This case arose from a collision within the Hansweert Lock between the sea-going Rozalinde, owned by Ooms Tanktransporten BV (Ooms), and the inland barge Elsava, owned by Fluvius Kft (Fluvius), resulting in damage to the Elsava and the lock gate. On 17 April 2018, the Elsava sailed from the Western Scheldt into the lock in the direction of the South Beveland Canal. The Elsava was moved to the front of the lock and moored on its starboard side with a bow spring and a stern spring. The Rozalinde subsequently entered the lock and was made fast on its starboard side about 4.5 m behind the Elsava. The Topaas was moored to the other lock wall. The MSC Giselle (300 m in length and owned by Xiangwang International Ship Lease Co Ltd (Xiangwang)) was sailing on the Western Scheldt, and passed the lock at around 11 h 51 at a speed of 16.5 knots (30 km/h). At around 11 h 56, there was a large rush of water from the Western Scheldt into the funnel-shaped approach to the lock and into the lock chamber. As a result of the water movement, the ropes of the Rozalinde, Elsava, and Topaas broke. The Rozalinde's bow hit the Elsava's stern; the Elsava hit the lock gate.

Fluvius provided security to the Rijkswaterstaat (the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management) for the damage to the lock gate. Alleging that it was not liable for the events, Fluvius then sued: (1) Ooms and Xiangwang for damages for its own loss; and (2) the Rijkswaterstaat for a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for the damage to the lock gate, and for the return of the security it had provided. The Rijkswaterstaat counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that Fluvius was liable for the damage to the lock gate.

Held: In so far as the claims are based on collision or damage caused by the fault of an inland barge, the Geneva Convention on Collisions in Inland Navigation 1960 and the supplementary arts 8:1000 ff of the Dutch Civil Code apply. Where the claims are based on damage caused by the fault of a sea-going ship (the MSC Giselle), the Brussels Collision Convention 1910 and supplementary arts 8:540 ff of the Dutch Civil Code apply (having had regard to arts 4.1 and 28 of EU Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II)).

The movement of water causing the contact between the Elsava and the Rozalinde, and between the Elsava and the lock gate, was brought about by the MSC Giselle. The large movement of water was not caused by wash, or by the bow or stern wave of a ship, but was the result of suction caused by a large sea-going vessel, such as the MSC Giselle, passing at high speed; and the effects thereof were intensified by the low water level on the Western Scheldt. There were few large sea-going vessels on the Western Scheldt near the lock at the relevant time. There is no reason to assume that one of the other vessels caused the movement of water. Having regard to the ship's size, the direction of sailing, the time of passage, and the distance from the lock, by far the most likely candidate is the MSC Giselle.

The Rozalinde is not to blame for the loss that Fluvius suffered as a result of the collision between the Rozalinde and the Elsava, or the contact between the Elsava and the lock gate. The large movement of water was so immense that the full reverse order given by the master had no effect, and it was not possible to add a rope.

The burden is on Fluvius to prove that the MSC Giselle is to blame for the damage, and in particular whether it acted in violation of art 3 of the applicable Western Scheldt Shipping Regulation. There is no basis for applying the rule on reversal of the burden of proof. In order to be able to apply the reversal rule, consistent case law requires that an act was committed contrary to a standard that aims to prevent a specific danger relating to the occurrence of damage. The person alleging that such a standard was violated must - when challenged - show that in the particular case at hand the specific danger against which the standard aims to offer protection has in fact materialised (Hoge Raad, 2 June 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1008; Hoge Raad, 10 January 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:27). The location of art 3 of the Western Scheldt Shipping Regulation in the chapter 'General provisions', its heading ('Responsibility'), and its content, do not indicate that it is a standard aimed to prevent a specific danger relating to the occurrence of damage, as meant in the reversal rule, but is more a general standard and catch-all provision aimed to prevent a multitude of situations that may entail damage or loss.

The MSC Giselle is to blame for the damage, so that Xiangwang is liable for the loss suffered by Fluvius as a result. The MSC Giselle had a registered pilot on board with local expertise, and sailed in accordance with the advice given by the pilot. A reasonably competent and reasonably skilled pilot, who is familiar with sailing on the Western Scheldt, may be assumed to know the existence, location, and shape of the approach to the Hansweert Lock, to be familiar with the effect of the water displacement of a ship such as the MSC Giselle, and the concomitant potential dangers for other ships, whether moored or not, on the Western Scheldt itself, and on the neighbouring or connected harbours and smaller waters. Such a pilot may also be assumed to know that the effects will intensify at low water, and that the lock at Hansweert is a busy area. The master of the MSC Giselle may be assumed to know about the possibly dangerous effects of water displacement as a result of suction caused by the MSC Giselle, and an intensification of these effects during low water. Under these circumstances one could expect from the MSC Giselle that it would match its manner of sailing to the high probability that smaller ships were in the Hansweert Lock while it passed, and to the dangerous effects, intensified by low water, which water displacement as a result of suction caused by the MSC Giselle could have on those ships present at the location. A quick reduction in speed by the MSC Giselle would have diminished the dangers of the massive water displacement for the ships in Hansweert Lock. The MSC Giselle therefore did not take a precautionary measure which it should have taken in the circumstances of the case. The fact that there is no speed limit on the Western Scheldt, and that 16 knots is not necessarily an unsafe speed, does not matter. That the ship's officers acted in accordance with the pilot's instructions does not matter either, also in view of art 8:547 of the Dutch Civil Code, and the corresponding art 5 of the Collision Convention 1910. The insufficient mooring of the Rozalinde is not (even partly) the cause of the damage caused to the Elsava. Even if it was possible to add an extra (fourth) rope, it could not have prevented the damage from occurring. The suction effect was enormous, and the ropes of the Rozalinde already had double the required strength, without being able to prevent the incident.

The loss claimed by Fluvius can be awarded with the exception of the loss of time. There was no fault on the part of the Elsava. There was an exceptionally strong water displacement, and mooring the Elsava with four ropes could not have prevented or limited the damage.

The negative declaration demanded by Fluvius and the return of the security can be awarded. For liability, fault on the part of the vessel is required. However, there is no fault on the part of the Elsava, and there is therefore no basis for providing security.