The seizure of bunkers, i.e. the fuel needed to propel a ship or aircraft, is a particularly formidable enforcement measure for a debtor. Seemingly simple, this procedure in fact immobilises a valuable asset and paralyses a commercial operation. It raises complex legal issues, at the crossroads of ordinary seizure law and the very specific regimes of transport law. Understanding its mechanisms is therefore essential both for creditors seeking to recover their debt and for shipowners or airlines wishing to defend themselves against it. The assistance of a lawyer who is an expert in enforcement procedures is often a decisive factor in navigating this technical field.
Introduction to the seizure of bunkers and its legal particularities
Definition of bunkers and their economic importance
Bunkers are the reserves of fuel (fuel oil, paraffin) stored on board a ship or aircraft to keep it running and moving. Their economic value is far from negligible, but their strategic importance is even greater. Without fuel, a ship is immobilised in dock, an aircraft grounded. The entire commercial operation that depends on it, whether transporting goods or passengers, comes to an instant halt. It is this direct consequence that makes the seizure of bunkers such a powerful lever for a creditor.
The principle of excluding bunker seizures from the general survey (reminder)
As a general rule, the seizure of a debtor's assets is governed by the ordinary law of civil enforcement procedures. Transported goods, for example, are seized in accordance with the rules governing conventional seizures of movable property. However, case law has gradually extracted the seizure of bunkers from this general framework and applied a special regime, taking the view that their fate is closely linked to that of the means of transport itself.
Specificity of the legal regime and link with the detention of the vessel or aircraft
The fundamental feature of the bunker seizure regime is its effect. Although the measure only materially targets the fuel, in practice it results in the complete immobilisation of the ship or aircraft. Case law has therefore held that seizing the bunkers is tantamount to seizing the means of transport. Consequently, such a measure could not be governed by ordinary law but had to follow the special and protective rules laid down for the seizure of ships and aircraft, which are considered to have a legal nature in their own right.
Preventive seizure of ship bunkers: case law and foundations
Major decision by the Court of Cassation (Com. 13 Jan. 1998)
A turning point was marked by a decision of the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 13 January 1998. In this case, the high court refused to treat the protective seizure of bunkers as an ordinary seizure of movable property. It ruled that the fuel could not be considered as mere movable property separate from the ship, but as one of its constituent parts, essential to its primary function: navigation.
Bunkers are considered to be part of the ship and subject to the specific regime for the seizure of ships
By classifying bunkers as part of the ship, the Cour de cassation has logically subjected their seizure to the specific legal regime of seizure of ships. This solution, dictated by pragmatism, recognises that depriving a ship of its fuel is tantamount to immobilising it. It was therefore consistent to apply the same rules of procedure and jurisdiction, in particular to designate the judge able to authorise such a measure. Bunkers are thus treated not as a commodity, but as an essential accessory of the ship.
The consequences of detaining the vessel by seizing the bunkers
The application of the ship seizure regime has important consequences. The procedure is more formal and offers specific guarantees to the debtor. Above all, it recognises that the seizure of fuel is a serious measure that paralyses the operation of the vessel, resulting in considerable financial losses (parking fees, late payment penalties, crew salaries, etc.). This formidable effectiveness makes it a weapon of choice for the creditor, who can thus exert maximum pressure on the shipowner to obtain payment or a guarantee.
Distinction from the ordinary law of seizure of movable property and legal challenges
Despite the clear position of the Cour de cassation, this assimilation of bunkers to ships has not been without resistance. Some trial courts have sometimes tried to revert to applying the ordinary law on attachment of movables, arguing, for example, that the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures should prevail. This was the case in a ruling by the Douai Court of Appeal on 18 April 2014, which, in determining the amount of security to be provided to obtain release of the seizure, held that this should correspond to the value of the bunkers and not the amount of the claim, thus reasoning on the basis of a conventional attachment of movable property. These decisions illustrate the continuing tension and demonstrate the technical complexity of the issue.
Precautionary seizure of aircraft bunkers: a parallel system
Initial problems and differences of interpretation (T. com. Bobigny vs. Cour d'appel de Paris)
The same question has arisen in the air transport sector, giving rise to contradictory judicial interpretations. Initially, the Bobigny Commercial Court, in an order dated 29 April 2003, opted to apply the ordinary law of sequestration. The consular judges considered that the fuel, owned and managed by the operator, constituted a separate item from the aircraft and should therefore be seized like ordinary movable property.
Recognition of fuel as a necessary accessory for aircraft (Paris, 7 May 2003)
This view was quickly contradicted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a ruling dated 7 May 2003. In overturning the order, the Court adopted a reasoning similar to that used for ships. It noted that the main and immediate effect of seizing the paraffin was to immobilise the aircraft. It added that the fuel constituted "a necessary accessory to the operation of the aircraft" and that it belonged "to the category of elements that give it its ability to circulate". The fuel and the aircraft thus formed a single "legal unit".
Application of the special aircraft seizure rules to the seizure of aircraft bunkers
The logical conclusion of this reasoning was to extend the special regime for seizure of aircraft to the seizure of their bunkers. This solution, which is now well established, ensures legal consistency between the maritime and aviation sectors. It confirms that it is the immobilising effect of the measure that dictates the applicable legal regime, and not the intrinsic movable nature of the fuel. The seizure of aircraft bunkers is therefore a procedure that must comply with the specific procedures set out in the Transport Code.
Issues and consequences of seizing bunkers
The effectiveness of the measure for creditors
For a creditor, the seizure of bunkers is a frighteningly effective measure. By paralysing an essential and costly asset, it places the debtor in a critical situation, giving him a strong incentive to pay his debt or, at the very least, to provide a serious guarantee to obtain the release of the seizure. The economic impact of detention is such that few shipowners or airlines can afford to let the situation continue. It is a quick and direct means of exerting pressure to recover a debt.
Risks for the debtor and liability in the event of wrongful seizure
The downside of this efficiency is the considerable risk incurred by the debtor. An immobilisation, even for a short period, gives rise to very high direct and indirect costs These include port or parking charges, contractual penalties, operating losses, crew costs, etc. If the seizure proves to be unfounded or is carried out in a wrongful manner, the creditor may be liable for wrongful seizure. The debtor will then be able to claim full compensation for the loss suffered. Case law pays particular attention to the circumstances of the seizure and does not hesitate to penalise creditors who use this procedure recklessly or with malicious intent. Obtaining the release of an abusive seizure is therefore an absolute priority.
Relationship with the general rules on attachment
Although subject to a special regime, the seizure of bunkers remains a precautionary measure. This means that the main principles of the ordinary law of enforcement procedures are intended to apply to all matters not specifically regulated by transport law. This applies, for example, to the obligation for a creditor who does not have a writ of execution to bring an action on the merits within a period of one month to have his claim validated, on pain of the seizure lapsing. This dual approach makes the subject particularly technical.
Because of its impact and legal complexity, the seizure of bunkers requires rigorous analysis and an appropriate strategy. Whether you are a creditor wishing to secure the recovery of your debt or a debtor subject to such a measure, legal advice is essential. For an in-depth analysis of your situation and tailored advice, contact our team of lawyers who are experts in transport law and enforcement.
Sources
- Transport Code (in particular articles L. 5114-2 et seq. and L. 6123-1 et seq.)
- Code of civil procedure
- Code of civil enforcement procedures
- Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Precautionary Arrest of Seagoing Ships
- Court of Cassation case law (in particular Com. 13 January 1998, no. 95-15.497)
- Case law from the Courts of Appeal (in particular Paris, 7 May 2003, and Douai, 18 April 2014)
EN 
FR