{"id":2303,"date":"2006-12-28T12:50:10","date_gmt":"2006-12-28T11:50:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2303"},"modified":"2016-05-25T12:51:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T11:51:05","slug":"sentence-1134","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2006\/12\/28\/sentence-1134\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1134"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1134\u00a0\u2013 Action mal dirig\u00e9e contre propri\u00e9taire \u00e9tranger \u00e0 la c\/p contenant clause compromissoire \u2013 Tribunal arbitral incomp\u00e9tent. <\/strong>Les arbitres se d\u00e9clarent incomp\u00e9tents pour juger de l\u2019action d\u2019assureurs subrog\u00e9s dans les droits du destinataire contre l\u2019armateur propri\u00e9taire du navire et son capitaine pour la perte d\u2019une cargaison r\u00e9sultant du naufrage du navire. Ils constatent que l\u2019action est mal fond\u00e9e et aurait du \u00eatre dirig\u00e9e contre le fr\u00e9teur\/affr\u00e9teur \u00e0 temps qui \u00e9tait le transporteur maritime\u00a0; d\u2019autant que les r\u00e9ceptionnaires ne pouvaient ignorer l\u2019existence du fr\u00e9teur\/affr\u00e9teur, les assureurs fondant leur demande d\u2019arbitrage sur la clause compromissoire de la charte partie qui pr\u00e9cisait clairement l\u2019existence du fr\u00e9teur\/affr\u00e9teur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1134\u00a0\u2013 Action mal dirig\u00e9e contre propri\u00e9taire \u00e9tranger \u00e0 la c\/p contenant clause compromissoire \u2013 Tribunal arbitral incomp\u00e9tent. Les arbitres se d\u00e9clarent incomp\u00e9tents pour juger de l\u2019action d\u2019assureurs subrog\u00e9s dans les droits du destinataire contre l\u2019armateur propri\u00e9taire du navire et son capitaine pour la perte d\u2019une cargaison r\u00e9sultant du naufrage du navire. Ils constatent que<\/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-2303","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\/2303","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=2303"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2303\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2304,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2303\/revisions\/2304"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}