D Carlos Miguel, D Eusebio and Talleres de Reparaciones Pesqueras SA (the plaintiffs) claimed against D Fidel, D Luis Miguel, and Mutua de Riesgo Marítimo SA (the defendants) for damage resulting from a collision of two vessels flagged in Spain on 12 July 1991. The first instance Court admitted the claim partially and ordered the defendant to pay compensation. The defendants appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The defendants recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), alleging that the plaintiffs did not submit a protest within 24 hours after the occurrence of the collision. This is a requirement stated in the Code of Commerce (CCom) as a condition to claiming compensation for damages. The plaintiffs argued that the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Collisions Between Vessels, signed in Brussels on 23 September 1910 (the Collision Convention 1910) and ratified by Spain, and which does not establish such a requirement, prevailed over the CCom.

Held: The SC affirmed the decision. The SC stated that the ratification by Spain of the Collision Convention 1910 had produced a dichotomy in the legal regime governing maritime accidents according to the parties involved in the collision, depending on whether only Spanish ships are involved or if there is a foreign ship involved, distinguishing, therefore, between the local and the international legal regimes. Such a dichotomy does not suppose the prevalence of the Collision Convention 1910, which in art 6 does not require to enter a protest or any other formality to have the right to an action to seek compensation for damages resulting from a collision. That only has the purpose to determine the applicable legal regime according to the flags of the ships involved in the collision. As both ships were Spanish flagged, the accident must be regulated by the CCom. Although the plaintiff did not submit a protest within the time established in the CCom, such requirement was complied with, if not in the regular way, then by other means that are sufficient for the purpose of that provision and according to the case law.