of the living resources
in the sea. The other sanctions a tribunal could order might include the installation of a
satellite tracking device on the detained vessel given the available technology. This is in
addition to the requirement of a bond or other financial security.
As previously noted, in early July Japan filed two applications with the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea seeking the prompt release by Russia of two fishing vessels (the "88th Hoshinmaru" and the "53rd
Tomimaru") and their crew. On Monday, August 6, the Tribunal issued its judgments in these cases. In the
"Hoshinmaru" Case, the court found the application well-founded and ordered the prompt release of the
vessel upon the posting of a 10 million rouble bond. In the "Tomimaru" Case, the court found that the
application was without object because the vessel had been confiscated in accordance with Russian law and
domestic judicial remedies concerning the confiscation had been exhausted.

The M/V Louisa Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.

Kingdom of Spain)
Pubblicato il 31 maggio 2013 da Eirianna Sklavounaki

On 28 May 2013, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea delivered
its judgmenton The M/V Louisa Case between Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and
the Kingdom of Spain. The Tribunal found, by 19 votes to 2, that no dispute concerning
the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(LOSC) existed between the Parties at the time of the filing of the Application and that,
therefore, it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain the case.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned the detention of the vessel M/V Louisa, flying the flag of Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, by the Spanish authorities. Between 20 August and 29
October 2004 the vessel was allegedly conducting surveys of the sea floor in the internal
waters and territorial sea of Spain with a view to locating oil and gas deposits, on the
basis of a permit issued by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment.
Voluntarily docked at the port of El Puerto de Santa Mara from 29 October 2004, the
M/V Louisa was boarded, searched and detained by the Spanish authorities on 1
February 2006. Pursuant to Spain, during the search of the vessel, diverse pieces of
undersea archaeological origin were found, as well as five assault rifles, considered
weapons of war, and a handgun. As the M/V Louisa was the instrument for carrying
out the crime of possession and depositing of weapons of war and the continued crime
of damaging Spanish historical patrimony, it was seized on the basis of an indictment
issued by the Court of Criminal Investigation No. 4 of Cadiz. Four persons were also
arrested. On the same day, the Spanish authorities detained another vessel dry docked
at Puerto Sherry, the Gemini III, which served as a tender to the M/V Louisa and
whose place of registration was uncertain.
On 23 November 2010 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines filed with the Tribunal
anApplication instituting proceedings against Spain. On the same day, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines submitted a Request for the prescription of provisional measures

under Article 290 (1) LOSC, in which the Tribunal was requested, inter alia, to order
Spain to release the M/V Louisa and return the property seized. In its Order of 23
December 2010, the Tribunal found that the circumstances did not warrant the
prescription of provisional measures, but it held that it had prima facie jurisdiction over
the dispute.
The Judgment of 28 May 2013
While both states are contracting parties to the LOSC and therefore bound by Part XV
LOSC on the settlement of disputes by binding means, they disagreed as to whether the
Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Tribunal was therefore called upon
to rule on a number of issues.
In the first place, the Tribunal had to interpret the unilateral declaration made by Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines in accordance with Article 287 LOSC. Taking into account
the intention of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Tribunal found that the
declaration covered all claims connected with the arrest or detention of its vessels.
However, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the Gemini III.
Although it served as a tender to the M/V Louisa for a particular period of time, it did
not fly the Applicants flag and continued to work independently from the M/V Louisa.
Therefore, it had its own identity and could not be subject to the scope of the
declaration.
Furthermore, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had argued that the Tribunals decision
onprima facie jurisdiction in its Order of 23 December 2010 offered ample support in
favour of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the merits of the case. The
Tribunal held that the question of jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case could
be decided only after consideration of the written and oral proceedings and not on the
basis of the decision it took on prima facie jurisdiction in connection with the Request
for the prescription of provisional measures.
The main part of the judgment addressed the existence of a dispute concerning the
interpretation or application of the LOSC. The Tribunal noted that the case before it had
two aspects. The first aspect related to the detention of the vessel and the persons
connected therewith, as presented by the Applicant in its written submissions on the
basis of Articles 73 (Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State), 87
(Freedom of the high seas), 226 (Investigation of foreign vessels), 227 (Non-

discrimination with respect to foreign vessels) and 245 (Marine scientific research in the
territorial sea) LOSC. Article 303 LOSC (Archaeological and Historical Objects Found at
Sea) initially invoked by the applicant, was later dismissed as a typographical error. The
second aspect of the case related to the treatment of the persons taken into custody by
the Spanish authorities and the alleged abuse of their rights under Article 300 LOSC
(Good faith and abuse of rights).
The Tribunal found that Articles 73, 226 and 227 LOSC could not serve as a basis for the
claims submitted by the Applicant. The vessel was detained neither for violations of
Spanish laws and regulations concerning living resources in the exclusive economic
zone, nor for violation of applicable laws and regulations or international rules and
standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Rather, it was
detained in the context of criminal proceedings relating to the plunder of underwater
cultural heritage and possession of weapons of war in Spanish territory. For the same
reason, the Tribunal reached the same conclusion concerning Article 245, dealing with
marine scientific research.
The Applicant had also contended that Spain violated Article 87 LOSC, namely the
freedom of navigation of the M/V Louisa, because the vessel was denied access to the
high seas. The Tribunal pointed out that Article 87 LOSC could not be interpreted in
such a way as to grant the M/V Louisa a right to leave the port and gain access to the
high seas.
Moreover, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines claimed that the boarding of the M/V
Louisa without the prior permission of its captain or of the Consul of Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines violated general international law and Article 561 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of Spain. The Tribunal stressed that there is no provision in the
LOSC requiring a port State to notify the flag State or to obtain the authorisation of the
flag State or of the master of a foreign vessel operated for commercial purposes before
boarding and searching such a vessel docked at its port. Further, it highlighted that it
was not incumbent upon it to determine whether Spain violated Article 561 of its Code
of Criminal Procedure by boarding the M/V Louisa without authorisation.
Finally, referring to Article 300 LOSC concerning the alleged abuse of rights of the
persons detained by the Spanish authorities, the Tribunal noted that this argument was
introduced for the first time by the Applicant during the oral proceedings. The Tribunal

held that it is a legal requirement that any new claim to be admitted must arise directly
out of the application or be implicit in it and that the dispute brought before the
Tribunal by an application cannot be transformed into another dispute which is
different in character. Therefore, Article 300 LOSC could not serve as a legal basis for
the Applicants claim.
While the Tribunal decided that there was no dispute involving the LOSC, it provided
some useful comments regarding the interpretation of Articles 87 and 300 LOSC. It
clarified that the freedom of navigation enshrined in Article 87 LOSC applies only to the
high seas, and partly to the exclusive economic zone through Article 58 (1) LOSC. It does
not include the right of the flag state to have access to the high seas to enjoy that
freedom. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that Article 300 LOSC cannot be invoked on its
own in case of abuse of human rights including property rights, but only when the
rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognised in the LOSC are exercised in an abusive
manner. However, the Tribunal took note of the issues of human rights as presented by
the Applicant and highlighted that States are required to fulfil their obligations under
international law, in particular human rights law, and that considerations of due process
of law must be applied in all circumstances.