{"id":2218,"date":"2008-08-25T10:01:24","date_gmt":"2008-08-25T09:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2218"},"modified":"2016-05-25T13:49:37","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T12:49:37","slug":"sentence-30","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2008\/08\/25\/sentence-30\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1156"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1156\u00a0\u2013 B\/L de C\/P \u2013 riz en sacs \u2013 manquants et avaries \u2013 clause Paramount et loi applicable \u2013 transporteur maritime responsable. <\/strong>Interpr\u00e9tation diff\u00e9rente de la clause Paramount par les parties. Les armateurs pr\u00e9tendent que les r\u00e8gles de Hambourg doivent s\u2019appliquer puisque l\u2019Inde (pays de chargement) n\u2019a pas ratifi\u00e9 la Convention de Bruxelles de 1924 et que le S\u00e9n\u00e9gal (pays de d\u00e9chargement) a ratifi\u00e9 la Convention de Hambourg de 1978 ( sa \u00ab\u00a0corresponding l\u00e9gislation\u00a0\u00bb). Pour les arbitres, le mot \u00ab\u00a0enacted\u00a0\u00bb n\u2019est pas l\u2019\u00e9quivalent de \u00ab\u00a0ratified\u00a0\u00bb. Le mot \u00ab\u00a0enactment\u00a0\u00bb vise la proc\u00e9dure par laquelle la Convention de Bruxelles a pu ou non \u00eatre transpos\u00e9e dans le droit interne du pays de chargement. Or c\u2019est le cas de l\u2019Inde qui a transpos\u00e9 dans son droit interne (Carriage of goods by sea Act de 1925) les dispositions de la Convention de Bruxelles, qui s\u2019appliquent donc \u00e0 la cause. L\u2019armateur, transporteur maritime ne se pr\u00e9valant d\u2019aucun cas except\u00e9, est reconnu responsable des avaries et manquants constat\u00e9s au d\u00e9chargement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1156\u00a0\u2013 B\/L de C\/P \u2013 riz en sacs \u2013 manquants et avaries \u2013 clause Paramount et loi applicable \u2013 transporteur maritime responsable. Interpr\u00e9tation diff\u00e9rente de la clause Paramount par les parties. Les armateurs pr\u00e9tendent que les r\u00e8gles de Hambourg doivent s\u2019appliquer puisque l\u2019Inde (pays de chargement) n\u2019a pas ratifi\u00e9 la Convention de Bruxelles de<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe-fr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2218"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2359,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2218\/revisions\/2359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}