Hervé Guyader, avocat at the Paris Bar and doctor of law, president of the Comité français pour le droit du commerce international, advises and represents shipowners, charterers, shippers, insurers and yacht owners in maritime matters that cross a border, in French and in English.
You are facing:
- a dispute with a carrier, charterer or shipyard established abroad
- a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause on the back of a bill of lading or in a charterparty
- a foreign vessel to be arrested in a French port
- a foreign award or judgment to be enforced in France
- a transaction caught by international sanctions
Short answer. Between Member States, a jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading falls under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and binds a third-party holder who has succeeded to the shipper’s rights (ECJ, 9 November 2000, Coreck Maritime, C-387/98; CJEU, 25 April 2024, Maersk, C-345/22 to C-347/22). Carriage under bills of lading is governed by the amended 1924 Brussels Convention, the shipowner’s limitation of liability by the 1976 London Convention and its 1996 Protocol. A foreign arbitral award is recognised in France if its existence is established and it is not manifestly contrary to international public policy (Article 1514 of the Code of Civil Procedure); enforcement is granted on an ex parte application (Article 1516) and an appeal does not suspend enforcement (Article 1526). A foreign ship can be arrested in a French port as a conservatory measure even if the merits belong to a foreign court or arbitral tribunal.
A maritime case is almost always international. The ship flies one flag, belongs to a company registered elsewhere, is chartered by a third operator and carries a fourth party’s cargo. Before the merits are even discussed, three questions decide the outcome: which court or tribunal, which law, and where the assets are against which the decision will be enforced.
Which court, which tribunal
Bills of lading and charterparties often designate a court or an arbitral seat in London, Singapore, Geneva or Paris. Within the European Union, a jurisdiction clause is governed by Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, and whether it binds a third-party holder of the bill of lading depends on whether that holder succeeded to the shipper’s rights (CJEC, 9 November 2000, Coreck Maritime, C-387/98). We check the clause before any action is brought: proceedings started before the wrong court cost months, and sometimes the one-year time bar against the carrier.
Maritime arbitration has its specialist institutions, such as the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris or SCMA in Singapore, alongside the general institutions. The ICC Arbitration Rules in force since 1 June 2026 apply the expedited procedure up to USD 4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after that date. The choice is made when the contract is drafted, not when the dispute arises.
Before signing a charterparty or a shipbuilding contract, or as soon as a foreign claim arrives: the dispute resolution clause is the first thing to read.
The bill of lading clause: what the consignee can refuse
The bill of lading circulates, and its jurisdiction clause travels with it, but not always with the same force. Everything turns on the court it designates. Where it designates a court of an EU Member State, Article 25 of Brussels I bis applies: the clause binds a third-party holder who succeeded to the shipper’s rights, under the national law applicable to the substance as determined by the conflict rules of the court seised, and a Member State may not further require that the clause was individually negotiated by that third party (CJEU, 25 April 2024, Maersk, C-345/22 to C-347/22).
Where the clause designates a court outside the Union and no treaty makes that court’s jurisdiction mandatory, French law protects the consignee far more. The clause cannot be relied on against the consignee unless the consignee specifically accepted it, and that acceptance cannot be inferred from a usage of international carriage, from a prior course of dealing, or from a reference on the face of the bill to the conditions printed overleaf (Cour de cassation, commercial chamber, 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768). Since Brexit, London falls into that category, because the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements excludes the carriage of goods. An “English courts” clause printed on the back of a bill of lading therefore no longer binds, in France, a consignee who never accepted it. See our analysis Bill of lading jurisdiction clauses: when the consignee can sue in France.
Which law
The carriage of goods by sea is governed for the most part by international conventions: the 1924 Brussels Convention as amended by the 1968 and 1979 Protocols for bills of lading, the 1976 London Convention and its 1996 Protocol for shipowners’ limitation of liability, and the 1989 Salvage Convention. Outside those conventions, the law applicable to the contract is determined under the Rome I Regulation. A single case may therefore combine English law for the charterparty, an international convention for the bill of lading and French law for the arrest.
Arresting in France, enforcing abroad
A foreign vessel may be arrested as a conservatory measure in a French port for a claim that appears well founded in principle, before any judgment, including where the merits belong to a foreign court or arbitral tribunal (Article L. 5114-22 of the French Transport Code). It is often the only way to obtain security from a debtor with no other assets in France. Conversely, a judgment given in an EU Member State is enforceable in France without exequatur, whereas an arbitral award or a judgment from a non-EU State requires a prior exequatur decision.
Enforcing a foreign award or judgment in France
Awards and judgments do not travel the same road, and Brexit has widened the gap.
An arbitral award made abroad, in London or elsewhere, is recognised in France if its existence is established and if recognition is not manifestly contrary to international public policy (Article 1514 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). Exequatur is sought by ex parte application to the Paris Judicial Court (Article 1516). The debtor may appeal within one month of service (Article 1525), only on the grounds listed in Article 1520, and the appeal does not stay enforcement (Article 1526). The setting aside of the award in its country of origin does not prevent its enforcement in France (Cour de cassation, first civil chamber, 29 June 2007, No. 05-18.053, Putrabali). Decree No. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 rewrites these articles for awards made after 1 January 2027, without changing the scheme.
An English judgment, by contrast, has lost its European passport. Brussels I bis now applies only to judgments given in proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 (Article 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement). The 2005 and 2019 Hague Conventions, the latter in force for the United Kingdom since 1 July 2025, both exclude the carriage of goods, general average and limitation of liability. What remains is exequatur under French ordinary law, by writ before the Judicial Court: the judge checks the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, compliance with international public policy and the absence of fraud, without reviewing the merits (Cour de cassation, first civil chamber, 20 February 2007, No. 05-14.082, Cornelissen). A full lawsuit, where an award needs only an application.
The lesson is drawn at the drafting stage. For a contract of carriage or a charterparty with an English counterparty, an arbitration clause now offers safer enforcement in France than a clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts. See our analyses Enforcing a London maritime arbitration award in France and English maritime judgments: enforcement in France after Brexit.
Sanctions and compliance
EU restrictive measures, in particular Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning Russia, bear directly on charters, ship sales and bank guarantees. A transaction that was lawful at the outset may become prohibited during the life of the contract. We assess the exposure of the transaction, draft sanctions clauses and defend companies against guarantee calls linked to those measures.
Vessel detained or about to sail? The first hours often decide the outcome of an arrest.
Typical cases
The situations below are illustrative scenarios, anonymised. They show when we step in and what the work involves.
A London award against a Marseille charterer
A Greek shipowner has obtained in London an award of USD 1.8 million in demurrage; the charterer, with no assets in England, does not pay. We file the exequatur application with the Paris Judicial Court and, at the same time, carry out conservatory attachments on the debtor’s bank accounts and receivables in France.
A Seoul clause raised against the consignee’s insurer
The insurer that indemnified the consignee of damaged cargo is met with a clause conferring jurisdiction on a Korean court, printed on the back of the bill of lading. We establish the absence of specific acceptance and keep the dispute before the French court.
A Commercial Court judgment against a shipper
A Cypriot shipowner has obtained in London a judgment against a Normandy shipper in proceedings issued in 2023. No convention covers the carriage of goods: we bring exequatur proceedings under French ordinary law and, in the meantime, obtain security over the debtor’s assets.
Related pages and analyses
- Maritime lawyer in France
- Maritime litigation
- Bills of lading
- Charterparty disputes
- Ship arrest
- Maritime sanctions
- Exequatur in Paris
- International arbitration
- International trade law
- Enforcing a London maritime arbitration award in France
- English maritime judgments: enforcement in France after Brexit
- Bill of lading jurisdiction clauses: when the consignee can sue in France
Frequently asked questions
Can a foreign vessel be arrested in France if the dispute is subject to London arbitration?
Yes. A conservatory arrest is a provisional measure within the jurisdiction of the French court of the port, regardless of which court or tribunal has jurisdiction on the merits. It secures the claim pending the award.
Is a foreign jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading binding on the consignee?
If it designates a court of an EU Member State, it binds the consignee who succeeded to the shipper’s rights under the national law applicable to the substance (CJEU, 25 April 2024, Maersk, C-345/22 to C-347/22). If it designates a court outside the Union and no treaty makes that jurisdiction mandatory, it binds the consignee only if the consignee specifically accepted it (Cour de cassation, 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768).
How is a foreign maritime arbitration award enforced in France?
By an ex parte application for exequatur to the Paris Judicial Court, together with the award and the arbitration agreement (Article 1516 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The judge does not review the merits; it checks that the award exists and is not manifestly contrary to international public policy.
Is an English judgment still enforceable in France without exequatur?
Only if it was given in proceedings instituted before 1 January 2021, to which Brussels I bis continues to apply. For proceedings instituted later, an applicable convention or exequatur proceedings under French ordinary law before the Judicial Court are required.
Does the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention apply to the carriage of goods by sea?
No. It excludes the carriage of passengers and goods, several forms of marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims and general average. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention contains the same exclusion for carriage.
Can a subrogated insurer avoid the bill of lading jurisdiction clause?
Yes, to the extent of the consignee’s rights it exercises. Where the clause designates a court outside the Union and no treaty makes that jurisdiction mandatory, it can be relied on only if the consignee specifically accepted it (Cour de cassation, 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768).
Can an award set aside in London still be enforced in France?
Yes. French law does not treat the setting aside of an award in its country of origin as a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement (Cour de cassation, 29 June 2007, No. 05-18.053).
Page updated on 17 October 2026.