In March 1985, a collision between the Castillo de Monte Aragon and the Patmos, which was carrying around 80,000 mt of crude oil, occurred in the Strait of Messina, off Italy. The incident caused a fire on the Patmos and an oil spill. The crew abandoned the ship, which ran aground on the beach near Torre Faro. The Patmos was towed and docked at the jetty of SMEB SpA (SMEB). Corporazione dei Piloti dello Stretto di Messina (CPSM) salvaged the ship. Capo del Compartimento Marittimo of Messina declared a local emergency and ordered the adoption of all necessary measures to tackle pollution damage. Consequently, SMEB took measures to contain the oil spill on the request of the Maritime Authority. In April 1985, the state of emergency ended, and the cargo was transhipped onto the Esso Genova and the Esso Albany.

In May 1985, Patmos Shipping Co, the owner of the Patmos, and the ship's P&I Club, the United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Insurance Association (Bermuda) Ltd, asked the Tribunal of Messina for a decree of limitation of liability, to order the prompt release of the vessel, and to rule that no right of compensation for pollution damage should be exercised against other assets of the shipowner or the P&I Club. CPSM argued that its operations were not only directed at salvage but also tackled pollution damage, and should thus be compensated under the Civil Liability Convention (the CLC 1969).

In June 1985, the Tribunal of Messina gave a limitation of liability order. In February 1986, 30 claims were admintted, amounting to ITL 4,140,189,659. Some claimants appealed this amount. In July 1986, the Tribunal of Messina excluded compensation for pollution damage to marine flora and fauna. This decision was appealed by the Ministero della Marina Mercantile (MMM) and the Ministero dell’Interno (MI), claiming that pollution damage occurred in this instance, and that they were entitled to be compensated. In particular, MI contended that the activity performed by Vigili del Fuoco di Messina (VFM) was to be included in the compensation. In May 1989, the Court of Appeal of Messina decided that pollution damage, if established in this case, was to be compensated. It also ordered the instructing Judge to determine if pollution damage occurred, and if so, to quantify it.

Held: MI's appeal is upheld. MMM and CPSM's appeals are dismissed.

As to CPSM's claim for compensation under the CLC 1969, the Court decided that its activities were not aimed at tackling pollution damage as a primary objective, so they could not be compensated. The Court recalled that the Tribunal of Messina emphasised that salvage and actions to tackle pollution damage are different in nature and aims, and are dealt with under different legal frameworks. In particular, the Court stressed that the primary aim to be considered is to assess whether the operation in question relates to salvage, or is performed to minimise pollution damage.

Furthermore, the Court agreed with MI concerning the activities of VFM. Having supported the operations to tackle the oil spill, the Court considered them to constitute pollution damage prevention measures. They were thus entitled to compensation under the CLC 1969.

The Court highlighted the notion of 'pollution damage', recalling the CLC 1969 and the Fund Convention 1971. Pollution damage includes everything which alters, deteriorates, or wholly or partially destroys the environment. It consists of every damage caused to the beaches and the interests of coastal States from an environmental point of view, such as those related to the conservation of marine biological resources, fauna, and flora. This damage has an economic character.

The Court also noted that part of the oil spill occurred beyond the territorial sea. This part cannot be compensated. Indeed, only damage suffered in Italian territorial waters can be compensated under art 2 of the CLC 1969, which provides as follows:

This Convention shall apply exclusively to pollution damage caused on the territory including the territorial sea of a Contracting State and to preventive measures taken to prevent or minimize such damage.

Thus, damage which occurs in international waters cannot be compensated under the CLC 1969 or any other law. In respect of international waters, States enjoy no rights of a public or private nature.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed MMM's claim, as the technical evidence found that MMM used harmful substances in the sea to tackle the polluting event, demonstrating negligence. The Court referred to art 3.3 of the CLC 1969, which provides:

If the owner proves that the pollution damage resulted wholly or partially either from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage by the person who suffered the damage or from the negligence of that person, the owner may be exonerated wholly or partially from his liability to such person.