{"id":2374,"date":"2006-01-31T13:59:44","date_gmt":"2006-01-31T12:59:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2374"},"modified":"2016-05-25T14:00:31","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T13:00:31","slug":"sentence-1128","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2006\/01\/31\/sentence-1128\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1128"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1128\u00a0\u2013 c\/p coque nue \u2013 inex\u00e9cution \u2013 op\u00e9ration de financement quirataire soumise \u00e0 diff\u00e9rentes juridictions. <\/strong>Quand par suite de l\u2019innavigabilit\u00e9 d\u2019un navire une charte partie coque nue ne peut recevoir un d\u00e9but d\u2019ex\u00e9cution, les avances de loyer re\u00e7ues par les quirataires armateurs propri\u00e9taires doivent \u00eatre rembours\u00e9es par l\u2019affr\u00e9teur. Les arbitres soulignent dans leur sentence avoir eu conscience, que cette charte-partie coque nue n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un \u00e9l\u00e9ment d\u2019une op\u00e9ration complexe de financement quirataire, mais constatent que, les autres contrats \u00e9tant soumis \u00e0 une juridiction diff\u00e9rente, ils doivent se limiter \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation stricte de la charte-partie coque nue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1128\u00a0\u2013 c\/p coque nue \u2013 inex\u00e9cution \u2013 op\u00e9ration de financement quirataire soumise \u00e0 diff\u00e9rentes juridictions. Quand par suite de l\u2019innavigabilit\u00e9 d\u2019un navire une charte partie coque nue ne peut recevoir un d\u00e9but d\u2019ex\u00e9cution, les avances de loyer re\u00e7ues par les quirataires armateurs propri\u00e9taires doivent \u00eatre rembours\u00e9es par l\u2019affr\u00e9teur. Les arbitres soulignent dans leur sentence<\/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-2374","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\/2374","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=2374"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2374\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2375,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2374\/revisions\/2375"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}