Legal regulation of sea towage contracts in the EU countries

CONCLUSIONS

The towage services can be performed either under a towage contract or as salvage services. The importance to distinguish ordinary towage from salvage action lays mostly in the payment, since as a rule ordinary towage is less risky and accordingly less expensive. A salvage is performed under dangerous circumstances such as sudden violence of wind or waves or other accidents. However, in some cases a towage contract can be transferred into a salvage agreement. For example, if the tug rescues the tow from some unforeseen and extraordinary peril, the tug shall be additionally remunerated under conditions of a salvage.

The technologies in towage services influence legal nature of a towage contract in various common law and continental law countries differently. To illustrate, the tow can be manned or unmanned that leads to different legal outcomes in different countries.

In common law countries regardless of whether the tow is manned or unmanned, the towage regulations are regulated under contract for services. The Court in UK, USA and Canada have rejected strict liability of a tug because the towage contract is not deemed to be a contract of bailment. As a result, the tow must prove that the tug breached obligations of good care and skill while performing towage. The burden of proof lays with the tow. However, in common law the owners of cargo are not bound by any contract of towage made by the owner of the tow on which the cargo is laden. Accordingly, the owners of the tow do not have authority to bind the cargo carried or the owners of such cargo by any such contract of towage.

In contrast to common law countries, Germany has taken a different approach and based on the circumstances whether the tow was manned or was unmanned (e.g. a dumb barge) the towage contract can be recognized either as a contract for services or a contract of carriage. If the tug was only delivering services by pulling or pushing the vessel (e.g. in harbour maneuvers by docking) the contract is to be qualified as a contract for services under German law and in case of an accident and damages to the tow, the tow must prove that it was fault of the tug. However, if the contract of towage is to be qualified as a contract of carriage, the tug must prove that the tow was damaged because of force majeure or on circumstances which did not depend on him. The qualification of a contract as a contrast of carriage would also have other impacts of right and duties of the parties, such as liability limitation.

In addition, in Germany the contract of towage is not qualified as a separate type of contract but can be recognized either as a contract to produce a work `Werkvertrag', a contract for services `Dienstvertrag" or a contract of carriage `Frachtvertrag'', in other continental law countries - Lithuania and Poland - a towage contract is codified as a separate type of a contract with specific regulation. The incorporation of legal norms, that regulate a towage contract, into one single act should be seen as positive because it allows the contracting parties to define their rights and obligations more clearly, especially when there are not so many national case laws.

REFERENCES

Baughen, S. (2015). Shipping Law (6th ed.). Routledge Taylos & Francis Group.

Brox, H., & Walker, W.D. (2013). Besonderes Schuldrecht (37th ed.), Verlag C.H.

Beck. [in German]. Recht_03_16.pdf (binnenschiffFahrt-online.de).

Fischer, M. (2016). Haftungsgrenzen des CMNI. Binnenschifffahrt, ZfB, 3, 2-8. [in German].

Fischer, M. (2017). Schleppvertrag, Haftung und Beweislast. Binnenschifffahrt, ZfB, 1, 66-67. [in German].

Gold, E. (2002). Gard Handbook on P&I Insurance (5th ed.). Arendal. [in German].

Gold, E., Chircop, A., & Kindred, H. (2003). Essentials of Canadian Law. Maritime Law. Irwin Law Inc.

Hartenstein, O., & Reuschle, F. (2015). Handbuch des Fachanwalts Transport- undSpeditionsrecht (3rd ed.). Carl Heymanns Verlag. [in German].

Healy, N.J., & Sweeney, J.C. (1998). The Law of marine Collision (1st ed.). Cornell Maritime Press Inc.

Herber, R. (2016). Seehandelsrecht. Systematische Darstellung (2nd ed.). De Gruyter. [in German].

Hoppe, C. (2017). BIMCO position statement on “keep shipping regulation global”. BIMCO. https://www.bimco.org/about-us-and-our-members/ bimco-statements/01-keep-regulation-global

Klaipeda Regional Court. (2010). Case No. 2A-1219-125/2010. S.J. vs UAB “Kaukla”. Byla 2A-1219-125/2010 - eTeismai. [in Lithuanian].

Klaipeda Regional Court. (2012). Case No. 2A-1230-622/2012. UAB “Klaipedos )й8ц кгоуіпіц kompanija” vs UAB “Freisa”. Byla 2A-1230-622/2012 - eTeismai. [in Lithuanian].

Kodeks morski, USTAWA. Dz. U. 2001 Nr. 138 poz. 1545 [in Polish].

Koller, I. (2020). Transportrecht. Kommentar zu Land-, Luft- und Binnengewassertransport von Gutern, Spedition und Lagergeschaft (10th ed.). C.H. Beck oHG. [in German].

Mandaraka-Sheppard, A. (2009). Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management (2nd ed.). Informa London.

Martinez Gutierrez, N.A. (2011). Limitation of Liability in International Maritime Conventions. The relationship between global limitation conventions and particular liability regimes (1st ed.). Routledge.

Mikelenas, V. (2001). Lietuvos Respublikos Civilinio Kodekso komentaras (1 knygas). Justitia. [in Lithuanian].

Palmer, N. (2009). Bailment (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.

Pyc, D., & Zuzewicz-Wiewiorowska, I. (Eds.). Kodeks morski. Komentarz. Sip. lex.pl. https://sip.lex.pl/#/commentary/587327920/125360?tocHit=1&cm=UI REST [in Polish].

Rabe, D., & Bahnsen, K.U. (2018). Seehandelsrecht. Funftes Buch des Handelsgesetzbuches mit Nebenvorschriften und Internationalen Ubereinkommen (5th ed.). C.H. Beck oHG. [in German].

Rainey, S. (2018). The law of tug and tow and offshore contracts (4th ed.). Informa law from Routledge.

Robertson, D.W., Friedell, F., & Sturley, F.M (2020). Admiralty and Maritime

Law in the United States. Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.

Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. (2000, July 18). Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Valstybes zinios, 2000, 74-2262. [in Lithuanian].

Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. (1996, September 12). Republic of Lithuania Law on Merchant Shipping. Valstybes zinios, 101-2300 [In Lithuanian].

Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. (1996, September 24). Republic of Lithuania Code of the Inland Waterway Transport. Valstybes zinios, 105-2393 [In Lithuanian].

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (1870). Case “Brown v Clegg”. Caselaw Access

Project. https://cite.case.law/pa/63/51/

Supreme Court of United States. (1876). Case “The “Margaret”. 94 U.S. 494.

Leagle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/187658894us4941515

Supreme Court of United States. (1955). Case “Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.”, 349 U.S. 85. JUSTIA. US Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/349/85/

The Parliament of Germany. (1896, July 1). German Civil Code. Bundesamt fur Justiz. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html

The Parliament of Germany. (1897, May 10). German Commercial Code. Bundesamt fur Justiz. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/hgb/BJNR002190897.html [in German].

Размещено на Allbest.ru