The claimant company MN, the owner of vessel F, commissioned the first defendant, a transport contractor, to find a maritime carrier for the purpose of transporting its vessel. The first defendant entrusted the transport to the second defendant, company S SA, which also has an establishment in Greece. The transportation was carried out by vessel G, owned by the fourth defendant, company M & Co, and operated by the fifth defendant company E Ltd.

During the unloading of F, which took place in the anchorage of the port, with the assistance of the third defendant company, S EPE, in the presence of its employee, the ninth defendant, and with the use of a floating crane owned by the sixth defendant, with the captain the eleventh defendant, F was damaged. The claimant alleged that as a result of the damage the value of F was reduced by USD 311,200.00, or otherwise by EUR 200,000.00.

The claimant was unsuccessful before the Multi-Membered Court of First Instance of Piraeus and the Court of Appeal of Piraeus. MN appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: The decision 432/2014 of the Court of Appeal of Piraeus is annulled. The case is remitted, for further hearing, to the same Court which will be composed of other judges, different from those who issued the annulled decision.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeal decision in the light of national law and arts 1.b, 2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.5.b, 4 bis, 5, 10, 10.b, 10.c of the Hague-Visby Rules and concluded the following:

Law 2107/1992 ratified the Hague-Visby Rules as amended by the Protocols. Consequently the provisions of this International Convention constitute, according to art 28.1 of the Constitution, an integral part of Greek national law and prevail over any other contrary provision of law.

The Hague-Visby Rules have been applied in Greece since 26 June 1993, as per arts 1.b, 2, 3.1, 5, 10, 10.b, and 10.c of the Hague-Visby Rules (Supreme Court decision 376/2008): a) for all maritime transportation performed under a bill of lading and the ports of loading and unloading belong to different States; and b) for maritime transportation between Greek ports, whether or not a bill of lading has been issued.

From the combination of arts 3.1, 4.1, 4.5.b, and 4 bis of the Hague-Visby Rules, as art 4.5 was replaced by art 2 and art 4 bis was added by art 3 of the Visby Protocol 1968, it follows that the carrier by sea is liable for loss of or partial damage to goods during carriage, and that in the event of loss of or damage to goods in carriage by sea any person having an interest in the cargo, ie the person who suffers its loss or damage, is entitled to take action against the maritime carrier and claim damages. The measure of this damage shall be calculated on the basis of the commodity exchange price or, failing that, the current market price or normal value of the goods at the place and time when they were discharged from the ship or where they should have been discharged in accordance with the contract of carriage (Supreme Court decision 343/2019 (CMI1384), Supreme Court decision 928/2011 (CMI340)). The above provision, in other words, determines the measure for calculating the compensation for the damage caused by the loss or damage to the cargo.

Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of national law, it follows that any claim for compensation under Greek law, whether it arises from breach of contract, tort, or law, must be denominated in Euros, the currency in which the claimant is entitled to claim compensation, provided that it is expressly stated that the compensation is to be paid in money. Any foreign currency payment must be converted into Euros on the basis of the exchange rate at the time of the expenditure or loss. This quantity of foreign currency does not represent the loss, but only serves to determine the loss in Euros, which is the definitive expression of the loss.

In accordance with this general principle of art 297.a CC, compensation for loss or damage to the transported cargo, calculated in accordance with the above provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules, is payable in national currency, without the nature of the latter as a pecuniary debt being altered in the case where the place of destination of the goods is abroad. In particular, in the latter case, the mere fact that, at the foreign port of destination (place of discharge), the values, and henceforth the recoverable value of the cargo, are expressed in the corresponding foreign currency at the time when discharge commences does not alter the rule. It also does not change the nature of the maritime carrier's liability for the above reasons, since even then the compensation sought in Greece, to compensate the damage suffered by the cargo owner - as the above provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules specify and limit it, in accordance with the fixed factors which establish the value of the goods at the place and time of the commencement of unloading as provided for therein - is payable in Euros, and in particular in the corresponding amount of the foreign currency, on the basis of the exchange rate between them at the aforementioned place and time of discharge (Supreme Court decision 343/2019 (CMI1384)).

The first ground of appeal alleges that the Court of Appeal dismissed the legal action as unlawful, in particular by holding that the relevant time for determining the damage to be compensated is not the time at which the ship was to be unloaded at the port of destination but the time of payment of compensation. The appellants claimed that the court incorrectly applied the provisions of national law and arts 3.1, 4.1, 4.5.b, and 4 bis of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's appeal, and annulled the decision 4462/2008 of the Court of First Instance, which had dismissed the legal action due to the lack of standing of the claimant. Subsequently, it dismissed the legal action as unlawful, accepting in particular that the relevant time for calculating the foreign currency in Euros for the purpose of determining the damage to be remedied is that of the payment of the compensation and not that of its unloading at the port of destination.

In so holding, the Court of Appeal erroneously applied the national law and arts 3.1, 4.1, 4.5.b and 4 bis of the Hague-Visby Rules.