The ship safety centre inspector detains a vessel whose deficiencies are clearly serious; detention is lifted only after rectification, a release survey and payment of the inspection fees. The appeal, which does not suspend the decision, must be lodged within fifteen clear days with the head of the centre and then the minister, before the administrative court, and wrongful detention gives a right to compensation.
A foreign-flagged bulk carrier is discharging at Fos. Two inspectors from the ship safety centre board for an initial inspection. They find fire doors that do not close, a lifeboat whose engine will not start, non-compliant seafarers’ employment agreements and wages in arrears. At six in the evening, the master receives a detention order. The ship will not leave until the deficiencies are rectified, a new survey has taken place and the inspection fees have been paid. The time charterer puts the ship off-hire, the next shipper threatens to cancel, and the decision is published the following day on the Paris MoU website.
Port State detention is one of the most expensive events in the operation of a ship, and one whose remedies are least known. Here is how it is decided, how it is lifted, how it is challenged, and what the shipowner can obtain when it was unjustified.
The framework: the Paris MoU, the Directive and the 1984 decree
Port State control rests on the 1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding, which coordinates the inspections of twenty-seven European and North Atlantic maritime administrations, and on Directive 2009/16/EC of 23 April 2009, which makes it an obligation for EU Member States. The Directive imposes an inspection regime based on the risk profile of ships, defines detention and refusal of access, organises the right of appeal and provides for compensation for wrongful detention.
In French law, the principle is laid down in article L. 5241-4-3 of the Transport Code: foreign-flagged ships calling at a French port or anchorage may be inspected. Article L. 5241-5 allows the departure of a ship to be prohibited or postponed if it could not put to sea without risk to the crew, the persons on board, the marine environment or other ships. Article L. 5241-4-4 puts the inspection costs on the owner or operator. The detailed rules are set by articles 41-1 to 41-13 of Decree no. 84-810 of 30 August 1984 on the safety of life at sea, as amended in particular by Decrees no. 2025-1101 of 19 November 2025 and no. 2026-524 of 18 June 2026.
Inspections are carried out by the ship safety and maritime occupational risk inspectors attached to the ship safety centres (centres de sécurité des navires, CSN), which report to the interregional directorates of the sea.
The inspection: access on board, content, obligation to stay in port
Every foreign ship calling at a French port or offshore installation, or anchored off the coast up to the limit of territorial waters, is subject or liable to inspection (article 41-2 of the decree). The inspector has free access on board, and the master must provide safe means of access; failing that, departure may be postponed until the inspection can be carried out. The ship must stay in port or at anchor until the inspection is completed, and the results are notified immediately in writing to the master.
The initial inspection checks the safety, security and pollution prevention certificates and documents and the maritime labour certificate, confirms that there is no apparent non-conformity and verifies that earlier deficiencies have been rectified; it includes at least a visit of the bridge, the deck, the engine room, the commercial spaces and the accommodation (article 41-3). Where it reveals an apparent defect, or depending on the ship’s risk profile, its history, its flag, its classification society and the performance of its company, a more detailed inspection is carried out, during which the inspector sets the requirements, the time limit and possibly the place of rectification (article 41-4). Some ships are subject to expanded inspection (article 41-5).
The figures show the scale of the risk. The Paris MoU 2025 annual report, published on 1 July 2026, records just under 16,500 inspections, 668 detentions, a detention rate of 4.18%, up for the third year in a row, and 19 refusals of access, against 15 the previous year. The most frequent deficiencies concern fire safety, structural and electrical items, and the health protection and welfare of seafarers under the Maritime Labour Convention; fire doors and seafarers’ employment agreements top the list of individual deficiencies.
The detention order
Detention is ordered by the inspector where the deficiencies found, relating to the safety of the ship and persons, security, the conditions of employment, living and working of seafarers, or risks to the environment, are clearly serious by their nature, number or repetition (article 41-8, I). The text specifies that the risk of port congestion or lack of port services may not be taken into account: commercial arguments have no place at this stage.
The decision is immediately notified to the master, the harbour master’s office, the flag State administration or its representative and, where relevant, the recognised organisation that issued the certificates. The master is informed of the right of appeal. Where the general condition of the ship is clearly substandard, the inspector detains the ship and may suspend the inspection even before drawing up the list of deficiencies, until the operator and the flag State have taken the measures needed to bring the ship back into compliance (article 41-8, II).
Detention orders are published (article 41-10). They feed the THETIS database and the MoU website, are visible to charterers, insurers and banks, and worsen the risk profile of the ship and its company for later inspections. A detention therefore has a cost that goes well beyond the days lost.
Criminal penalties are added: sailing a ship in breach of a prohibition to depart is punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 150,000 euros, for the operator, the owner and the master (article L. 5241-13 of the Transport Code).
Getting the detention lifted: rectify, have it verified, pay
Detention is lifted only when the inspector has found that the ship can leave port, subject to any conditions the inspector considers necessary, without risk to safety, security, the crew, other ships, the port and the environment (article 41-8, I). Three steps follow one another.
First, rectification of the deficiencies. It involves the shipowner, its agent, the shipyard or local technicians, the classification society and the flag State. For technical deficiencies, the intervention of a class surveyor who certifies the repair, or issues a condition of class with a time limit, is often the document that convinces the inspector. For social deficiencies, payment of wages in arrears, regularisation of employment agreements, updating of the records of hours of work and rest and proof of repatriation must be documented. Where the deficiencies cannot be rectified in the port of inspection, the inspector may allow the ship to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard, on conditions imposed by the flag State and accepted by the inspector (article 41-8, III). A ship that leaves port without going to that yard or without complying with those conditions is exposed to refusal of access.
Next, the release survey. At the operator’s request, a survey to lift the detention is carried out within a reasonable time set by order and, since the decree of 19 November 2025, from the first working day after the request of the shipowner or its representative, unless the head of the centre postpones it for safety reasons (article 41-8, I and VII). The request should therefore be made in writing as soon as the rectifications are complete, with supporting documents, so that this time limit starts to run.
Finally, payment of the costs. The costs of inspecting ships that have been detained, and the costs of certificates, surveys and third-party interventions required during a detailed or expanded inspection, are borne by the owner, the operator or the shipowner (article 41-13, I). Inspection costs linked to the detention are invoiced on an hourly basis, and the detention is lifted only once they have been paid in full (article 41-13, II). If they are not paid before departure, a collection order is issued against the shipowner’s representative in France, in practice the ship’s agent, and failing that against the shipowner itself. The agent therefore has an interest in making sure these costs are covered before agreeing to act.
The release decision is notified in the same form as the detention order, and the database is updated.
Challenging the detention: the mandatory prior appeal, then the administrative court
The challenge follows a two-stage procedure, the first of which is mandatory.
Any appeal against a decision of an inspector is lodged with the head of the ship safety centre; any appeal against a decision of the head of the centre is lodged with the minister responsible for the sea; appeals against refusals of access and expulsions are lodged with the minister (article 41-12, I). These appeals are open to the owner, the operator, the shipowner as holder of the social certification, or their representative, and they also apply to mere findings.
The time limit is fifteen clear days from notification of the decision or finding challenged (article 41-12, II). The appeal has no suspensive effect, and it must precede any other remedy. An application brought directly before the administrative court without first going to the head of the centre is inadmissible; an appeal lodged after fifteen days is out of time. The appeal must set out its grounds and be accompanied by documents showing that the deficiencies found did not exist, were not clearly serious as required by article 41-8, or had already been rectified. Where the decision is withdrawn, the inspection database is updated and the publication corrected (article 41-12, III), which in itself matters for the ship’s risk profile.
The decision on that appeal, or silence, opens the way to an application for annulment before the administrative court within two months. Commercial urgency justifies combining it with an interim suspension application under article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which requires urgency and a ground capable of creating serious doubt as to the legality of the decision. The loss of use of a merchant ship ordinarily establishes urgency; serious doubt is shown by the inspection report itself, set against the valid certificates, the class statements and the findings of an independent surveyor.
Directive 2009/16 expressly provides that the owner or operator has a right of appeal against a detention, that the appeal does not suspend it, and that the master is informed of it. The flag State may, for its part, ask the Paris MoU secretariat to review the detention, a procedure with no legal effect in France but which carries weight in the file.
Compensation for wrongful detention
Article 41-8, IV of the decree transposes a rule of the Directive: where a ship has been wrongfully detained or delayed, the owner or operator is entitled to compensation from the State for the loss suffered, the burden of proving the wrongful detention or delay lying on the owner or operator.
The claim for compensation is brought before the administrative court, after a prior claim sent to the administration. It requires showing that the detention was not justified, which is most safely established by a decision withdrawn on appeal or annulled by the court, and proving the loss: loss of hire during the off-hire period, demurrage, port costs, agency fees, survey fees, damages paid to counterparties and harm to the ship’s reputation. The contractual and accounting documents should be gathered from the moment of detention, because that is when the loss is recorded.
Refusal of access, expulsion and postponement
Three measures close to detention should be distinguished.
Refusal of access to ports and anchorages, ordered by the minister responsible for the sea, applies to a ship that has been detained or banned from operation and presents a manifest risk, has seriously failed to meet crew living and working conditions, flies a flag poorly ranked on the MoU lists in view of its history, has sailed without going to the designated yard, or has failed to comply with a detention (article 41-9, I, as in force since 1 July 2026). It takes effect as soon as the ship has left port and can be lifted only after periods set by the minister and on proof that the ship fully complies with the conventions (article 41-9, II). Refusal of access extends to all ports of the Memorandum; it is the heaviest sanction of the system, and the appeal lies to the minister.
Expulsion and refusal of entry on security grounds are ordered by the departmental prefect where the ship does not comply with the ISPS Code and presents an immediate threat (article 41-9, III).
Postponement of departure, for a maximum of seventy-two hours, may be ordered by the head of the centre against a ship whose arrival was not notified or which calls only at night (article 41-8, V).
Contractual and insurance consequences
Detention has knock-on effects that the shipowner must anticipate while negotiating with the inspector.
Under a time charter, most off-hire clauses, in the NYPE form as in the Baltime form, put the ship off-hire where a deficiency of the ship, crew or documents prevents its operation; port State detention is the textbook case, unless it is attributable to the cargo or to the charterer’s orders. Under a voyage charter, time lost in detention does not count as laytime. Ship sale contracts and contracts of carriage increasingly contain representations that there has been no detention in the last thirty-six months, and a detention can put in default a shipowner who has warranted a clean record to its bank or insurer.
Inspection costs and fines are not covered by hull insurance; P&I clubs cover some consequences of social deficiencies, such as repatriation and unpaid wages, under the conditions of the Maritime Labour Convention, but not loss of use, which falls under separate loss of hire insurance. Notifying the detention to the club and the hull insurer within the time limits of the policy is a condition of these covers.
What the firm does
The firm acts from the notification of the detention, in coordination with the ship’s agent, the P&I club, the classification society and the flag State.
It analyses the inspection report deficiency by deficiency, separates what must be rectified from what can be challenged, organises the documentation of rectifications and the request for a release survey, checks the statement of inspection costs, and lodges within fifteen clear days the prior appeal with the head of the centre or the minister. It then brings, where needed, an application for annulment and an interim suspension application before the administrative court, followed by a claim for compensation for wrongful detention.
In parallel it deals with the contractual consequences: notice to the charterer, challenge or negotiation of off-hire, and preservation of claims against the shipyard, the supplier or the manning agency whose failure caused the detention.
Further reading: Pollution from a ship: what the master and the owner risk.
Frequently asked questions
Who decides to detain a ship in France?
The ship safety inspector of the ship safety centre of the port of call, where the deficiencies are clearly serious by their nature, number or repetition (article 41-8 of Decree no. 84-810 of 30 August 1984). The decision is notified to the master, the harbour master’s office, the flag State and the recognised organisation.
How long does a detention last?
Until the deficiencies have been rectified, a release survey has found that the ship can sail safely and the inspection costs have been paid. The release survey is carried out from the first working day after the shipowner’s request (article 41-8, VII).
What is the time limit for challenging a detention?
Fifteen clear days from notification, by a mandatory prior appeal to the head of the ship safety centre, then to the minister responsible for the sea. This appeal does not suspend the decision and must precede any court action (article 41-12).
Does an appeal suspend the detention?
No. Neither the prior appeal nor the application to the administrative court suspends the decision. Only an interim suspension order granted by the administrative judge under article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice can suspend its effects.
Who pays the inspection costs?
The owner, the operator or the shipowner (article L. 5241-4-4 of the Transport Code and article 41-13 of the decree). Costs linked to a detention are invoiced and must be paid in full before release. Otherwise a collection order is issued against the ship’s agent or the shipowner.
Can compensation be obtained if the detention was unjustified?
Yes. The owner or operator of a ship wrongfully detained or delayed is entitled to compensation from the State, provided it proves that the measure was wrongful and the loss it caused (article 41-8, IV). The claim is brought before the administrative court.
What is refusal of access?
A decision of the minister responsible for the sea banning from all French ports and anchorages a ship which, after detention, presents a manifest risk, has seriously failed to meet crew living conditions, flies a poorly ranked flag, has not gone to the designated yard or has not complied with the detention (article 41-9). It extends to the ports of the other Paris MoU States.
What does a master who sails despite a detention risk?
Two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 150,000 euros, penalties also incurred by the operator and the owner (article L. 5241-13 of the Transport Code), as well as refusal of access for the ship.
Hervé Guyader, avocat at the Paris Bar, doctor of law.