Shipping 2026 Comparisons

Spain does not have courts that specialise exclusively and permanently in maritime and shipping matters in the strict sense of a separate maritime judiciary. Maritime and shipping disputes have been adjudicated within the ordinary civil judicial system, principally by the Seccion de lo Mercantil de los Tribunales de Instancia (Mercantile Sections), which under Article 87.6 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial have competence over disputes involving maritime law, among other commercial matters (general carriage of goods, corporate, insolvency, etc).

On 3 April 2025, Seccion de lo Mercantil replaced the previous Juzgados de lo Mercantil (Mercantile Courts) after the entry into force of the Organic Law 1/2025, of 2 January, on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service.

Common claims filed before the Mercantile Sections of the Tribunales de Instancia are cargo claims, collisions, claims arising from ship construction or repair contracts, contractual disputes, stevedore damages to the ship or the cargo and marine insurance disputes. Ship arrest is also a common application dealt with by the Mercantile Sections.

Salvage and emergency towing claims, however, may be heard before the Maritime Arbitration Conseil (an administrative body) if there is an agreement for such between salvors and ship-owners. In the absence of such an agreement and following the Second Additional Disposition of the Spanish Shipping Act 2014 (SSA), the Mercantile Sections would also have jurisdiction for salvage and emergency towing claims. It should be noted that, until the Maritime Arbitration Conseil’s Regulation is enacted, the Conseil’s functions will be exercised by the Central Maritime Courts (a Navy body).

Claims related to labour issues, such as seafarers’ claims related to their employment contract, labour rights, personal injury affecting crew and others, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Labour Sections of the Tribunales de Instancia, according to Article 9.5 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial.

Cases concerning marine sanctioning proceedings derived from breach of maritime regulations (the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), etc), port dues and/or against the Spanish Maritime Administration are subject to the Contentious Administrative Sections following Article 9.4 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial.

Royal Decree 1737/2010 approves the Regulation that establishes the inspections of foreign vessels in Spanish ports. These inspections are carried out to ensure compliance with international and European Conventions and Regulations for the safety of life at sea, marine and environmental protection, and life and work standards for seafarers, all within the frame of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The competent authority for foreign vessel inspections is the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, through the Harbour Master Offices in each port.

Groundings and wreck removal outside internal waters are also subject to the powers of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility through the Harbour Master Offices, whereas grounding and wreck removal within internal waters are subject to the relevant Port Authority. In both cases, the competent authorities have the power to request salvage or wreck-removal operations from the owner or its insurer. If owners or insurers do not comply with this request, the competent authorities are empowered either to sink the vessel or to remove the wreck, all at the owner’s/insurer’s expense, without the possibility of claiming limitation of liability. Authorities would have a lien on the recovered property and can sell it to recover the costs incurred.

In order to prevent marine pollution, the Harbour Masters and Port Authorities are empowered to visit, inspect and arrest vessels within Spanish jurisdictional waters, and to initiate judicial actions or any other action they deem necessary to protect the environment.

As a state party to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), Spain has developed the National Marine Response Plan and the National Shore Protection Plan to prevent and fight pollution at sea and onshore under the powers of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility and Coastal Directorate, which will co-ordinate the response to pollution with the assistance of the Spanish salvage public company (SASEMAR), the Army, the police, fire fighters, scientific public agencies, etc. Costs for this response will be claimed against the polluter.

Ship registration is regulated by the State Port and Merchant Navy Act (ie, the Royal Legislative Decree 2/2011), the SSA and Royal Decree 1027/1989, which regulates ship registration and the Maritime Registry.

All vessels or naval artefacts in Spain, including Mobile Offshore Renewable Units (MORU) must be entered on two registries of different natures:

• the Marine Administrative Registry; and
• the Registry of Movable Goods, where ownership, mortgages and encumbrances will be registered.

The Marine Administrative Registry is in the charge of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, and is located in the different Harbour Master Offices. The Registry provides for the register of ships or naval artefacts through a list system that depends on the activity to be performed by each ship. The Registry of Movable Goods, however, is in the charge of the Ministry of Justice.

The Special Registry of Ships and Shipping Companies of the Canary Islands (known as the REBECA), which provides for important tax allowances and corporate benefits, is also worth mentioning.

Under the Spanish Ports Act, only individuals or companies domiciled in Spain or in any of the European Economic Area (EEA) countries can own a Spanish-flagged vessel, provided that they have a representative within Spanish territory. For companies domiciled outside the EEA, the Spanish flag is only accessible if the vessel is registered under the REBECA.

Title to ownership (sale contract) shall be in writing, and ownership will be acquired with the delivery of the vessel after the contract of sale purchase. However, in order to register the ownership of the vessel, the sale contract needs to be contained in a public deed.

Vessels under construction are registered in the Marine Administrative Registry within list nine, which is a temporary registration. Once the construction has finished, the vessel is registered in the appropriate list according to the purpose of the vessel, and the temporary registration is closed.

Vessels under construction can also be registered in the Registry of Movable Goods. In fact, registration in the Registry of Movable Goods is compulsory when the vessel under construction is subject to a mortgage.

Temporary registration of vessels under the Spanish flag is permitted when a foreign-flagged vessel is under a bareboat charterparty and the charterer has its domicile in Spain. The temporary registration will last for the duration of the charterparty.

Similarly, Spanish-flagged vessels chartered by a person domiciled outside Spain may be temporarily registered in the country of the charterers for the duration of the charterparty.

Spain does not permit dual registration: vessels registered in Spain may fly only the Spanish flag. Temporary registration of a foreign vessel in Spain will only take place after the Registry is satisfied that the vessel has been suspended from its original flag.

The constitution, modification or cancellation of a mortgage or encumbrance on a vessel or on a naval artefact must be recorded in the Registry of Movable Goods in the charge of the Ministry of Justice. The mortgage agreement may be granted by means of a private contract or a notarial deed. The mortgage agreement must identify:

• the parties;
• the loan guaranteed by the mortgage;
• the date of payment of capital and interest;
• the description and identification of the vessel/naval artefact;
• the value of the vessel/naval artefact;
• if two or more vessels/naval artefacts are mortgaged, the amount for which each vessel/naval artefact is mortgaged; and
• any other contractual provision to which the parties have agreed.

The Registry of Movable Goods and the Maritime Registry are public. Any person may obtain information from their records by applying to the registry and paying register dues for that information.

In Spain, typical ship financing combines bank credit with a naval mortgage registered on the Movable Property Registry, together with an additional guarantee package (insurance covers, liens on freights, mother company guarantees, etc). In new buildings, private shipbuilder associations grant additional guarantees to facilitate financing, together with public entities (such as the Instituto de Credito Oficial).

There is also a typical Tax Lease structure that aids investment in new buildings with more effective taxation. This usually requires a lease-type agreement.

Finally, some new buildings are eligible for public aids or loans (at low rates or without the need for additional guarantees) if they incorporate cleaner energy technologies or other advanced technologies.

Ship leasing has traditionally coexisted with traditional bank lending as part of the tax lease structure. Although there is no lease database publication, there is no indication that ship leasing is gaining ground. On the contrary, traditional bank lending remains dominant, based on the availability of local builders association’s additional guarantee schemes.

Under Spanish law, the main difference between a lessor and a borrower lies in ownership: the lessor retains title to the vessel, whereas the lessee operates it. By contrast, a lender holds only a credit claim secured by a mortgage, with the borrower retaining both ownership and operational control of the vessel.

Mortgage enforcement is a more structured remedy under Spanish law, whereas the lessor might have a remedy based on the International Convention on Arrest of Ships (the “Arrest Convention 1999”), which would require a prior court declaration of the right before enforcement can be obtained.

Spain is a member state of:

• the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC Convention);
• the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (IOPC Fund);
• the 2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol; and
• the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (BUNKER).

The civil liability of owners and interested parties in the event of pollution is also regulated by the SSA, although the application of the above-mentioned Conventions is preferential over domestic law. Articles 386, 388, 389 and 391 of the SSA regulate a strict liability regime for the owner of the polluting vessel, its right to limit liability and its obligation to take out civil liability insurance covering liability for pollution.

As for wreck removal, Spain is not a party to the International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (the “2015 Nairobi Convention”). Accordingly, wreck removal is regulated by Articles 369 to 383 of the SSA and by Article 304 of the Spanish State Ports and Merchant Navy Act.

Spanish domestic law establishes owners’ direct liability for wreck removal and provides that the administration costs arising from wreck-removal activities are privileged. Owners do not have a right to limit liability under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC 76/96) in accordance with the Reservation made by Spain to this Convention for wreck-removal claims.

Regulation of Collisions

Collisions are regulated by the 1910 Collision Convention and other related Conventions, such as the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Penal Jurisdiction in the matter of Collisions or other Incidents of Navigation, made in Brussels in 1952, or the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs). In Spanish domestic law, collisions are regulated in Articles 339 to 346 of the SSA.

Regulation of Salvage

Salvage is regulated by the 1989 International Convention on Salvage and Articles 357 to 368 of the SSA.

Setting aside specific liability regimes to be applied in Spain, such as the Hague–Visby Rules, the CLC, the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea of 13 December 1974 (the “Athens Convention”), BUNKER, etc, owners are entitled to limit their liability in accordance with the 1976 International Convention on Limitation of Liability and its 1996 Protocol. The SSA grants ship-owners and carriers the right to opt for the application of the LLMC 76/96 limit or the applicable specific limit.

The SSA also regulates the limitation of liability in Articles 392 to 405, referring to the LLMC 76/96 as the applicable regime.

The recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG MS “MSC Flaminia” highlights the structural importance of the rules on treaty interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as an essential instrument for ensuring a uniform, coherent and internationally consistent interpretation of multilateral conventions, particularly in highly harmonised fields such as maritime law.

In the Spanish jurisdiction, the Vienna Convention is fully applicable. Spain acceded to the Convention in 1972, and it entered into force in 1980. Accordingly, the provisions of the Vienna Convention have normative status and binding force, and are not confined to a mere interpretative or doctrinal role.

In this context, the general rules of treaty interpretation set out in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention constitute the primary hermeneutic framework applied by Spanish courts. These rules require treaties to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their terms, in their context and in light of their object and purpose, allowing them to use supplementary means of interpretation only where the result is ambiguous, dark or manifestly absurd. This methodological approach is particularly significant in the field of international maritime law, where an autonomous and uniform interpretation of treaty concepts is essential to preserve legal certainty and the predictability of commercial relations.

Spanish case law, both at Supreme Court level and in lower courts, has consistently relied on the rules of the Vienna Convention when interpreting international treaties in force in Spain (albeit often implicitly).

In this respect, the approach adopted by the UK Supreme Court in the MSC Flaminia case, in expressly relying on the interpretative rules of the Vienna Convention to construe the LLMC 76/96, is fully compatible with the interpretative methodology applicable in Spain.

Articles 403 to 405 of the SSA regulate the owners’ right to establish a limitation fund, which must be constituted by placing the amount of the limitation (including the interests accrued as of the date of the incident) before the competent court or providing security to the court’s satisfaction. Once the fund has been constituted, claimants cannot pursue their claims against any other asset. The constitution of the fund will also give rise to the release of any ship arrest (for the same claim). The release will be ordered by the court in which the fund has been constituted.

The Maritime Labour Convention has been in force in Spain since 20 August 2013 with the publication in the Spanish official gazette of the instrument of ratification. Spain has also enacted the 357/2015 Royal Decree, by which Spain incorporates Directive 2013/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 20 November 2013, concerning certain flag state responsibilities for compliance with and enforcement of the Maritime Labour Convention.

The Spanish Statute of Workers, which applies to any general worker, is also applicable to seafarers working onboard Spanish-flagged vessels.

Spain is a member state of the Hague–Visby Rules, which apply to cargo claims under bills of lading. Where the Hague–Visby Rules are not directly applicable, the SSA remits the regulation of liability regimes for all cargo claims to the Hague–Visby Rules, irrespective of whether the carriage is contracted under a bill of lading.

Regulation of the carrier’s liability for loss, damage or delay can be found in Articles 277 to 285 of the SSA.

It must be noted, however, that the First Final Disposition of the SSA provides that the SSA will adapt to the Rotterdam Rules if these come into force in the future, in which it is expected that all carriage of goods by sea contracts will be subject to their regime.

Title to sue under a bill of lading corresponds to the lawful holder of the bill of lading. According to Article 251 of the SSA, valid transfer of the bill of lading entails the transfer of rights and actions to the transferee, except for the jurisdiction and arbitration clauses. See 7.1 Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction Clauses Stated in Bills of Lading.

Spanish law does allow the assignment of rights, including the transfer of title to the goods and/or the right to claim for cargo damages. In this regard, one of the most common cases of assignment occurs when the cargo insurer compensates the cargo interest and subrogates into their position. Subrogation entails the assignment of the title to sue in favour of the insurer.

A carrier may be liable for partial or total loss or damages to the cargo, and for delays. The carrier’s liability regime, including limitation, extends to both the contractual and the actual carrier, which are considered to be jointly and severally liable towards the holder of the bill of lading.

Unless the nature and value of the goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment, a carrier may limit its liability to an equivalent of 666.67 special drawing rights (SDR) per loss or damaged package, or two SDR per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods actually lost or damaged, whichever is the higher.

The carrier’s liability for delay will be limited to two and a half times the amount of freight charged for the affected cargo, with the maximum limit equivalent to the freight charged for the complete cargo.

The right to limit liability does not apply in the case of wilful misconduct or gross negligence of the carrier.

Carriers are entitled to opt for the aforementioned limitation of liability regime or to apply the limitation of liability regime under the LLMC 76/96.

The carrier can establish a claim for damages against the shipper for misdeclaration of cargo, as established in Article 260 of the SSA. Other remedies are the right to discharge the cargo in certain circumstances and the right to destroy it in the case of dangerous goods (following Article 232 of the SSA). Up to January 2026, no relevant judgments have addressed the application of these SSA provisions.

The time bar to file a claim for lost or damaged cargo is one year. This time limit applies to both contractual and tort claims.

Under the Hague–Visby Rules, this time bar can be extended by agreement of the parties (ie, a time extension) but it cannot be interrupted by a letter of demand addressed to the respondent. If the claim is not filed within that one-year period or within the time extension, the action is time-barred. The nature of the one-year period of the Hague–Visby Rules has been confirmed by a Supreme Court judgment of 5 February 2026.

Under Article 286 of the SSA, however, and notwithstanding the statutory remission to the provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules, this one-year time bar has been interpreted in Spanish case law as potentially subject to interruption by a letter of demand. law on the following basis: where the Hague–Visby Rules apply directly, the one-year time bar is not subject to interruption, whereas where the Hague–Visby Rules apply by remission of the Spanish Maritime Navigation Act, the limitation period may, in principle, be subject to interruption by an extrajudicial demand, in accordance with the general rules on prescription under Spanish law.

Spain is a member state of the 1999 Arrest Convention, which was signed in Geneva on 12 March 1999 and came into force on 14 September 2011.

The domestic law that covers ship arrest in Spain is the SSA, in its Articles 470 et seq, alongside the provisions regulating general conservatory measures that can be found in the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure 1/2000 (Articles 721 et seq).

Spain is a member state of the 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages (Geneva, 6 May 1993) (the “Lien Convention”), which has been in force in Spain since 5 September 2004.

Articles 122 et seq of the SSA provide that maritime liens are governed by the 1993 Lien Convention. Accordingly, and pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Convention, maritime liens arise for:

• crew wages and related sums, including repatriation and social insurance;
• loss of life or personal injury directly connected with the operation of the vessel (subject to Article 4.2(a)–(b));
• salvage reward;
• port/canal/waterway and pilotage dues; and
• tort claims for physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel, excluding cargo, containers and passengers’ effects (subject to Article 4.2(a)–(b)).

Under Article 124 of the SSA, any liens recognised outside the Convention (under domestic law, EU rules or other treaties applicable in Spain) rank below mortgages and other registered charges. The government has considered amending the SSA to add supplies and repairs in Spanish ports as maritime liens. Spain distinguishes between maritime liens (claims that “follow” the vessel and may be enforced in rem notwithstanding changes of ownership/flag) and maritime claims (ie, those listed in Article 1(1) of the 1999 Arrest Convention), which permit ship arrest and include, beyond liens, a wider set of claims (eg, charterparty and carriage disputes, cargo damage, general average, towage/pilotage, bunkers/supplies/services, ship construction/repair, port dues, disbursements, insurance premiums, commissions/agency fees, ownership/co-ownership disputes, mortgages/charges, and ship sale disputes).

Consequently, chartering liabilities qualify as maritime claims enabling arrest.

In order to arrest a vessel under Spanish law, its owners or demise charterers must have in personam liability for the maritime claim. Exceptions to this principle are maritime liens: when a claim is a maritime lien, the claimant may arrest the offending vessel even if its owner or demise charterer is not liable in personam for the claim.

Bunker supply to a vessel is considered a maritime claim and the bunker supplier (contractual or actual supplier) can arrest the vessel for unpaid bunkers by virtue of Article 1.l) of the 1999 Arrest Convention, provided that these bunkers were purchased by the ship-owner or by the demise charterer.

Bunkers ordered by a charterer would not enable the claimant to arrest the vessel following Article 3.3 of the Arrest Convention, as a claim for unpaid bunkers is not considered a lien and does not create an in rem action against the vessel. However, in cases in which the terms and conditions of the actual supplier establish a direct action against the ship-owner or demise charterer and these terms and conditions have been accepted by the Master by signing the “bunker receipt”, Spanish courts have agreed to arrest the vessel. The charterer cannot bind the vessel by ordering bunkers without the Master’s acceptance, which would be binding on the owner.

The arrestor must appoint a court agent (also known as a procurator) and must be assisted by a lawyer in the arrest proceedings. The court will require a notarial power of attorney (POA) evidencing that appointment. If the power of attorney is issued before a foreign public notary, it will need to be legalised.

Under the SSA, a mere allegation of the maritime claim would suffice for the arrest application. It is, however, advisable to submit prima facie evidence of such a claim with the arrest petition. Any document submitted to the court must be translated into Spanish. Free translations of both the POA and evidence will suffice for this purpose.

In practice, the arrest petition, including the POA and any other document, will be presented electronically by the procurator to the court. Accordingly, the documents will be presented as copies.

The SSA requires the arrest petitioner to provide counter-security, prior to the court enforcing the arrest, which shall amount to a minimum of 15% of the maritime claim. This counter-security is provided to guarantee possible damages in the case of wrongful arrest. In most cases, the counter-security requested by Spanish courts is limited to this 15% of the maritime claim and is only occasionally increased when the court considers that there are other relevant factors that may give rise to the need to set a higher guarantee (eg, passenger vessels or when the vessel to be arrested is subject to a regular line).

The Arrest Convention is applicable only to ship arrest, and not to bunker or freight arrest.

The arrest of bunkers or freight is regulated by the provisions of the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure regarding conservatory measures. These provisions require the claimant not only to provide counter-security but also to present a prima facie case of claim (fumus boni iuris) and proof of the periculum in mora, or danger in delay. In practice, since a bunker arrest entails detaining a vessel without a claim against its owner or maritime lien, Spanish courts are reluctant to agree to bunker arrest.

Any other ship owned by the debtor, also known as a sister-ship, can be arrested under Spanish law in accordance with Article 3.2 of the Arrest Convention, as referred to by Article 475 of the SSA. Accordingly, a court may arrest not just the offending ship, but also other ships owned by the company liable for the claim, provided that this company was the owner or demise charterer of the offending ship when the claim arose.

Other ways to obtain security would be regulated by the provisions for conservatory measures of the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure and would include the attachment of assets (other than a vessel) or rights, injunctions, etc.

The first and quickest option to release an arrested vessel is by placing security before the court. The type of security – eg, Letter of Undertaking (LOU) of a protection and indemnity insurance (P&I) club – can be agreed with the arresting party, and this agreement should be respected by the court. If an agreement on the security is not possible, in order to release the vessel, security must be placed before the court in any of the means admitted by Spanish Procedural Law. This would include a cash deposit or an unconditional – and unlimited in duration – bank guarantee issued by a first-class Spanish bank. A P&I club LOU will not be admitted by the Spanish courts if the arresting party has not agreed to do so.

The second way to obtain the vessel’s release involves disputing the arrest order on the basis that it is a wrongful arrest – ie, that it does not comply with the requirements of the Arrest Convention. This second possibility takes longer than the first (several weeks or even months), because the court will schedule a hearing prior to deciding on the issue.

The third possibility would involve the arresting party not complying with their obligation to commence and file the proceedings on the merits before the competent court/arbitrator within the period of time granted by the Spanish court. This period is usually 20 to 90 days and will depend on where the competent court is located. If Spain has jurisdiction, the period will be only 20 days. The period starts from the date the arrest order was notified to the owners (usually via the Master or ship agents and served by the court via the Harbour Master).

Under Spanish law, the arrest does not give the claimant the legal right to seek direct enforcement against the vessel.

The procedure for judicial sale of the arrested ship is subject to the commencement of recognition (when the judgment or award has been issued by a foreign – non-European – jurisdiction or international arbitration) and enforcement proceedings of the final judgment or award on the merits of the claim.

The enforcement proceedings of a (national or recognised foreign) judgment or award against any asset located in the Spanish territory are regulated by the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure, and the subsequent judicial sale of the vessel is regulated by Articles 480 to 486 of the SSA, which mandate the observance of the Lien Convention provisions and, subsidiarily, the Spanish Procedural Rules.

Pursuant to Article 636.3 of the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure, the court will order the sale of the vessel through a public auction, which may be conducted either by a specialised body or directly by the court. Within the framework of the court proceedings, the parties involved (namely, the claimants/creditors and the debtor) retain the option to reach an agreement regarding the sale of the vessel. Such an agreement, however, must be approved by the court and accepted by any third party holding an interest in the vessel.

The order granting the judicial sale of the vessel must be served to:

• the authorities and vessel’s Registrar of the flag state;
• the registered owner;
• the holder of a nominative mortgage or charge duly recorded; and
• any holders of mortgages/charges duly recorded, maritime lien or hypothèques that put the court/authority on notice of them.

Provided that the recipients of such notifications are known, the aforementioned service containing all particulars of the auction (place, date, proceedings, circumstances, etc) shall be made in writing at least 30 days before the date of the auction.

Any holder of a maritime lien can appear in the auction proceedings to safeguard, defend or assert a third-party preference claim.

Upon the sale of the vessel at public auction, all the mortgages, hypothèques, charges, maritime liens and claims will be cancelled.

The sale of the vessel can be delegated to a specialised body, usually a Port Authority or a broker.

During the arrest, the vessel must be maintained by the arrested party. Spanish courts will not require the arresting party to pay the costs of maintenance of the vessel during the arrest. Furthermore, the port where the vessel is retained will look after the safety of the port and may take measures to guarantee such safety, at the ship-owner’s expense.

Ranking of Claims

Pursuant to Article 386 of the SSA, the following costs and expenses take preference over the list of liens contained in the Lien Convention:

• any wreck-removal expenses that must be settled to the Spanish Maritime Authorities; and
• the cost and expenses arising out of the ship-arrest proceedings and her subsequent sale, including maintenance of the vessel and those crew wages accrued from the moment the arrest is in place, and any other sums as referred to in Article 4.1.a) of the Lien Convention.

Second, any remaining funds shall be distributed up to their full and final settlement, according to their preference ranking set forth in the Lien Convention. Any possible remaining balance (after all credits have been paid) will be returned to the owner.

According to the Lien Convention, maritime liens take priority over registered mortgages.

Spain’s insolvency laws regulate the reorganisation or liquidation of a company in financial distress, similar to Chapter 11 of the United States.

Mercantile courts are competent to adjudge not only maritime matters but also insolvency matters.

Once bankruptcy protection has been requested and bankruptcy proceedings initiated, a court cannot enforce against any asset owned by the debtor outside the bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, any individual enforcement will be stopped.

A court will order the arresting party to pay for damages or costs caused by the arrest and to run with all legal costs in the following three scenarios:

• if the arrest is in dispute and it is finally lifted by the arresting court after the hearing, as set forth in Article 741.2 of the Spanish Procedural law;
• if the arresting party fails to initiate the proceedings on the merits in due time before the competent court or in arbitration, as set forth in Article 730.2 of the Spanish Procedural law; and
• if the claim on the merits is dismissed in full, as provided by Article 745 of the Spanish Procedural law.

Passenger claims in Spain are regulated by international conventions, European regulations and domestic laws.

International Conventions

Spain is a member state of the Athens Convention and the 2002 Protocol to that Convention, which provide a liability and insurance regime for passenger claims and their luggage. They apply to international carriage when the ship is flagged in a state party, the contract of carriage has been made in a member state, or the place of departure or destination is in a state party.

EU Regulations

The European Union has adopted Regulation (EC) 392/2009 of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents. This Regulation expands the provisions of the 1974 Athens Convention, as amended by the 2002 Protocol, to domestic carriage within member states for ships of Classes A and B when:

• the ship is flying the flag of a member state;
• the contract of carriage has been made in a member state; or
• the place of departure or destination is a member state.

Domestic Laws

The contract of carriage of passengers by sea is regulated by Articles 287 et seq of the SSA. The SSA applies to both international and domestic carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea and provides, in Article 298, that carriers’ liability shall be regulated by the 1974 Athens Convention, as amended by the Protocols to which Spain is a party, the Regulations of the European Union and the SSA.

The Spanish Constitution establishes that international conventions duly ratified by Spain and European regulations are not only directly applicable, but they also prevail and take preference over domestic law in the event of conflict. Therefore, while the three sources of law are currently directed to the 1974 Athens Convention, as amended by the 2002 Protocol, this has not always been the case, and conflict of law rules may have to be considered when deciding the applicable law in the future.

Time Limit to File a Claim

The time limit for any action for damages arising out of the death of or personal injury to a passenger, or for the loss of or damage to luggage, is two years. This time limit is the same for actions under the Athens Convention, the European Regulation or the SSA.

This two-year period may be interrupted and renewed by a letter of demand or by acknowledgement of liability.

Limitations on Liabilities Available to the Owners in Respect of a Passenger’s Claim

A carrier’s liability for the loss suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger is limited to 400,000 SDR per person on each distinct occasion.

In the death of or personal injury to a passenger as a result of a shipping incident, the carrier shall be liable up to 250,000 SDR, unless the carrier proves that the incident resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or force majeure, or was wholly caused by an act or omission by a third party with the intent to cause the incident. If and to the extent that the loss exceeds this limit, and up to a limit of 400,000 SDR, the carrier shall be further liable unless the carrier proves that the incident occurred without their fault or neglect.

For death or personal injury not caused by a shipping incident, the carrier will be liable if the incident was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier. The burden of proof lies with the passenger.

Spain has not exercised the option to increase the limits of liability in the case of death or personal injury.

Liability of the carrier for the loss of or damage to cabin luggage is limited to 2,250 SDR per passenger, per carriage. Liability of the carrier for the loss of or damage to vehicles, including all luggage carried in or on the vehicle, is limited to 12,700 SDR per vehicle, per carriage. For other types of luggage, liability shall not exceed 3,375 SDR per passenger, per carriage.

A deductible amount not exceeding 330 SDR for a vehicle and 149 SDR for other luggage may be agreed between the carrier and the passenger.

The limits of liability may be increased by agreement between the carrier and the passenger.

Maritime Lien or Maritime Claim

Spain has ratified the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages (dated 6 May 1993), Article 4.1.(b) of which establishes that claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring in direct connection with the operation of the vessel shall be secured by a maritime lien on the vessel. This provision includes all personal injury or loss of life claims arising from the Athens Convention. However, a claim either in tort or contract for loss or damage to passengers’ effects is not recognised as a maritime claim.

Both claims for loss of life or personal injury and claims for loss or damage to passengers’ effects would be considered maritime claims following Article 1.1, Sections (b) and (h) of the Arrest Convention.

Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses Stated in Bills of Lading

Subject to the provisions of international conventions in force in Spain and European regulations, which prevail over Spanish domestic law, the SSA establishes that jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading – whether to a foreign jurisdiction or foreign arbitration – are considered null and void unless they are negotiated separately and individually.

Furthermore, even in cases where the shipper named in the bill of lading may have negotiated a clause submitting any dispute to a foreign jurisdiction or international arbitration separately and individually with the carrier, Article 251 of the SSA establishes that the conveyance of the bill of lading to the consignee implies the conveyance of all the rights and actions of the shipper, except for any arbitration or jurisdiction agreement, which requires the express and written consent of the transferee or holder of the bill of lading.

Exceptions to the above are those submission clauses that refer any dispute under a bill of lading to the jurisdiction of a court of a member state of the European Union. Such clauses are considered valid between the parties to the contract of carriage, shipper/consignee and carrier, even if not separately and individually negotiated, based on Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

An ECJ judgment dated 25 April 2024 (in the cases C-345/22 to C-347/22) confirmed that jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading are enforceable under EU law if they are validly agreed by the shipper and the carrier. The validity of these clauses is governed by the law of the member state whose courts are designated in the clause. For a jurisdiction clause to be enforceable against a third party, such as the consignee, the latter must have subrogated in all rights and obligations of the shipper under the contract of carriage. The determination of whether such subrogation occurs must be judged by the national law applicable to the contract, as determined by private international law. Furthermore, the ECJ has established that Spanish courts must disregard Articles 468 and 251 of the SSA when they are in conflict with Article 25 of Brussels I bis.

In accordance with the above findings, the Court of Appeals of Pontevedra, which had to apply Spanish law to determine the effects of the conveyance of the bill of lading to a consignee, conceded in its judgment dated 16 September 2024 that Article 25 of Brussels I bis eliminates the requirement for the consignee and third-party holder of the bill of lading to express their consent individually and separately.

Validity of Law Clauses Stated in Bills of Lading

Law clauses stated in bills of lading are recognised by Spanish courts and are enforceable against both the shipper and the holder of the bill of lading. Having said this, the fact that a bill of lading remits to foreign legislation does not imply that the analysis of the validity of a potential foreign jurisdiction or international arbitration clause should be made from the perspective of such a law (eg, Barcelona Court of Appeals judgment No 1463/2019, dated 23 July 2019).

If an action is brought before a Spanish court, the court will apply Spanish conflict of law provisions to determine the validity of the jurisdiction clause. If the court decides that Spain is competent to hear the matter, the Spanish court may and will apply the provisions of a foreign legislation (to the merits of the claim) if the parties have agreed to that legislation. It will be for the parties to provide evidence of the content of that legislation for the Spanish court to apply. This is usually done by means of two sworn affidavits issued by jurists.

An international arbitration clause incorporated into a bill of lading will have to be separately and individually negotiated by the shipper and the consignee in order to be valid. To date, there are no definitive judgments addressing the implications of Articles 468 and 251 of the SSA in the specific context of international arbitration clauses included in bills of lading.

It must be noted, however, that the SSA requires only individual and separate negotiation of a submission clause when they pertain to international jurisdiction or arbitration. It does not impose this requirement for domestic jurisdiction or arbitration clauses, suggesting that, in principle, such clauses should be considered valid between a carrier and the consignee. There is, however, no consolidated case law to this effect to date. Furthermore, even if a domestic jurisdiction or arbitration clause is considered to be valid against the shipper in principle, this does not necessarily extend to the holder of the bill of lading, and the question yet to be answered by Spanish courts is whether a domestic jurisdiction or arbitration clause will also need to be negotiated separately and individually by the holder of the bill of lading in order to be valid towards them.

The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is applicable in Spain for international arbitration.

Spain has also enacted the Arbitration Act (Law 60/2003) for domestic arbitration and for international arbitration, which adapts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Following the 1999 Arrest Convention, a ship may be arrested in Spain for the purpose of obtaining security, notwithstanding that, by virtue of a jurisdiction clause or arbitration clause in any relevant contract or otherwise, the maritime claim is to be adjudicated in a state other than Spain. Article 474 of the SSA also confirms this principle.

If the vessel is arrested in Spain, however, Spanish courts will be considered to have jurisdiction over the claim unless the parties validly agree or have validly agreed to submit the dispute to a court of another state that accepts jurisdiction, or to arbitration.

Spain does not have a dedicated domestic arbitration institute specialising in maritime claims. Therefore, parties seeking arbitration typically engage the general arbitration services provided by the Arbitration Courts of the Chambers of Commerce or other non-specialised arbitration institutions. The Spanish Maritime Law Association is currently promoting arbitration in maritime matters in collaboration with the Madrid International Arbitration Center–Ibero-American Arbitration Center (CIAM-CIAR), which offers an independent service for the resolution of international disputes

When a claim is prosecuted in Spain in breach of a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (a Declinatoria). The time bar to file such a motion is ten working days from the date of service of the claim. Once the Declinatoria has been filed, the deadline to present points of defence is stalled and will only resume after the court’s ruling, if it dismisses the motion. Upon receipt of the motion, the court will give the claimant five working days to file a response, and will make a ruling after examining both parties’ arguments.

Spanish Tax Lease System

The Spanish tax lease system is currently regulated by the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Law 16/2012, which entered into force on 1 January 2013.

Basically, the Spanish tax lease is a system of accelerated and anticipated depreciation of assets acquired through financial leasing, including any kind of vessel of sea transport (passengers, tugs, fishing, dredgers, barges, platforms, boats/yachts, etc) manufactured in or out of Spain, provided that it is not manufactured in series/mass and that its manufacturing period is at least one year. This new tax lease system is not subject to prior approval by the Spanish Tax Administration.

Tonnage Tax in Spain

The Spanish Tonnage Tax regime is an alternative tax system to the regular rules of taxable profit determination for companies that usually produce a tax benefit for the taxpayer. Under this regime, (qualifying) shipping companies can calculate their shipping-related profits for Corporation Tax purposes. The shipping-related profits are calculated based on the tonnage of the (qualifying) ships used in the company’s shipping trade.

The tonnage tax system in Spain is regulated by the Spanish Corporate Tax Act, 27/2014.

This tax system is voluntary and subject to previous authorisation by the Spanish Directorate General for Taxation.

The main requirements to be met by the shipping companies and their vessels, in order to be taxed on the bases of a tonnage tax system, are as follows.

• Qualifying companies:
1. must be registered in any of the Spanish shipping registries (including the REBECA in the Canary Islands);
2. must include shipping management of owned and chartered vessels as part of their business activity; and
3. must conduct the technical and crew management of the vessels themselves, and assume complete responsibility derived from the nautical operation of the vessel(s) and ISM Code (IMO Resolution A 741).
• Qualifying ships:

1. must be operated from Spain or any country of the European Union; and
2. must be seagoing vessels for sea transport, carriage of goods or passengers, rescue vessels and other services that must be rendered at sea (tugs and dredgers have some specific requirements).

This system will not apply if:

• all vessels are not registered in Spain or any other country of the European Union;
• the vessels are intended, directly or indirectly, for fishing, recreational or sports activities; or
• certain circumstances derived from or in connection with particular European regulations occur at the same time at the shipping company.

Spanish Shipping Registry of the Canary Islands

For those shipping companies whose vessels are registered in the REBECA, Spanish Law 19/1994 for the modifications of the Canary Islands’ economic regime and tax system establishes a corporate tax rebate of 90%, together with other tax advantages such as bonuses in Social Security.

Under Spanish law, pursuant to Article 1105 of the Civil Code, non-performance of a shipping contract in maritime law – such as late delivery, non-arrival of a chartered vessel or slow cargo operations – may be excused as force majeure if caused by extraordinary, unforeseeable and unavoidable events, such as severe weather, natural disasters or similar events. In addition, under the rebus sic stantibus principle, fundamental and unforeseeable changes in maritime circumstances altering the contractual equilibrium may justify seeking modification, withdrawal or termination of the contract.

Spain has implemented IMO 2020, which limits the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships from 3.5 to 0.5% m/m (mass by mass). The authorities responsible to enforce sulphur content limitations are the Directorate General of the Merchant Navy (DGMM) and the Harbour Master Offices that are subordinated to the DGMM.

According to Articles 10 and 11 of Royal Decree 61/2006 (as amended by Royal Decree 290/2015), there are two limits:

• a limit of 0.10% m/m for vessels within Spanish ports or operating in territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters within the emission control areas (ECAS); and
• a limit of 0.5% m/m for territorial waters and EEZ waters outside the emission control areas (ECAS).

However, Spain does not have any ECAS at the present time. Therefore, the current limit is 0.10% m/m for vessels at Spanish ports and 0.5% m/m for vessels operating in Spanish territorial waters or in waters within the Spanish jurisdiction.

Should a Harbour Master detect an infringement of these limits, normally in the course of a Port State Control inspection, a sanctioning proceeding will be initiated against the Master and ISM Manager of the vessel, which may result in a penalty of up to EUR120,000.

The Spanish Marine Authorities are very active in monitoring sulphur content in marine fuel oils, and penalties have already been imposed for breaching the limit.

Spain implements all the international trade sanctions of both the UN and the EU. Spain does not have an autonomous sanctions regime.

The international trade sanctions adopted by the EU are implemented and/or adopted through national measures. The national competent authorities are responsible for establishing internal sanctions in the case of violation of restrictive measures, granting exceptions, receiving and co-operating with other member states and acting as a liaison with the sanctions’ committees. The Spanish competent authorities are the Secretariat of Commerce and the Secretariat of Treasury, both belonging to the Ministry of Economic affairs, and the Secretariat of Taxes, belonging to the Ministry of Finance and Civil Service.

As part of the European Union, Spain has implemented all the sanctions imposed by the EU upon Russia and Belarus, which complement and extend the sanctions imposed between 2014 and 2020, and which were based on EU Regulation 833/2014 of 31 July.

The war in Ukraine and Spain’s enforcement of trade sanctions have compelled Spanish companies to source suppliers and loading ports outside Russia, increasing costs and prompting cancellations or renegotiations of supply, affreightment and logistics contracts. In Spanish chartering practice, Ukraine and Russia are designated war risk areas, leading to amendments in charterparties to exclude these regions from trading limits. Standard clauses are commonly incorporated to address these risks, such as BIMCO CONWARTIME 2004 for time charters and BIMCO VOYWAR 2004 for voyage charters.

Certain jurisdiction-specific regulatory and procedural features that characterise the Spanish maritime legal framework are of particular relevance.

Regulatory Framework for Recreational Boating

The Spanish legal system has moved towards modernising and consolidating the regulatory framework applicable to recreational vessels, clearly distinguishing between commercial activities and private leisure use. This framework establishes specific requirements relating to maritime safety, crew certification, technical standards for vessels and navigational control, while promoting the digitalisation of administrative procedures concerning registration, insurance and the authorisation of recreational activities.

In this context, the DGMM Resolution of 17 July 2025 sets out the conditions to be met by recreational vessels and craft for the temporary conversion from private to commercial use, ensuring that only vessels meeting the required safety and certification standards may provide commercial services, thereby protecting users and ensuring compliance with safety and environmental regulations.

Electronic Ship Clearance Regime (RONM)

Royal Decree 186/2023 of 21 March, approving the Regulation on the Organisation of Maritime Navigation (RONM), introduced a new electronic ship clearance regime, which has been in force since 15 August 2025. This system unifies and digitalises the administrative procedures governing the arrival, stay and departure of vessels in Spanish ports, eliminating the need for physical documentation and significantly reducing administrative burdens. It enables interoperability between Harbour Masters’ offices, Port Authorities and operators, enhancing legal certainty, traceability and operational efficiency, and aligning Spanish practice with international standards on maritime safety and the facilitation of maritime traffic through real-time control and streamlined procedures.

Pending Legislative Initiatives

There are legislative proposals currently under consideration involving amendments to both the State Ports and Merchant Marine Act and the Maritime Navigation Act, aimed at simplifying procedures, strengthening environmental sustainability and adapting the legal framework to new technologies. However, these initiatives have not yet been approved and remain stalled, so their practical impact is limited for the time being.

Recent and Forthcoming International Conventions

At the international level, reference should be made to the United Nations Convention on Negotiable Cargo Documents (New York, 2025), also known as the Accra Convention on Negotiable Cargo Documents. Although the Convention has been adopted within the framework of the United Nations, it is not currently in force, without prejudice to its relevance as an indicator of the ongoing development of uniform law in the field of transport documents.

Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships

Particular attention should also be paid to the United Nations Convention on the International Effects of Judicial Sales of Ships, commonly referred to as the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships. Spain ratified the Convention on 21 August 2025, and its entry into force is scheduled for 2026, together with other state parties. The Convention establishes a harmonised regime for the international recognition of judicial sales of ships, ensuring that purchasers acquire a clean and internationally opposable title, thereby enhancing legal certainty, maximising the value of vessels on the market and protecting the interests of creditors and third parties.

Taken as a whole, these regulatory and conventional developments reflect a clear trend within Spanish maritime law towards modernisation, digitalisation and international harmonisation, strengthening legal certainty and operational efficiency while consolidating Spain’s alignment with international maritime law standards and practice.