Arresting a yacht in France, and lifting the arrest
How yacht arrest works in France: the maritime claims that allow it, how fast the procedure moves, and how an owner can obtain release against security.
The short answer
- Mechanism: a French ship arrest, or saisie conservatoire de navire, is a court authorised immobilisation of a vessel lying in a French port, taken to secure a claim. It is not an enforcement sale and it transfers no title.
- Two regimes: the arrest is governed either by the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 on the arrest of seagoing ships, in force for France since 25 November 1957, or by articles L. 5114-20 and following of the Code des transports.
- Grounds: the Convention requires a claim falling within one of the seventeen heads of maritime claim listed exhaustively in Article 1. The domestic text, article L. 5114-22, requires a claim that appears founded in principle.
- Speed: the application is made without notice, by requête, to the enforcement judge of the place where the measure is to be carried out (Code des transports, art. R. 5114-16). The matter is measured in days.
- Effect: once the deed of arrest is drawn up by a commissaire de justice and notified to the harbour master, the vessel may not leave the port (art. L. 5114-21).
- Release: Article 5 of the Convention requires the court to lift the arrest where sufficient bail or guarantee is furnished. Release may also be sought because the conditions of the measure are not met, or by retraction of the authorising order.
Few situations in yachting law move as fast as a ship arrest. A yard finishes a refit and is not paid. A lender sees a mortgaged vessel about to leave for a jurisdiction where enforcement will be difficult. On the other side of the same facts, an owner is told that a court officer has come aboard, that the harbour master has been notified, and that the yacht cannot sail. Both readers need the same answers, from opposite directions.
French ports concentrate this risk. The Mediterranean coast between Marseille and Menton holds a very large share of Europe's refit capacity, berthing and brokerage activity, and a vessel spending a season there is exposed to the French courts for the purposes of a conservatory measure. That exposure does not depend on the flag, on the owning structure, or on where the contract was signed. It depends on where the hull is floating when the creditor applies.
What follows sets out the framework on both sides: what an arrest is, which claims support one, which judge decides, how fast the procedure moves, what immobilisation does, and what routes exist out of it. It is deliberately a framework note rather than a tactical one, because the tactics turn on the contract, the flag, the ownership chain and the calendar. For the wider context of our work in this field, see our page on French yacht and pleasure boat law.
What a French ship arrest is
French law separates two things that English sometimes collapses into one word. The saisie conservatoire is protective: it freezes the vessel where she lies so that a future judgment or award has something to bite on. The saisie-exécution is an enforcement measure leading to a forced sale, and it presupposes an enforceable title and a prior payment demand (Code des transports, art. L. 5114-23). This article concerns the first.
A conservatory arrest decides nothing on the merits and creates no security interest comparable to a mortgage. It creates unavailability. The vessel stays put, a keeper is appointed, and the practical consequences of immobilisation do the rest of the work.
Two regimes sitting side by side
The international layer is the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 for the unification of certain rules relating to the arrest of seagoing ships. France ratified it on 25 May 1957 and it entered into force for France on 25 November 1957. The domestic layer is the Code des transports, articles L. 5114-20 to L. 5114-29, with the implementing rules at articles R. 5114-15 to R. 5114-47.
The Convention fixes its own field of application. Article 8(1) applies it in any contracting State to any vessel flying the flag of a contracting State. Article 8(2) allows a vessel flying a non contracting flag to be arrested in a contracting State either for an Article 1 claim or for any other claim permitting arrest under that State's law. Article 8(4) preserves domestic law where the arrest takes place in the flag State at the request of a person habitually resident or having their principal place of business there. That last paragraph explains why a French flagged yacht arrested in France by a French based creditor falls back onto article L. 5114-22. Checking the flag against the current list of parties is therefore one of the first steps on any file, because it determines the test the judge applies.
Does the Convention reach pleasure yachts?
The Convention speaks of seagoing vessels and carves out nothing for private or pleasure use. A seagoing yacht is a navire in French law and falls within the ship arrest regime. Craft used on inland waterways are different and follow a separate set of rules in the Code des transports, at articles L. 4123-1 and following.
What needs care is the fit between a yacht's commercial reality and a list drafted in 1952 around cargo shipping. Several heads translate directly: supplies made to a vessel for her operation or maintenance, construction, repair, equipment and dock charges, crew wages, towage, pilotage, salvage, damage caused by a vessel, disputed ownership, and maritime mortgages. Others rarely arise. The exercise is to identify which head the debt genuinely sits under, not to assume that every unpaid invoice connected with a boat is a maritime claim.
The creditor's side: what allows an arrest
The seventeen maritime claims of Article 1
Article 1(1) defines a maritime claim as an assertion of a right or claim arising out of one of seventeen causes, lettered a to q: damage caused by a vessel, by collision or otherwise; loss of life or personal injury caused by a vessel or arising from her operation; salvage; agreements relating to the use or hire of a vessel; agreements relating to the carriage of goods; loss of or damage to goods and baggage carried; general average; bottomry; towage; pilotage; supplies of goods or materials made anywhere to a vessel for her operation or maintenance; construction, repair, equipment and dock charges; wages of master, officers and crew; disbursements made by the master, shippers, charterers or agents on account of the vessel or her owner; disputed ownership; disputed co-ownership, possession, operation or earnings of a vessel in co-ownership; and any maritime mortgage or hypothecation.
The list is exhaustive: a claim outside it supports no Convention arrest. The evidential threshold, by contrast, is deliberately low, since what the Convention requires is an allegation of a claim falling within the list rather than proof that the debt is certain. The Cour de cassation has read the notion broadly on occasion, holding that a claim arising from the termination of a crew member's employment contract has a maritime character (Com., 13 September 2023, no. 20-21.546).
The domestic test
Where the Convention does not apply, article L. 5114-22 of the Code des transports allows any person whose claim appears founded in principle to apply for authorisation to arrest a vessel. Ordinary conservatory measures under the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution require two things: a claim appearing founded in principle, and circumstances likely to threaten its recovery. The maritime text as drafted states only the first. That difference is one of the practical attractions of ship arrest as a security tool.
Which vessel can be arrested
Article 3(1) allows the claimant to arrest either the ship to which the claim relates or any other ship owned by the person who was, when the claim arose, owner of that ship. Ships are treated as in the same ownership where all shares belong to the same person or persons. Claims under heads o, p and q, meaning disputed ownership, disputed co-ownership or possession, and maritime mortgages, may only be pursued against the ship concerned. Article 3(3) prevents a second arrest, or a second demand for security, in the jurisdiction of one or more contracting States for the same claim by the same claimant.
Article 3(4) addresses the situation that recurs constantly in yachting: the debt is owed by a charterer rather than the registered owner. Where the vessel is chartered with the nautical management handed over and the charterer alone is liable, the claimant may arrest that vessel or another belonging to the charterer, but no other vessel belonging to the owner. The final paragraph extends the rule to every case where someone other than the owner is liable. In a sector built on single ship companies and management companies, mapping who owed what to whom, and when, is the substance of the preparatory work.
Which judge, and how fast
Only a court may authorise an arrest, as Article 4 of the Convention provides. In France the competent court is the juge de l'exécution, and the territorial rule is specific to ships: article R. 5114-16 of the Code des transports gives jurisdiction to the judge of the place where the measure is to be carried out, that is the port where the vessel lies. Article R. 5114-17 expressly sets aside article R. 511-2 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution, which would have pointed to the debtor's domicile, and article R. 5114-15 confirms that the general enforcement code applies subject to international conventions and to the ship specific rules.
The application is made on paper, without notice to the owner. That is what makes speed possible, and speed is the point: an application heard on notice would simply tell the vessel to leave. Once the order is granted, a commissaire de justice draws up the deed of arrest, whose required particulars are listed at article R. 5114-18 on pain of nullity, and article R. 5114-19 requires notification to the harbour master.
What we see in practice
Time is the variable that decides these files, and it is almost always underestimated. We are frequently contacted by a creditor who has known about the default for months but calls on the afternoon the vessel is due to sail. By then the choice is between filing something incomplete and watching the yacht leave. We would rather have the file assembled before she arrives: the head of maritime claim identified, the contractual chain traced, the invoices and statements collated, the registered owner and any charterer confirmed against the register, and a court officer identified in the relevant port. With that in hand, an application can be filed and an order served quickly. Without it, the application competes with the tide. We also tell creditors plainly that no one can promise an arrest will be granted, still less granted before the vessel sails.
What immobilisation does, and the clock it starts
The legal effect is unavailability: the vessel may not leave the port under article L. 5114-21. A keeper signs the deed and the harbour master is notified, so enforcement of the prohibition does not depend on the owner's goodwill. The judge may permit a defined voyage against sufficient security, but that is an exception granted by the court, not a right.
Two sets of deadlines then run. Under article R. 511-6 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution the measure must be executed within three months of the authorising order, failing which the authorisation lapses. Under article R. 511-7, unless the measure was taken with an enforceable title in hand, the creditor must within the month following execution commence proceedings or complete the formalities needed to obtain an enforceable title, on pain of lapse. These are general provisions applied to ship arrest through the reference in article R. 5114-15, and they are among the first things checked from the owner's side.
The Convention adds a rule for a different situation. Where the parties' agreement contains a jurisdiction clause pointing elsewhere or an arbitration clause, Article 7(3) allows the court of the place of arrest to fix a period within which the claimant must bring proceedings on the merits, and Article 7(4) allows the defendant to seek release of the arrest or of the security if no action follows in time. Article 7(2) provides that where the court of the place of arrest has no jurisdiction on the merits, the security given under Article 5 must secure enforcement of the judgment later given by the competent court.
The owner's side: routes out
Substitute security
The principal route is Article 5. The court within whose jurisdiction the ship has been arrested must permit her release where sufficient bail or other security is furnished. The exception concerns arrests founded on the disputed ownership and disputed co-ownership heads, where the judge may instead allow operation by the possessor against sufficient security, or regulate management of the vessel during the arrest. Failing agreement on the amount, the court fixes the nature and amount of the security.
Article 5 also states that an application for release against security is not to be construed as an admission of liability or as a waiver of the legal limitation of the shipowner's liability. Putting up security to get the yacht moving concedes nothing on the merits. In practice the instrument is a bank guarantee, a letter of undertaking from a club or insurer, or a deposit with the Caisse des dépôts et consignations. Which instrument is acceptable, and on what wording, is genuinely negotiated: a poorly drafted undertaking can commit the owner well beyond the arrested claim, or leave the creditor with security that proves unusable when a judgment finally arrives.
Challenging the measure itself
The owner is not confined to buying release. Under article L. 512-1 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution the judge may order release where the conditions of the measure are not met, and article R. 512-1 places the burden of establishing that they are met on the creditor. The owner does not have to disprove the debt; the creditor has to show the measure was properly founded. Separately, because the authorisation was granted without notice, the order can be challenged by retraction, which reopens the question before the judge who signed it with both parties present.
The categories of argument are familiar: the claim falls outside the listed heads; the person liable is not the owner of the arrested vessel and Article 3(4) does not apply; a vessel has already been arrested or security already given for the same claim by the same claimant, contrary to Article 3(3); the deed omits a particular required on pain of nullity; the follow up deadlines have not been met. Which of these is available, and which is worth running, is entirely file specific and has to be assessed within days.
Limitation fund
Where the claim is one for which the owner may limit liability, Article 13 of the London Convention of 19 November 1976 on limitation of liability for maritime claims provides for release of a ship arrested in respect of a claim that may be raised against the fund. This is a narrower path, relevant to damage and collision files rather than unpaid invoices.
What we see in practice
Owners tend to treat an arrest as a legal problem. It is first an operating problem, and that is exactly why the measure works. A yacht that cannot sail still burns money every day: crew salaries and rotations continue, the berth is charged and may be lost to the next booking, charters are cancelled with the commercial consequences that follow, and insurers may need to be told of a change in operating conditions. In the Mediterranean the calendar makes it worse, because weeks lost between June and September cannot be recovered in November. We see that arithmetic reshape negotiations very quickly. A dispute dormant for a year is often resolved, or at least secured, within days of the deed being served. We say the same to both sides: run the daily cost figure early, because it will drive the outcome more than the legal argument will.
Wrongful arrest, and where the merits are decided
An arrest is not risk free for the party who obtains it. Article 6 of the Convention refers all questions concerning the claimant's liability for damage caused by the arrest, and for the cost of security furnished to release the ship or prevent her arrest, to the law of the State where the arrest was made or applied for. A creditor who immobilises a valuable vessel on an unfounded basis is therefore exposed under French law to a claim for the resulting loss, which on a yacht in season can be substantial.
Nor does an arrest automatically move the dispute to France. Article 7(1) lists the cases in which the courts of the place of arrest have jurisdiction on the merits, including where they are competent under domestic law, where the claimant is habitually resident or has their principal place of business there, where the claim arose in that State or during the voyage in the course of which the arrest was made, where it arises from collision or salvage, or where it is secured by a mortgage on the arrested ship. Outside those cases the arrest secures a claim decided elsewhere, and Article 7(2) makes that workable. For a creditor, an arrest in a French port can support an arbitration in London or proceedings in another Member State, which is often the whole point.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private pleasure yacht be arrested in France, or does this only apply to commercial ships?
A seagoing yacht is a ship for these purposes and can be arrested, whether commercially registered or in private use. The Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 speaks of seagoing vessels and does not exclude pleasure use. Craft used on inland waterways follow a separate regime in the Code des transports, at articles L. 4123-1 and following.
How quickly can an arrest be obtained?
The application is made without notice to the owner, which is what allows the procedure to move in days rather than months. How fast it actually moves depends on whether the file is ready, on the court concerned, and on the availability of a court officer in the port. No timescale can be guaranteed, and a vessel that sails before the deed is served is beyond reach in that port.
Do I need a judgment before arresting a yacht in France?
No. A conservatory arrest is precisely the measure available to a creditor with no enforceable title. Under the Convention it is enough that the claim falls within one of the seventeen heads in Article 1; under article L. 5114-22 of the Code des transports the claim must appear founded in principle. Where the measure is taken without an enforceable title, article R. 511-7 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution then requires merits proceedings to be commenced within the month following execution.
Can I arrest a yacht for a debt owed by the charterer rather than the owner?
Article 3(4) of the 1952 Convention allows it where the vessel is chartered with the nautical management handed over and the charterer alone is liable for a maritime claim relating to her. The claimant may then arrest that vessel or another belonging to the charterer, but no other vessel belonging to the owner. The final paragraph extends the rule to other cases where someone other than the owner is liable.
What is substitute security, and who decides how much?
It is bail or a guarantee furnished so that the vessel is released and the dispute continues against the security rather than against the hull. Article 5 requires the court to permit release where sufficient security is furnished and, failing agreement between the parties on the amount, to fix its nature and amount. Applying for release against security is neither an admission of liability nor a waiver of legal limitation of liability.
Can the owner claim damages if the arrest turns out to be unjustified?
Article 6 of the Convention refers questions of the claimant's liability for damage caused by the arrest, and for the cost of security furnished to release or prevent it, to the law of the State where the arrest was made or applied for. A creditor who arrests a yacht in France on an unfounded basis is therefore exposed under French law to a claim for the resulting loss.
Does an arrest in France mean the French courts will hear the dispute?
Not necessarily. Article 7(1) sets out the cases in which the courts of the place of arrest have jurisdiction on the merits. Outside those cases the merits may belong to a foreign court or to an arbitral tribunal, and Article 7(2) then requires the security given to release the vessel to secure enforcement of the decision eventually given by the competent forum.
Conclusion
Ship arrest in France is a fast, court controlled measure that turns a paper claim into leverage over a physical asset. For a creditor, the work that decides the outcome happens before the application: identifying the correct head of maritime claim, establishing who was liable when the debt arose, assembling the documents, and being ready to file in the right port at the right moment. For an owner, it happens in the days immediately after the deed is served: checking whether the conditions of the measure were met, reviewing the particulars and the deadlines, and choosing between challenging the arrest and securing release against a guarantee that does not overcommit the position on the merits.
Both sides face the same structural feature. The decision windows are short, the applicable regime turns on details such as the flag and the residence of the claimant, and the financial consequences of a few days' delay are real. Anyone on either side of a French yacht arrest should take advice immediately rather than after the weekend.
About the author
Guillaume Leclerc is an avocat admitted to the Paris Bar, practising through SELARL Victoris, 34 Avenue des Champs-Élysées, Paris. His practice covers yacht and pleasure boat transactions, financing, tax and disputes. He works in French and English and handles files remotely by video conference for clients based in France, Switzerland and abroad. You can read more on French yacht and pleasure boat law or get in touch.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Further reading: