La Boussole - French Shipping Bulletin - March 2021
The HFW Paris Shipping team is pleased to present the very first issue of La Boussole, a newsletter dedicated to French shipping law.
La Boussole means "compass", and like a compass, we hope that La Boussole will help you navigate through some of the key changes that impact the French maritime legal sector by explaining and bringing to your attention relevant new legislation and case-law. As you will see, this newsletter covers a wide variety of maritime law issues such as maritime employment law, insurance law, regulatory, admiralty, criminal law and transport which are inter alia the specialities covered by our shipping team in Paris. This letter also contains a review of the most recent case law rendered by French Courts which may affect your Business.
We intend to send new issues of La Boussole on a regular basis. We hope that you will find it helpful. Should you have any comments or suggestions which you feel we should integrate to improve this newsletter, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Covid-19 has drastically limited our contact over the last year so we hope that La Boussole will enable us to reconnect and perhaps provide us with an opportunity to see you in person soon.
The latest in Maritime Employment Law
Several new developments in French employment law have implications for the maritime industry:
"Activité partielle": The reduced activity scheme compensates earning losses suffered by workers due to the reduction in their working time under the legal, conventional or contractual duration while helping employers to fund this compensation. The scheme existed prior to the COVID epidemic but was extended in March 2020 to avoid redundancies further to the lockdown. The public allowance received by the employer was increased to 70% of the employee's gross hourly pay (with a minimum hourly rate of €8.03 and a maximum hourly rate of €45.67). The compensation rate is now set at 60% of the gross salary, instead of the previous 70%. However, in sectors subject to particular legislative or regulatory restrictions due to the health crisis (such as tourism, hotels and restaurants, sea carriage of passengers and cross channel transport) the compensation rate will remain at 70% until 30 June 2021 (Decree n° 2020-810 of 29 June 2020 amended on 21 décembre 2020 and on 28 February 2021).
Health and Safety: Any breach of the duty of care of the employer in relation to safety amounts to a "faute inexcusable" if the employer was aware of the risk incurred by the employee and did not take the appropriate measures to protect its employees. In a recent ruling, the French Supreme Court has extended the definition of "faute inexcusable" to include expressly the health protection. The Court held that failure to comply with the employer's legal obligation to ensure the safety and the health protection of the employee is a "faute inexcusable" when the employer was or should have been aware of the danger to which the employee was exposed and did not take the necessary measures or took ineffective measures to protect him or her. (Cour de Cassation, 8 October 2020, n°18-25.021 and 18-26.677).
MLC: On 26 December 2020, the 2018 amendments to the MLC, 2006 entered into force. Their implementation will ensure that seafarers held captive as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships will continue to receive their wages and entitlements regardless of whether the expiry date of the SEA has passed or any termination notice has been issued. Shipowners must review their policies, procedures and SEAs and/or any applicable collective bargaining agreements to ensure compliance with the amendments. The flag state should also be consulted on the impact of the amendment on the MLC certificate for ships and on the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC). The amendment is not yet in force in France, which will be bound by it only after a subsequent express notification of their acceptance.
SRPS: The government order 2021-77 dated 27 January 2021 has amended the Labour Court provisions relating to the Services of Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers (SRPC) in France. SRPS companies can now recruit seafarers for fishing vessels flying the French flag (first registry) operating in fishing zones, covered by an agreement or an authorization under the Common Fisheries Policy and containing social provision (such as provisions related to embarkation of seafarers from the Contracting Coastal State). In addition, as from 1st July 2021, the obligation to provide a financial security or insurance will be extended to SRPS agencies recruiting seafarers on behalf of employers, where it was formally required for placement services only. This financial security or insurance will have to cover the monetary loss that the Seafers may incur as a result of the failure of the recruitment and placement service or of the shipowner to meet their obligations. The Government should also take an application decree on the minimum limit of coverage. France was required to make these amendments by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021).
Teleworking: On 26 November 2020, a new national agreement ("Accord National Interprofessionel") on teleworking was signed between the employers’ and employees’ trade unions. It completes the existing national agreement signed in 2005 and confirms inter alia that teleworking requires the consent of both the employee and the employer, except in exceptional circumstances. The employers must assess the health risks and control the employee’s workload. On 3 February 2021, the French Ministry of Labor has confirmed that the new agreement should soon be mandatory for all employers.
Working time: In a ruling dated 29 October 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal considered that the 35 hours per week should apply to yacht crewmembers and should be entitled to overtime compensation for all overtime hours above 35 hours per week. The Court of appeal did not take into consideration the fact that the 35 hours per week are expressly excluded by the Code des transports and that the 2005 Decree (implementing the ILO Convention n°180 on Seafarers' Hours of Work) provide that normal working hours are based on an eight-hour day, in the absence of Collective Bargaining Agreement. We have commented this decision in the February issue of the Droit Maritime Français.
New developments in French maritime case law
We have selected a few interesting decisions recently issued by the French Courts.
Foreign lawyers are often surprised when told that French law does not impose any duty to mitigate. This is regularly reaffirmed by the French Courts and was again stated in a shipping matter recently. The Owner of a vessel filed a claim against the motorist for warranty against hidden defects and compensation for its loss of earning resulting from downtime as after sustaining a breakdown, the vessel had remained unrepaired for more than two years. The Court of Appeal held the seller liable, but rejected part of the claim for loss of earnings by considering that the Owner should have undertaken repairs in respect of its vessel in the shortest possible time. The French Supreme Court quashed this decision and held that the buyer seeking to enforce its right under a warranty for hidden defects can obtain full compensation for its loss resulting from these defects, without being required to mitigate its loss in the interest of the liable party.
Tribunal de commerce de Nanterre, 1ère chambre civile, 16 septembre 2020, n° 2018F01195
The improvement of weather forecast technologies makes "acts of God" more and more foreseeable. What impact does it have on the application of the Hague Visby excepted perils? Following cargo damaged in August 2017 resulting from the Hato typhoon in Guangzhou, a French importer sought recovery from the commissionnaire (freight forwarder) Geodis, who filed an indemnity claim against the carrier CMA CGM. The defendants claimed that they were exonerated from any liability on the basis of article 4.2 of the 1924 Brussels Convention (the Hague Rules) according to which, the carrier is not liable for loss or damage resulting from perils, dangers or accidents at sea and from any other cause not arising from the act or fault of the carrier. The consignee refuted this argument on the ground that this typhoon was forecasted, that China is frequently affected by typhoons, and that it did not therefore constitute a force majeure event, which requires that such event be unforeseeable. The Commercial Court held that the typhoon in this case was of "exceptional intensity", which made it a peril of the sea and a cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, i.e. an excepted peril under the Hague Rules.
French law provides for automatic subrogation of the insurers upon payment of insurance proceeds. Yet demonstrating or challenging insurers' title to sue remains a tricky game. In a case relating to the theft of a road-transported cargo, a cargo insurer had filed a claim against the commissionnaire (freight forwarder) on the basis of an assignment of rightsentered into by the cargo owner. The defendants contended that by instituting the legal subrogation of rights, the French legislator's intention was to deprive parties to an insurance policy from entering into an assignment of rights. The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, finding that the insured was entitled to assign its right to its insurer.
The reason why the insurer was assigned rather than subrogated in this case is unknown, but an advantage of assignment can be noted: whereas the transfer of rights resulting from subrogation is limited to the amount paid by the subrogated insurer, an assignment of rights can operate for the full amount of the claim, even though it may be higher than the amount paid by the assignee. In addition, the burdensome formal notification by bailiff of assignments of rights is no longer required; the 2016 contract law reform only requires providing evidence that the debtor has notice of it, to make the transfer of rights enforceable against it.
New decision in the "AZURA", the first French case that has given rise to criminal decisions on ship sulphur emissions. In 2018, the Ship Safety Centre in Marseilles carried out an inspection of the fuel consumed by a cruise ship. As the sulphur content was not in compliance with legislation, a claim was brought against the Master which resulted in him being convicted of air pollution by a criminal court. He was fined €100,000, and the shipowner was held liable to pay 80% of this sanction. On appeal, the Master was acquitted, because he had followed the company's instructions and therefore had no criminal intent. Although the search for criminal intent was praised by commentators of the decision, some of them pointed out the leniency of the Court, who seemed to have considered that the Master had no personal duty to be aware of the legislative framework. The prosecutor lodged an appeal in cassation. The search for criminal intent was not criticised but the decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed by the French Supreme Court which considered that, being responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew, for the protection of the environment and security, and as such being personally responsible for knowing and enforcing the rules relating to pollution by discharges from ships, the Master had to ensure that the fuel consumed complied with the legislation.
French Supreme Court hands down ruling on a sailing regatta organiser's exposure to liability for onboard personal injury.
On 25 November 2020, the French Supreme Court ("Cour de cassation") handed down a landmark decision on the extent of a sailing regatta organiser's obligation, as well as that of their insurers, to supervise sea rescue efforts and provide regatta participants with information and advice as to their insurance policy in their respect. This judgment marks a significant overhaul in Cour de cassation case-law.
In the midst of a trans-Atlantic sailing regatta from La Rochelle to Quebec organised by a French local sailing club, one of the participants onboard the sailboat "Motus" was severely injured by being hit by the mast during a manoeuver and consequently became quadriplegic.
The injured party then brought a claim for compensation before the French Courts from both the owner of the Motus and the sailing club organising the regatta. This claim resulted in a 10-year extensive legal debate on (i) whether the organiser of a regatta is responsible for organising the sea rescue efforts in case of any accidents occurring during its event; and (ii) the extent of the latter's insurance coverage.
In accordance with French case-law, the First Instance Court and the Court of Appeal of Bordeaux firstly considered that both the owner and the sailing club were jointly and severally liable for the loss sustained aboard the boat following the accident. It was held that the sailing club did not provide the participants with enough information and advice on the scope and effectiveness of their insurance coverage in their respect. The owner of the boat also argued that the sailing club was required to guarantee the safety of all participants during the whole journey across the Atlantic Ocean.
This position was questionable from the sailing club's perspective given that once the boats had departed and were navigating on their own in the middle of the ocean, it had no control over the navigation choices of the sailors.
The Cour de cassation settled this question by stating that, even though the organiser of a nautical event is required to set up an operational structure for rescues at the starting point and at the arrival of the sailing regatta, it cannot be responsible for organising the rescue efforts during the race. The sailing club was therefore not held liable for failing to arrange the prompt rescue of the Motus' sailor.
Another very interesting point that arose from this decision is that the Cour de cassation shed some light on the extent of sailing clubs' duties in terms of insurance. The Cour de cassation held that if the organiser of a maritime nautical event is required to inform the participants of the existence, the scope and the effectiveness of its insurance coverage in their respect so that they can, if necessary, subscribe to additional individual insurance cover for their own loss or liability, its obligation to provide information does not cover the extent and effectiveness of the individual liability insurance taken out by the skipper, who must himself ensure that the insurance coverage is appropriate. Thus, the owner of the sailboat cannot seek to hold the organiser liable for any error he may have made in respect of his own insurance coverage.
As a consequence, the sailing club was discharged from any and all liability and the owner of the boat was held to be solely liable for the litigious accident.
This decision paves the way towards more certainty for insurers of nautical events in terms of necessary coverages for onboard personal injury risks related to such events.
Contracts of sea carriage
The enforceability of a BL jurisdiction clause remains an issue given rise to much debate before the French Courts. The alignment in the case law of the First civil Chamber and the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation in 2008, regarding the enforceability of such a clause against the consignee, had suggested that litigation on BL jurisdiction clauses would dry up. It must however be said that it has not, and this topics continues to give rise to various and sometimes conflicting decisions.
In a case that gave rise to a decision of the Cour de cassation on 30 September 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal had overruled the first instance decision and decided that a commissionaire de transport was not bound by the jurisdiction clause of a Maersk bill of lading. The Court considered that the carrier had failed to prove the existence and content of the jurisdiction clause (due to the cyber-attack sustained the year before, Maersk was not able to disclose a legible copy of the reverse side of the BL, and the Court gave little regard to the online terms). The Court also considered that the choice on jurisdiction of the High Court of London was not systematic in contracts of carriage by sea, so such clause could not be considered as a customary in international trade. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the carrier was not entitled to rely on that clause (CA Paris Ch. 5.5, 4 April 2019, n° 18-24285). As pointed out by Pr. Bloch in the DMF (Nº 830, Dec. 2020, p. 1006), this decision is hardly understandable. It is well known (and especially by a commissionaire de transport) that Maersk's general terms and conditions of carriage, reproduced on the back of all its bills of lading and on its website, have long and unambiguously provided for the jurisdiction of the High Court in London.
This matter also raised the issue on the meaning of a custom in international trade. Does it require a practice followed unanimously, as considered by the Court of Appeal, or only by a large number of practitioners, as this was admitted for the custom of providing for the jurisdiction of the Courts where the carrier is established? In shipping, does the custom relate to the choice of such or such Court, or is it to provide for a jurisdiction clause in small characters on the back of the BL and on the terms available on the carrier's website (where they are more easily readable)? Unfortunately, the Cour de cassation decided not to address this interesting issue, considering that the argument was superfluous (Cass., 1ère Ch. civ., 30 Sept. 2020, n° 19-16.866).
In another case, which recently gave rise to a decision of its international chamber, the Paris Court of Appeal adopted a much more practical approach. The dispute opposed cargo insurers and a Korean carrier, who sought to rely on a clause in its terms and conditions granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Korean Courts. In order to contest the enforcement the clause, cargo insurers argued that in a previous matter involving the same parties, the Court of Appeal (in this case Chamber 2-5) had held that the clause of the bill of lading was not readable. They also argued that the clause had not been accepted by the cargo receiver, in whose rights they were subrogated. The Court held that a jurisdiction clause is usually inserted in bills of lading by international maritime carriers, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the jurisdiction in which the carrier has its registered office, and of which transport professionals are fully aware. The disputed clause inserted in the text on the reverse of the BL was legible in a typography similar to that of other clauses inserted in other bills of lading so that the clause need not be set aside on this ground. Under Korean law, designated by the choice of law clause in the BL, the company which took delivery of the cargo and suffered the loss is the actual consignee of the goods entrusted by the shipper to the carrier under the bills of lading, of which it was the holder, irrespective of its status as notify or consignee. As such, under Korean law, the receiver had succeeded in the rights of the shipper. The jurisdiction clause was therefore binding on the receiver and on the subrogated cargo insurers (CA Paris, ch. com. int., 8 Dec. 2020, n° 19-18298).
Mona Dejean, Senior Associate and François Dainelli, Associate
Regulatory update: Cybersecurity for the shipping industry
On 16 June 2017, the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee adopted resolution MSC.428 (98) which sets out the first regulatory framework concerning cybersecurity for the shipping industry.
This resolution requires ships to assess their cyber risk in Safety Management Systems, at the latest during the first annual verification of the company's Document of Compliance following 1 January 2021. This is the date on which the resolution comes into force, requiring shipowners of vessels over 500 GT to have integrated cyber security measures into their Safety Management Systems at this date. Shipowners must be able to evidence that they can identify, protect against, respond to a cyber-event and restore systems if necessary to ensure continuity of shipping operations, by following the BIMCO recommendations (Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Restore from the NIST cybersecurity framework) and the IMO Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3). Shipowners will be able to evidence such capacities with specific documentation in several areas: crew training and awareness; equipment knowledge and mapping; shipowners' risk analysis; fleet cybersecurity policy; equipment operating procedures, maintenance and incident management. Flag States will be responsible for implementing the proper handling of cyber risks during the verification stage of compliance documents.
In order to coordinate and face these expanding cyber security challenges, the French shipping industry witnessed the birth of a new organisation on 17 November 2020. The France Cyber Maritime Association was created to "meet the needs of the maritime and port sectors with regard to maritime cybersecurity issues, in a context of increased digitization of ships and ports, the development of unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous vessels, and the increase in cyber threats to this strategic sector for France and Europe". The aim of the association is twofold to rapidly set up an operational team called Maritime Computer Emergency Response Team, which will be responsible for centralizing and coordinating cybersecurity incidents and promoting information sharing to enable the shipping industry actors to anticipate new threats and to contribute to the development of the national maritime cybersecurity ecosystem by bringing together maritime and cybersecurity stakeholders and by strengthening the offering of cybersecurity services suited to the sector (analysis, consulting, expertise, training, etc.).
For more information :
- RESOLUTION MSC.428(98), adopted on 16 June 2017
- GUIDELINES ON MARITIME CYBER RISK MANAGEMENT – MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3 – 5 July 2017
- BIMCO Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships :
Available on BIMCO's website
Erwan Briant, Associate
Environmental Criminal Law: Expected reforms and new means for the French environmental justice
On 23 November 2020, the Ministers of Justice and Ecological Transition announced the enactment of new environmental offences and the implementation of new means for enforcing environmental justice, following on from the work carried out by the Citizens' Climate Convention – a working group of citizens randomly selected amongst the French population.
A bill should now be presented to the Council of Ministers on 29 January 2021, the flagship provision of which will undoubtedly be the offence of "ecocide" which is yet to be defined by the French Parliament. However, we already understand that it is meant to punish the most serious environmental offences.
Further offences will be added to the French legislative arsenal, including the endangerment of the environment - modelled on the offence of endangering the life of others - and a general offence of air, soil and water pollution, the punishment of which will depend on the degree of intent of its perpetrator and whether or not the damage caused is long-lasting or irreversible. This offence seems to be directly inspired by the texts of the Environmental French Code punishing maritime pollution, which necessarily raises questions on the relationship between these different punitive instruments.
Awaiting the implementation of the new law relating to environmental offences, additional means have already been made available to the judicial authorities to prosecute environmental offences. Law n°2020-1672 of 24 December 2020 has created, within the jurisdiction of each court of appeal, a specialised unit made up of magistrates receiving specific training on environmental issues. Although specialised jurisdictions already exist in France in the area of maritime pollution, the 24 December 2020 law will supplement the existing arrangements by also establishing specialised chambers to handle civil claims relating to environmental damage, which are usually presented by the victims of pollution in the course of the criminal trial.
The main innovation of the 24 December 2020 law is the creation of a mechanism for a judicial settlement agreement for environmental matters (" convention judiciaire d'intérêt public"). This procedure allows a company to agree to a settlement with the Public Prosecutor when serious environmental offences have been committed. It also provides a formal framework enabling the companies being prosecuted to put an end to criminal prosecution in return for the performance of a number of obligations.
These obligations will generally consist in the implementation of a compliance program under the control of the French authorities, compensation for the environmental damage caused and the payment of a fine up to 30% of the average turnover of the company subject to prosecution.
The transformation of French environmental criminal law is underway.
Michael Bekkali, Associate
Publication of 10 Prefectoral Decrees relating to the Mooring and Stopping of ships of 24 metres in length and over on the Mediterranean coast (Alpes-Maritimes, Var, Bouches-du-Rhône, Pyrénées Orientales).
Since 14 October 2020, the Préfecture Maritime de Méditerranée has published a series of 10 Prefectoral Decrees relating to the mooring and stopping of ships of 24 metres and over on the Mediterranean coast, covering an area extending from the Italian border to the Baie de la Ciotat and the department of Pyrénées Orientales (the "Implementing Decrees")1.
It should be noted that for the zone extending from the mouth of the Var River to the limit between the French, Monegasque and Italian territorial waters, the Decree applies to ships of 20 metres and over.
These Application Decrees set out, for the areas concerned, how to implement Prefectoral Decree n° 123/2019 of 3rd June 2019 setting the general framework for mooring and stopping ships in the French internal and territorial waters of the Mediterranean (the "Framework Decree"). That Decree defines the "mooring" and "stopping" of ships, sets out the general principles governing them in the internal and territorial waters of the Mediterranean, excluding certain zones, in particular the mooring and light equipment zones ("ZMEL"), which are the subject of separate governing rules and regulations (inter-prefectoral orders and police regulations).
Article 6.2 of the Framework Decree provides that " it is thus prohibited to anchor in an area corresponding to the habitat of protected marine plant species when this action is likely to harm them", which is aimed in particular at Posidonia meadows, considered to be the "lungs of the Mediterranean".
Until the adoption of the Framework Decree and the subsequent Application Decrees, the mooring of pleasure craft under 45 metres was free.
From now on, it follows from all the regulations applicable to mooring currently in force that:
- Vessels over 24 metres (or 20 metres for the zone going from the Var River to the Italian border) are only authorised to moor beyond the zones specified by the respective Application Decrees, but the following remains permissible:
- mooring to a mooring post or buoy benefiting from an AOT issued by the Prefect of the department, qualified as "a stop in navigation" (and not mooring) by the Framework Decree,
- stopping by dynamic positioning, but only beyond the 300-metre coastal band and provided that the dynamic positioning device has been approved by the flag State or classification society of the ship.
It should be noted that mooring in mooring and light equipment zones (ZMEL) is not mentioned in the Application Orders.
- Vessels over 45 metres must, in addition to complying with the provisions set out above, declare their intention to moor at the semaphore concerned, specifying in particular the duration of their mooring. Unless otherwise decided by the administrative authority and communicated to the master of the ship, the mooring shall be deemed to be authorised2.
- Pleasure craft over 80 metres in length must, in addition to complying with the provisions detailed above, obtain an authorisation from CROSS MED before mooring3.
Finally, ships required to carry an automatic identification system (AIS) must keep it in permanent operation when at sea, including when at anchor or stationary4.
Penalties applicable in the event of failure to comply with the Implementing Decrees
According to Article 8 of the Framework Decree, infringements of the implementing orders expose their perpetrators to three different types of sanctions:
- a 1st-class fine, amounting to 38 €, provided for by Articles 113-13 and R.610-5 of the Penal Code;
- a withdrawal of the French navigating licence, or, for persons who do not have a French licence, a temporary or permanent ban on sailing from French ports or in French territorial waters in the event of non-compliance with police regulations relating to maritime navigation5;
- a penalty of one year's imprisonment and 150.000 € fine for a person onboard a non-complying vessel , up to the outer limit of French territorial waters, "with the regulations issued by the Minister in charge of the sea and the maritime prefects relating to (i) zones or periods where navigation is prohibited, of anchorage or certain activities, enacted to ensure the safety of navigation or the maintenance of public order at sea" as well as "the special instructions of the Maritime Prefects and the orders of the CROSS officers and the officers in charge of the navigation police, relating to the safety of maritime navigation".6
Article L.5243-6 of the Transport Code, also referred to in Article 5 of the Implementing Decrees, provides that when an infringement of Article L.5242-2 of the Transport Code is established by an officer or agent of the judicial police, the latter may apprehend the vessel used to commit the infringement.
If the perpetrator of the offence is unable to provide proof of residence or employment on French territory, the vessel may be diverted to a more appropriate port or position and then be detained. The costs of detaining the vessel shall be borne by the offender. The decision to detain may be contested before the " Juge des Libertés et de la Détention".
The penalties provided for in the Transport Code are therefore particularly severe.
- These are the Decrees n°204/2020, n°205/2020, n°206/2020 relating to the Maritime Alps published on October 14, 2020, the Decree n°221/2020 relating to the Eastern Pyrenees published on November 5, 2020, the Decrees n°245/2020, n°246/2020, n°247/2020, n°248/2020, and n°249/2020 relating to the areas from the Old Port of Saint Raphaël to Cap Céret in Saint-Mandrier published on 15 December 2020, and Decree n° 11/2021 published on 25 January 2021 relating to the Bay of la Ciotat (Bouches-du-Rhône)
- In accordance with Prefectoral Decree n° 155/2016 regulating the mooring of ships in the French internal and territorial waters of the Mediterranean, applicable to units with a gross tonnage greater than or equal to 300 (UMS) or with a length greater than or equal to 45 metres.
- In accordance with Prefectoral decree n° 155/2016 regulating the mooring of ships in the French internal and territorial waters of the Mediterranean, applicable to units with a gross tonnage greater than or equal to 300 (UMS) or with a length greater than or equal to 45 metres.
- In accordance with Prefectoral decree n° 155/2016 regulating the mooring of ships in the French internal and territorial waters of the Mediterranean, applicable to units with a gross tonnage greater than or equal to 300 (UMS) or with a length greater than or equal to 45 metres.
- In accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Decree no. 2007-1167 of 2 August 2007 relating to navigating licences and training for the operation of motorised pleasure craft.
- Article L.5242-2 of the French Code on Transports
Hélène de Ferrières, Associate
We are working with clients across our international network to help them minimise the impact of COVID-19 on their business and to prepare for what's next. To find out more, visit our dedicated Covid-19 hub.