>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 110: Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport v. Archangelos Investments E.N.E. and Shanghai Representative Office of Hong Kong Andaousen Co., Ltd. (dispute over a salvage contract)
指导案例110号:交通运输部南海救助局诉阿昌格罗斯投资公司、香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处海难救助合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Maritime
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 07-07-2016
  • Procedural status: Retrial

Guiding Case No. 110: Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport v. Archangelos Investments E.N.E. and Shanghai Representative Office of Hong Kong Andaousen Co., Ltd. (dispute over a salvage contract) 指导案例110号:交通运输部南海救助局诉阿昌格罗斯投资公司、香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处海难救助合同纠纷案
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布)
Guiding Case No. 110 指导案例110号
Keywords 关键词
Civil; salvage contract; employed salvage; salvage reward 民事/海难救助合同/雇佣救助/救助报酬
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. The International Convention on Salvage 1989 and the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Maritime Law”) prescribe the principle of “no cure, no pay” for salvage contracts, but they allow the parties to separately agree on the salvage reward. If the parties explicitly agree that the party salved should pay reward no matter whether the salvage is successful and the input per HP hour and the manual input for the salvage of the salved vessel should serve as the standards for calculating the salvage reward, the contract is an employed salvage contract rather than a salvage contract as prescribed in the aforesaid international convention and the Maritime Law. 1.《1989年国际救助公约》和我国海商法规定救助合同“无效果无报酬”,但均允许当事人对救助报酬的确定可以另行约定。若当事人明确约定,无论救助是否成功,被救助方均应支付报酬,且以救助船舶每马力小时和人工投入等作为计算报酬的标准时,则该合同系雇佣救助合同,而非上述国际公约和我国海商法规定的救助合同。
2. Where there are no specific provisions on an employed salvage contract in the International Convention on Salvage 1989 and the Maritime Law, the relevant provisions of the Contract Law should apply to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 2.在《1989年国际救助公约》和我国海商法对雇佣救助合同没有具体规定的情况下,可以适用我国合同法的相关规定确定当事人的权利义务。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 8 and 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China哎哟不错哦 中华人民共和国合同法》第8条、第107条法小宝
Article 179 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国海商法》第179条
Basic Facts 基本案情
The Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the “Nanhai Rescue Bureau”) alleged that: After the oil tanker “Archangelos Gabriel” got stranded in the Qiongzhou Strait, authorized by Archangelos Investments E.N.E. (hereinafter referred to as “Archangelos Investments”), the Nanhai Rescue Bureau provided such services as salvage, transport, and guarding, but Archangelos Investments has not paid the salvage reward yet. The Nanhai Rescue Bureau requested the Guangzhou Maritime Court to order that Archangelos Investments and Shanghai Representative Office of Hong Kong Andaousen Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Shanghai Representative Office”) should jointly and severally pay the salvage reward of CNY7,240,998.24 and the interest thereof. 交通运输部南海救助局(以下简称南海救助局)诉称:“加百利”轮在琼州海峡搁浅后,南海救助局受阿昌格罗斯投资公司(以下简称投资公司)委托提供救助、交通、守护等服务,但投资公司一直未付救助费用。请求法院判令投资公司和香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处(以下简称上海代表处)连带支付救助费用7240998.24元及利息。
The Guangzhou Maritime Court found upon trial that “Archangelos Gabriel” owned by Archangelos Investments was a Greek oil tanker, which carried 54,580 tons of Cabinda crude oil. Around 05:00 on August 12, 2011, the tanker got stranded nearby the north water channel of the Qiongzhou Strait and both the tanker and the carried goods were in danger, which has seriously endangered the environmental safety of the waters. After the accident occurred, Archangelos Investments immediately authorized the Shanghai Representative Office to send an emergency email to the Nanhai Rescue Bureau on matters concerning the stranding of the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel,” requested the Nanhai Rescue Bureau to arrange two towing vessels to provide salvage services according to its experience, and consented to the quotation of the Nanhai Rescue Bureau. 法院经审理查明:投资公司所属“加百利”轮系希腊籍油轮,载有卡宾达原油54580吨。2011年8月12日5时左右在琼州海峡北水道附近搁浅,船舶及船载货物处于危险状态,严重威胁海域环境安全。事故发生后,投资公司立即授权上海代表处就“加百利”轮搁浅事宜向南海救助局发出紧急邮件,请南海救助局根据经验安排两艘拖轮进行救助,并表示同意南海救助局的报价。
Around 20:40 on August 12, the Shanghai Representative Office submitted a letter of authorization to the Nanhai Rescue Bureau through an email, authorized the Nanhai Rescue Bureau to dispatch the vessels “Nanhai Rescue 116” and “Nanhai Rescue 101” to the scene for assisting in refloating the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel,” and promised that it consented to pay the bill at the rate of CNY3.2 per HP per hour no matter whether the Nanhai Rescue Bureau succeeded in assisting in the refloating, the billing cycle started from getting the towing vessels on duty ready at the standby location to notifying the task completion by the Shanghai Representative Office and returning to the original standby location. The vessels “Nanhai Rescue 116” and “Nanhai Rescue 101” were only responsible for conducting towing operation and it was unnecessary for the Nanhai Rescue Bureau to be liable for any accident occurring in the process of refloating of the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel.” In addition, the Shanghai Representative Office requested the Nanhai Rescue Bureau to dispatch a team of divers to the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel” to conduct exploration and the fees were as follows: CNY10,000 for land dispatch; CNY55,000 for water traffic; CNY40,000 per eight hours for operation, with the billing cycle starting from the divers' boarding the commuter to the debarkation after completing the operation and leaving the commuter. On August 13, Archangelos Investments also put forward the rental of the vessel “Nanhai Rescue 201” to transport two representatives from Haikou to the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel.” The Nanhai Rescue Bureau sent an email to the Shanghai Representative Office, stating that the rate of the vessel “Nanhai Rescue 201” was CNY1.5 per HP per hour and the total fee would be calculated according to the rental duration. 8月12日20:40,上海代表处通过电子邮件向南海救助局提交委托书,委托南海救助局派出“南海救116”轮和“南海救101”轮到现场协助“加百利”轮出浅,承诺无论能否成功协助出浅,均同意按每马力小时3.2元的费率付费,计费周期为拖轮自其各自的值班待命点备车开始起算至上海代表处通知任务结束、拖轮回到原值班待命点为止。“南海救116”轮和“南海救101”轮只负责拖带作业,“加百利”轮脱浅作业过程中如发生任何意外南海救助局无需负责。另,请南海救助局派遣一组潜水队员前往“加百利”轮探摸,费用为:陆地调遣费10000元;水上交通费55000元;作业费每8小时40000元,计费周期为潜水员登上交通船开始起算,到作业完毕离开交通船上岸为止。8月13日,投资公司还提出租用“南海救201”轮将其两名代表从海口运送至“加百利”轮。南海救助局向上海代表处发邮件称,“南海救201”轮费率为每马力小时1.5元,根据租用时间计算总费用。
At the same time, in order to prevent the dangerous situation from further deteriorating and causing marine pollution, the Zhanjiang Maritime Bureau decided to adopt the measure of compulsory lightering, deloading, and refloating against the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel.” Upon organization and arrangement of the Zhanjiang Maritime Bureau, on August 8, the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel” successfully got refloated by making use of high tides and it afterwards safely arrived at the destination port, Qinzhou Port of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. 与此同时,为预防危险局面进一步恶化造成海上污染,湛江海事局决定对“加百利”轮采取强制过驳减载脱浅措施。经湛江海事局组织安排,8月18日“加百利”轮利用高潮乘潮成功脱浅,之后安全到达目的港广西钦州港。
The salvage activities in which the Nanhai Rescue Bureau was actually engaged were as follows: 南海救助局实际参与的救助情况如下:
The vessel “Nanhai Rescue 116” owned by the Nanhai Rescue Bureau had the gross tonnage of 3,681 tons and the gross power of 9,000 kw (12,240 HP). After the vessel “Nanhai Rescue 116” arrived at the scene of the accident, according to the instructions of Archangelos Investments, it has been guarding “Archangelos Gabriel” for a total of 155.58 hours. 南海救助局所属“南海救116”轮总吨为3681,总功率为9000千瓦(12240马力)。“南海救116”轮到达事故现场后,根据投资公司的指示,一直在事故现场对“加百利”轮进行守护,共工作155.58小时。
The vessel “Nanhai Rescue 101” owned by the Nanhai Rescue Bureau had the gross tonnage of 4,091 tons and the gross power of 13,860 kw (18,850 HP). This vessel made a return voyage before arriving at the scene of the accident. The Nanhai Rescue Bureau claimed that the working hours of this vessel were 13.58. 南海救助局所属“南海救101”轮总吨为4091,总功率为13860千瓦(18850马力)。该轮未到达事故现场即返航。南海救助局主张该轮工作时间共计13.58小时。
The vessel “Nanhai Rescue 201” owned by the Nanhai Rescue Bureau had the gross tonnage of 552 tons and the gross power of 4,480 kw (6,093 HP). On August 13, this vessel transported two shipowner's representatives to board the stranded tanker, with the working time of 7.83 hours. On August 16, this vessel transported the relevant personnel and equipment to board the stranded tanker, with the working time of 7.75 hours. On August 18, this vessel transported the relevant personnel and luggage to board the stranded tanker, with the working time of 8.83 hours. 南海救助局所属“南海救201”轮总吨为552,总功率为4480千瓦(6093马力)。8月13日,该轮运送2名船东代表登上搁浅船,工作时间为7.83小时。8月16日,该轮运送相关人员及设备至搁浅船,工作时间为7.75小时。8月18日,该轮将相关人员及行李运送上过驳船,工作时间为8.83小时。
The divers did not actually conduct the underwater operation, with the working time of 8 hours. 潜水队员未实际下水作业,工作时间为8小时。
It was also found that the salvage value of the tanker involved was USD30,531,856, that of the goods was USD48,053,870, and the salvage value of the tanker invovled accounted for 38.85% of the entire salvage value. 另查明涉案船舶的获救价值为30531856美元,货物的获救价值为48053870美元,船舶的获救价值占全部获救价值的比例为38.85%。
Judgment 裁判结果
On March 28, 2014, the Guangzhou Maritime Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) that: (1) Archangelos Investments should pay the Nanhai Rescue Bureau the salvage reward of CNY6,592,913.58 and the interest thereof; and (2) other claims of the Nanhai Rescue Bureau should be dismissed. Archangelos Investments refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. On June 16, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 117 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Guangdong) that: (1) The Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) entered by the Guangzhou Maritime Court should be set aside; (2) Archangelos Investments should pay the Nanhai Rescue Bureau the salvage reward of CNY2,561,346.93 and the interest thereof; and (3) other claims of the Nanhai Rescue Bureau should be dismissed. The Nanhai Rescue Bureau refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On July 7, 2016, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 61 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC) that: (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 117 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Guangdong) entered by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province should be set aside; and (2) the Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) entered by the Guangzhou Maritime Court should be affirmed. 广州海事法院于2014年3月28日作出(2012)广海法初字第898号民事判决:一、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬6592913.58元及利息;二、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。投资公司不服一审判决,提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2015年6月16日作出(2014)粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决:一、撤销广州海事法院(2012)广海法初字第898号民事判决;二、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬2561346.93元及利息;三、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。南海救助局不服二审判决,申请再审。最高人民法院于2016年7月7日作出(2016)最高法民再61号民事判决:一、撤销广东省高级人民法院(2014)粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决;二、维持广州海事法院(2012)广海法初字第898号民事判决。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
The Supreme People's Court held that, this case was about dispute over a salvage contract. China joined the International Convention on Salvage哎哟不错哦 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention on Salvage”) and the purposes of the Convention on Salvage should be followed in this case. Since Archangelos Investments was a Greek company and “Archangelos Gabriel” was a Greek oil tanker, this case involved foreign elements. In the proceedings, all parties unanimously chose the law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships, the law of the People's Republic of China should apply in the trial of this case. As a special law for adjusting the relations arising from the carriage by sea and relations of vessels, the Maritime Law should preferentially apply. Where there are no provisions in the Maritime Law, the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant laws should apply. 最高人民法院认为,本案系海难救助合同纠纷。中华人民共和国加入了《1989年国际救助公约》(以下简称救助公约),救助公约所确立的宗旨在本案中应予遵循。因投资公司是希腊公司,“加百利”轮为希腊籍油轮,本案具有涉外因素。各方当事人在诉讼中一致选择适用中华人民共和国法律,根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第三条请你喝茶的规定,适用中华人民共和国法律对本案进行审理。我国海商法作为调整海上运输关系、船舶关系的特别法,应优先适用。海商法没有规定的,适用我国合同法等相关法律的规定。
Salvage is a conventional international maritime legal system and there are special provisions on salvage in both the Convention on Salvage and the Maritime Law. Article 12 of the Convention on Salvage and Article 179 of the Maritime Law prescribe the salvage reward payment principle of “no cure, no pay” and Article 13 of the Convention on Salvage and Article 180 and 183 of the Maritime Law further prescribe the reward evaluation standards and the specific assumption based on this principle. The aforesaid clauses are specific provisions on a salvage contract where the parties determine the salvage reward based on the principle of “no cure, no pay.” At the same time, both the Convention on Salvage and the Maritime Law allow the parties to separately agree on the determination of the salvage reward. Therefore, besides a salvage contract governed by the principle of “no cure, no pay” as prescribed in the Convention on Salvage and the Maritime Law, an employed salvage contract may also be formed according to the agreement of the parties. 海难救助是一项传统的国际海事法律制度,救助公约和我国海商法对此作了专门规定。救助公约第十二条、海商法一百七十九条规定了“无效果无报酬”的救助报酬支付原则,救助公约第十三条海商法一百八十条及第一百八十三条在该原则基础上进一步规定了报酬的评定标准与具体承担。上述条款是对当事人基于“无效果无报酬”原则确定救助报酬的海难救助合同的具体规定。与此同时,救助公约和我国海商法均允许当事人对救助报酬的确定另行约定。因此,在救助公约和我国海商法规定的“无效果无报酬”救助合同之外,还可以依当事人的约定形成雇佣救助合同。
On the basis of the facts found in this case, upon full consultation, Archangelos Investments and the Nanhai Rescue Bureau explicitly agreed that Archangelos Investments should pay the salvage reward no matter whether the salvage was successful and the Nanhai Rescue Bureau would not be liable for any accident arising from the refloating operation of the tanker “Archangelos Gabriel.” According to this stipulation, whether the Nanhai Rescue Bureau acquired the salvage reward had no direct relation with whether the salvage has produced actual effect. The salvage reward was calculated based on the input per HP hour, the manual input, and the fixed rate and expenses agreed in advance and it had no direct relevance with the value of the salvage property. Therefore, the salvage contract invovled was not a salvage contract governed by the principle of “no cure, no pay” as prescribed in the Convention on Salvage and the Maritime Law and it was an employed salvage contract. 根据本案查明的事实,投资公司与南海救助局经过充分磋商,明确约定无论救助是否成功,投资公司均应支付报酬,且“加百利”轮脱浅作业过程中如发生任何意外,南海救助局无需负责。依据该约定,南海救助局救助报酬的获得与否和救助是否有实际效果并无直接联系,而救助报酬的计算,是以救助船舶每马力小时,以及人工投入等事先约定的固定费率和费用作为依据,与获救财产的价值并无关联。因此,本案所涉救助合同不属于救助公约和我国海商法所规定的“无效果无报酬”救助合同,而属雇佣救助合同。
There were no specific provisions on the conditions and standards for reward payment under an employed salvage contract in the Convention on Salvage and the Maritime Law. According to the relevant factors as prescribed in Article 180 of the Maritime Law, the courts of first instance and second instance adjusted the fixed rate as agreed by both parties in the employed salva    ge contract, which was erroneous in the application of law. The rights and obligations of the parties to this case should be regulated and determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law. It was not inappropriate for the Nanhai Rescue Bureau to demand Archangelos Investments' payment of the salvage reward in full amount according to the contract concluded by and between it and Archangelos Investments. 关于雇佣救助合同下的报酬支付条件及标准,救助公约和我国海商法并未作具体规定。一、二审法院依据海商法一百八十条规定的相关因素对当事人在雇佣救助合同中约定的固定费率予以调整,属适用法律错误。本案应依据我国合同法的相关规定,对当事人的权利义务予以规范和确定。南海救助局以其与投资公司订立的合同为依据,要求投资公司全额支付约定的救助报酬并无不当。
In conclusion, the court of second instance used the amount of salvage reward determined in the judgement of first instance as the base and ordered that Archangelos Investments should pay the salvage reward according to the proportion of the value of the salved tanker in the total value of the salved property, which was erroneous in both the application of law and the handling results and should be corrected. Although the judgment of first instance was erroneous in the application of law, the adjustment in the relevant rate in the judgment of first instance was based on the contractual stipulations of the parties, the Nanhai Rescue Bureau did not exercise the relevant litigation rights or raise an objection and the results of the judgment of first instance may be affirmed. 综上,二审法院以一审判决确定的救助报酬数额为基数,依照海商法的规定,判令投资公司按照船舶获救价值占全部获救财产价值的比例支付救助报酬,适用法律和处理结果错误,应予纠正。一审判决适用法律错误,但鉴于一审判决对相关费率的调整是以当事人的合同约定为基础,南海救助局对此并未行使相关诉讼权利提出异议,一审判决结果可予维持。
(Judges of the effective judgment: He Rong, Zhang Yongjian, Wang Shumei, Yu Xiaohan, and Guo Zaiyu) (生效裁判审判人员:贺荣、张勇健、王淑梅、余晓汉、郭载宇)
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese