Tag Archive for: aiyonabogados

Supreme Court Ruling 173/2026, of 5 February: Expiry of the Time Limit in Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules and Limits on the Scope of Case Law Doctrine

/in , /by

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in plenary session, handed down Judgment No. 173/2026 of 5 February (rec. 8008/2021), resolving the controversy over the legal nature of the one-year time limit for bringing liability proceedings against the carrier in international maritime transport of goods under a bill of lading following the entry into force of the Maritime Navigation Act of 2014 (hereinafter MNA).

The ruling confirms established case law: the time limit set out in Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules (hereinafter, HVR) is a period of limitation that cannot be unilaterally interrupted.

However, the actual scope of that statement requires careful reading of the resolution.

I. Facts of the case and procedural history

The dispute arose from the maritime transport of pharmaceutical products from Valencia to Durban (South Africa). During the pre-loading phase, the refrigerated container was incorrectly reprogrammed, resulting in the irreversible destruction of the goods.

The loader filed a lawsuit in March 2017, after having made out-of-court claims in 2016.

The Commercial Court upheld the claim, considering Article 286 MNA applicable and understanding that the period had been interrupted. The Provincial Court overturned the ruling, finding that the claim had expired in accordance with Article 3.6 HVR. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld this latter conclusion.

II. The legal issue resolved: inapplicability of Article 286 MNA when transport is subject to HVR

The controversial issue was whether the entry into force of the MNA and, in particular, Article 286 thereof altered the legal nature of the annual period provided for in Article 3.6 HVR.

The Court’s answer is negative. When the transport contract is subject to the HVR, the regime applicable to the time limit is that of the international agreement itself.

The reasoning is based on two main ideas.

1.Prevalence of the applicable international regime

The ruling is based on the assumption that the defendant was subject to the HVR by virtue of its own Article 10, as it was an international transport under a bill of lading originating in a State Party. On that basis, the Court recalls that the MNA applies insofar as it does not conflict with international treaties in force in Spain (Article 2.1), and that Article 277.2 itself refers to the HVR as the applicable regulations governing the carrier’s liability in this type of contract.

Based on this approach, the Chamber concludes that Article 286 MNA is not applicable when the contract is subject to international agreement, whose regulatory precedence prevents an internal rule from altering the legal regime provided for in Article 3.6 HVR.

2.Continuity of case law and uniformity of interpretation

The second element of the reasoning is interpretative continuity. The Court recalls that the expiry nature of the time limit in Article 3.6 HVR constitutes established case law doctrine since the previous legislation came into force and that there are no reasons to modify it.

III. The argument for regulatory harmonisation and its limits

The ruling also invokes the coordination between national and international law proclaimed by the MNA. It could be interpreted that, in doing so, the Court is affirming that the nature of expiry must be maintained in general terms, regardless of the legal title under which the HVRs are applicable.

However, this conclusion does not necessarily follow from the resolution.

The argument of uniformity makes perfect sense when the international agreement operates as such and supersedes national law. However, this assumption does not necessarily apply when the HVR are not applicable by virtue of their own Article 10 and act solely by reference to Spanish law. In this context, the issue no longer lies in the primacy of international law, but rather in the interaction between domestic rules.

The ruling does not expressly address this scenario.

IV. What the judgment decides and what it does not decide

The actual scope of the doctrine established by the judgment must be precisely defined.

The Court establishes its criteria for cases in which the HVR are directly applicable as an international treaty, a circumstance that the ruling itself expressly states in the case under review. In this context, the normative prevalence of the international agreement determines the inapplicability of Article 286 MNA and leads to maintaining the expiry nature of the period provided for in Article 3.6 HVR.

A separate issue—which is not expressly addressed in the ruling—is that which could arise in cases where the HVR are not applicable under Article 10 of the Convention, but Spanish law governs the contract—for example, through the application of the Rome I Regulation—and the rules of the Convention operate by reference to Article 277 MNA as part of domestic law. In such a scenario, the relationship between Article 3.6 HVR and Article 286 MNA would no longer be one of the primacy of international treaty law, but rather one of interaction between domestic rules of Spanish law.

It cannot be ruled out that the Supreme Court had this hypothesis in mind when formulating its reasoning, but the fact is that it does not address it explicitly, nor does it allow us to conclude that it wished to rule on it. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that, when directly confronted with a case in which the HVRs are applicable solely because of their incorporation into domestic law — and not as a prevailing international treaty — the Court itself could consider Article 286 MNA applicable and classify the period as subject to interruption, without this necessarily contradicting the doctrine established in this ruling.

V. Conclusion

Supreme Court Ruling 173/2026 clearly resolves the case submitted for its consideration: when international maritime transport is subject to the HVR pursuant to its own Article 10, the primacy of international treaty law excludes the applicability of Article 286 MNA as a rule capable of modifying the nature of the annual period.

However, the ruling neither confirms nor denies that this solution must necessarily be extended to all cases in which the HVR are applicable under Spanish law. Its doctrine is based precisely on the prevalence of the international agreement and on the uniform interpretation of that regime. Where this assumption does not apply — that is, when the rules operate solely as domestic law by legislative reference — the question remains open.

The Supreme Court Reinforces the Position of Land Carriers: Nullity of the ‘Due Diligence’ Clause

/in , , /by

On 23 December 2025, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court issued a ruling of enormous significance for the road transport sector and for the contractual practices of insurance companies: STS No. 1945/2025 of 23 December 2025.

The subject of the legal dispute was to determine whether, in the event of theft of goods transported under a land transport insurance contract, the ‘due diligence clause’ (which must be considered restrictive) applies when said clause is not specifically highlighted in the policy, nor signed by the policyholder/insured party, but the insurance was taken out with the intervention of an insurance broker.

In the first instance and on appeal, the claim had been dismissed in favour of the insurer, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions, concluding that the clause in question did not meet the formal validity requirements imposed by the Insurance Contract Act (LCS). Thus, the High Court declared the so-called ‘due vigilance’ clause, which had been used to reject compensation for the theft of the lorry and its goods, null and void. And we quote: ‘(…) since the clause invoked by the insurer to deny compensation was not expressly accepted and signed by the policyholder/insured party, it is null and void and unenforceable against the latter, pursuant to Article 3 of the Insurance Contract Act.’

The legal nature of the ‘due diligence’ clause:

The so-called ‘due diligence’ clause had become common practice in goods transport policies. In general terms, it imposed conditions on the insured such as:

  • Park the vehicle in places with lighting or 24-hour private security.
  • Keep the lorry locked and protected.
  • Require the driver to sleep inside the vehicle when there are no other security systems in place.

Traditionally, insurers used this clause to exclude or limit coverage for theft, arguing that the incident had occurred in circumstances where these requirements were not met.

However, the Supreme Court has established doctrine by considering that this clause does not objectively define the insured risk but rather imposes additional obligations on the insured after the occurrence of the accident, which makes it a clause that limits rights and requires certain requirements to be applicable.

This jurisprudential approach connects directly with the analysis already carried out by our firm in a very enlightening article on the distinction between the types of clauses in transport insurance contracts, Transport Insurance: Limiting Clauses vs. Delimiting Clauses.

The key legal principle underlying the Supreme Court’s ruling is that clauses limiting rights are only valid if strict requirements are met. This requirement is set in Article 3 of the Insurance Contract Law, which states that both the general and specific conditions of the insurance policy must be drafted in a clear and precise manner, with particular emphasis on clauses limiting the rights of the insured, which must be specifically accepted in writing.

The well-deserved Supreme Court ruling of 23 December 2025 is based on Article 3 of the Insurance Contract Law. This is corroborated when it states that, as an expression of the principle of material transparency legally imposed for the better protection of the insured party, it conditions the validity of such limiting clauses on compliance with the requirements established in Article 3 of the Insurance Contract Law as follows:

  • They must be highlighted in a special way. Any procedure that fulfils the objective of ensuring that the limiting clause does not go unnoticed by the insured party will be admissible, but it must allow the insured party to understand its meaning and scope, and to be able to differentiate it from clauses that are not of this nature.
  • They must be specifically accepted in writing by the policyholder. The signature must appear not only on the general contract, but also on the specific conditions, which is the document where clauses limiting rights must normally appear.
  • The broker’s intermediation does not equate to the personal will of the policyholder and cannot validate a clause that limits rights if the insured party has not expressly signed it. Therefore, the High Court has been categorical in stating that the insurance broker is not attributed a representative function of the insured party but is only conferred management functions.

Practical effects of the judgment:

This ruling not only has direct effects on the specific case but also establishes binding case law criteria that will influence future claims for similar incidents, especially in a context where thefts from lorries and goods have increased significantly.

The doctrine established by this ruling has significant consequences for both policyholders and insurance companies. This is because it increases contractual transparency by forcing insurers to review their policy models and provides greater legal certainty for carriers as policyholders protected under the Insurance Contract Law and its transparency standards.

Read the article here…

Transport Safety and the Role of the Independent Administrative Authority, in Connection with Law 2/2024 of 1 August

/in , , , /by

Maritime, rail and air transport, in spite of technological and regulatory advances, continue to pose significant risks to human life, the integrity of means of transport, cargoes and the environment. In this context, the proper management of accidents and incidents is an essential element to strengthen safety in these strategic sectors.

Experience shows that well-structured prevention, control and response systems are vital. This need gave rise to Law 2/2024 of 1 August on the creation of the Independent Administrative Authority for the Technical Investigation of Railway, Maritime and Civil Aviation Accidents and Incidents. This law represents a significant step forward in the strengthening of investigation and control mechanisms in the field of transport safety in Spain, giving an essential role to a new body created for this purpose: the Independent Administrative Authority.

Law 2/2024 establishes the regulatory framework for the creation of this Authority, which is set up as an autonomous and impartial body. Its main objective is to investigate accidents and incidents in maritime, rail and air transport, not only to determine the causes of each event, but also to make recommendations to prevent future accidents.

The establishment of this Authority responds to the need to guarantee investigations free from external interference, thus ensuring the objectivity of its actions and conclusions, based on the principles of functional independence, objectivity, transparency, prevention, confidentiality in the investigation, institutional and international cooperation and access for victims and interested parties.

Furthermore, the new regulation reinforces Spain’s commitment to international standards, such as those established by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), for the maritime sector, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for the aviation sector and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) for the railway sector.

Focusing on its functions, the IAA has a number of key responsibilities, among them:

  1. Impartial and technical accident investigation: The Authority will be responsible for analysing each technical incident or accident in all three modes of transport (maritime, air and rail), collecting all relevant data and making a technical assessment to determine the causes. Such an investigation shall be carried out with maximum transparency, allowing access to information to victims directly involved in the investigation in question, as well as to other interested parties.

It cannot be overlooked that the investigation of accidents and incidents is a detailed and complex process involving the collection of evidence, interviews with the parties and witnesses, and the development of a technical analysis of the means of transport involved and their protocols of action, one of the main objectives being to identify the underlying causes of accidents and incidents. These can be of a technical, human, organisational or infrastructural nature.

  1. Preparation of reports and recommendations: Following the investigation, the IAA will issue detailed reports and suggest corrective measures which will be published on the Authority’s website for public knowledge. Safety recommendations should not constitute a presumption of fault or liability for an accident or incident and may relate to deficiencies which are not the cause of the accident. It will not be necessary to wait for the publication of the final report before making safety recommendations.
  1. Collaboration with other institutions: The technical investigation of accidents and incidents shall be independent of any other administrative, judicial or parliamentary proceedings in relation to the occurrence under investigation, and IAA staff involved in the investigation shall not form part of other teams, groups or areas of investigation of the incident unless explicitly agreed by the Authority. However, in order to ensure that the different procedures are carried out efficiently, the Authority will maintain the necessary collaborative relationships with the institutions with competences related to the accident or incident subject to a technical investigation (the Spanish Courts, the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and other Technical Investigation Authorities).

Similarly, the IAA may participate or accept an invitation to participate in the investigation of an accident or incident outside Spanish territory, which will undoubtedly be of benefit not only to itself but also globally by being able to share knowledge and experience with authorities or institutions in other countries.

  1. Training and awareness-raising: In addition to research, the IAA will conduct training and awareness programmes for maritime, aviation and rail stakeholders to reduce accident risks and enhance an international safety culture.

Focusing on the particularities of each sector regulated by the Law, we would like to highlight the following points:

  • Railway sector: Rail transport poses risks related to derailments, collisions, accidents at level crossings, damage caused to people by rolling stock in motion, fires, technical failures of structural subsystems, components of the railway system, among others. Therefore, the IAA shall investigate serious railway accidents occurring on the General Interest Railway Network defined in Law 38/2015, of 29 September, on the Railway Sector.
  • Maritime Sector: In maritime transport, the Authority shall investigate very serious and serious maritime accidents involving vessels flying the Spanish flag, irrespective of the location of the accident, as well as accidents occurring in the Spanish territorial sea or internal waters, as defined by UNCLOS / CONVENTION, irrespective of the flag of the ships involved in the incident, or those affecting substantial Spanish interests, irrespective of the location of the incident and irrespective of the flag of the ships involved and the installations or infrastructure used for operations related to research and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the marine environment (1). On the basis of Law 2/2024 of 1 August, the Authority excludes from its scope of investigation maritime accidents and incidents involving warships and other vessels assigned to or operated by the Armed Forces, State vessels providing exclusively non-commercial services, accidents and incidents occurring in non-maritime inland waters, and finally, to vessels without mechanical propulsion, wooden ships of primitive build, yachts and pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes, unless they are or will be crewed and carrying or will carry more than twelve passengers for commercial purposes and fishing vessels of less than fifteen metres in length.
  • Civil Aviation Sector: Civil aviation, not only because of its high technological and organisational complexity, but also because it has historically been required to do so, applies the highest levels of safety and security. The IAA shall assume responsibility for the investigation of serious civil aviation accidents and incidents (2), accidents and incidents occurring in Spanish territory or outside Spanish jurisdiction when a person of Spanish nationality has suffered relevant damage. 

CONCLUSIONS:

The creation of the Independent Administrative Authority (IAA) is a decisive step towards reinforcing transport safety in Spain, with a positive impact also on overall safety. By consolidating maritime, rail and air accident investigations into a single body, administrative efficiency is optimised, functional independence is guaranteed and Spain’s international safety position is strengthened.

This reform will not only facilitate impartial and rigorous investigations, but will promote a proactive approach to accident prevention, continuous learning and improvement, fully aligned with the principles of transparency, objectivity and continuous progress demanded by international standards.

  1. Royal Decree-Law 16/2017, of 17 November, establishing safety provisions for the research and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the marine environment.
  2. Regulation (EU) 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010.

🌟 10TH ANNIVERSARY, WE HAVE MUCH TO CELEBRATE! 🌟

/in /by

🌟 10TH ANNIVERSARY, WE HAVE MUCH TO CELEBRATE! 🌟

The Problem of Theft of Goods in Road Transport

/in , /by

Theft during the carriage of goods by road is becoming more and more frequent and, although it will depend on the specific circumstances in which it occurs, as a rule the carrier is held responsible so that he, or his goods insurance, is liable for the losses and possible expenses linked to the transport and enforceable by law.

The general rule is that these thefts are carried out by criminals with extensive knowledge of how the sector works, who know what drivers’ habits are and where they usually park their vehicles during their breaks, so that they can carry out the crime undetected even if it is carried out in broad daylight. In addition, they are aware of the profit they can make from the theft of certain goods and their subsequent resale, so the target is usually well defined.

In these cases, the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (C.M.R.), as well as Law 15/2009, of 11 November, on the Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Road, which adapts and complements the information in the Convention, regulate the carrier’s liability when carrying out the transport. Thus, Law 15/2009, in Chapter V – Article 47.1, and the C.M.R. Convention, Chapter IV – Article 17.1, establish that the carrier shall be liable for the total or partial loss of the goods, as well as for the loss suffered by the goods from the moment of their reception for carriage until the moment of their delivery at destination, articles that are later qualified or delimited. According to the provisions of both regulations, the carrier should generally be liable for such losses. However, can the carrier be held liable even if the goods are stolen even though he has exercised due diligence within his powers?

The courts have addressed this issue on multiple occasions with different conclusions. The most common is to see judgments criticising the carrier’s choices in order to assess its possible negligence, but there are also judgments, such as that of the Provincial Court of Valencia 187/2018, which describes the good aptitudes and decisions taken by the land carrier to prove its diligence and its lack of liability under Article 48.1 of Law 15/2009.

In this case, the carrier had been subcontracted to carry out the overland transport of goods, and that same day the lorry was stolen in its entirety (with the goods inside) while it was parked in the carrier’s own facilities. The judgement lists the characteristics of these facilities: a well-lit plot of land, far from the urban area, completely fenced, with a padlocked sliding metal gate and 24-hour surveillance cameras.

These measures were considered insufficient by the court of first instance which concluded that the carrier did not act with the due diligence required of a professional engaged in the carriage of goods. It therefore declared the carrier and the contract carrier jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount claimed by the applicant.

The court decision was appealed by the carriers to be exonerated from liability for having fulfilled their duty without being able to prevent the theft under Article 48.1 of Law 15/2009. This provision establishes that the carrier is not liable for the loss of the goods when this has not been caused by a negligent action on its part, or when it is due to circumstances that the carrier could not avoid and whose consequences it could not prevent.

The court of second instance indicated that the expert reports were not properly assessed and that the basis on which the assertion concerning the alleged lack of diligence of the carriers was supported was not properly substantiated. On this basis, it decided to carry out a more in-depth assessment of the reports.

Having analysed the characteristics of the place where the vehicle was parked, the court concluded that the carrier could not be accused of a lack of diligence, as the measures taken were appropriate and in accordance with manner, place and time. Thus, the court established that, in order to hold a carrier liable for the loss of goods, it is necessary to verify his professional diligence, the safety measures taken, the vigilance and care implemented.

Accordingly, the court ruled in favour of the carrier, considering that the carrier had taken reasonable measures to prevent the theft of the truck. To this end, he referred to the application of the grounds for exoneration provided for in Article 48.1 of Law 15/2009, and made special reference to the conduct of the offenders, which far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the carrier.

In view of the above, and in response to the question posed initially, we must analyse what the court considers as diligent or not in the carrier’s performance.

Through various case law, the courts have made it clear that, in order to consider the carrier’s conduct diligent and to be able to exonerate him from liability under article 48.1 of Law 15/2009, certain characteristics must be present in his manner of acting. The Provincial Court of Barcelona, rec. 125/2013, stated that, in order for the carrier to be exonerated from liability, it must comply with reasonable safety standards.

These requirements include, among others, the following characteristics: that the car park is fenced, that it has good lighting, that it does not have free access for all types of vehicles or pedestrians, that it has surveillance cameras recording 24 hours a day, the presence of specific personnel for surveillance, control of entrances and exits, that it is not in an isolated or little travelled area, and that the access door is of an adequate height. Reference should also be made to Article 1105 of the Civil Code, according to which no one is liable for events that could not have been foreseen or were unavoidable.

If the carrier complies with the aforementioned requirements, it would be within the unavoidable causes or circumstances, and therefore, a cause for exoneration of liability could be applied, since they have acted with the required good professional diligence, respecting the necessary safety measures.

In short, it is not always appropriate to hold carriers liable in such cases, especially when they have taken safety measures appropriate to the situation, place and manner. Although theft in the carriage of goods is a growing problem, the law recognises that the carrier cannot be held liable for events beyond its control, provided it has acted with due care.

New technical and traffic requirements for euro-modular combinations

/in , , /by

On 21 October, the Directorate-General for Traffic (hereinafter DGT) published a new resolution establishing the technical requirements and specific traffic conditions that Euro-modular vehicle combinations must meet in order to travel on Spanish roads. The resolution has been in force since 23 October 2025, coinciding with the entry into force of the General Regulations of Vehicles, which, among others, regulate the new maximum mass values.

Types of vehicles that can be used in Euro-modular configuration

Only modules corresponding to the following types of vehicles may form part of a Euro-modular combination:

Classification by Construction CriteriaDescriptionCategory by Approval Criteria
22Truck MMA > 12,000 kgN3
23Tractor-trailerN2 or N3
26Van MMA > 12,000 kgN3
43Trailer and semi-trailer MMA > 1,000O4
65Towed service machine (1)O4

(1) Only machines intended for goods transport services are permitted.

Power and type approval requirements for the towing vehicle

The towing vehicle is subject to strict weight and power requirements. Firstly, the towing vehicle must be approved for a maximum gross weight of 72 tonnes and have a MOT certificate with a technically permissible maximum gross weight greater than the total laden weight of the combination in circulation. If the type approval for the maximum gross combination weight is less than 72 tonnes, this value shall be the maximum total weight limit for the combination of which the motor vehicle may form part.

Secondly, the towing vehicle must be equipped with a coupling device that is capable of ensuring the maximum mass of the combination and that is approved in accordance with Regulation No. 55 of the UN/ECE.

Thirdly, vehicles within the O4 category acting as intermediaries must be approved as tow trucks. Vehicles already registered that do not have towing capacity must be modified to comply with this requirement.

Fourthly, both the motor vehicle and the towing vehicles in category O4 must have the appropriate electrical, pneumatic and mechanical equipment for towing.

Fifthly and finally, the towing vehicle must have a minimum power of 5 kW per tonne of maximum laden mass of the Euro-modular combination. However, this power shall be increased by 1 kW per tonne when the combination exceeds 42 tonnes and travels on sections with gradients equal to or greater than 5% and 1 km in length. The owner of the motor vehicle must ensure that it can start on these ramps, even when the road surface is wet.

Key technical requirements for safety

The combination and its modules must meet the following technical safety requirements relating to field of vision, signalling, warning or prevention of dangerous situations:

  • Air suspension or equivalent on the drive axles
  • Mirrors or blind spot detectors
  • Lane departure warning system or lane keeping assistance
  • Emergency braking system capable of automatically detecting a dangerous situation and activating deceleration to avoid or mitigate collisions
  • Electronic stability control system

Specific traffic conditions

Finally, the Resolution details a series of specific traffic conditions that directly affect the daily operation of the aforementioned vehicles, as they impose mandatory requirements for lighting, signalling, overtaking restrictions, speed and traffic, and operational suspensions in adverse weather conditions.

  • Lights: when driving on conventional roads with a single carriageway for both directions of traffic, it is mandatory to have dipped headlights or daytime running lights on.
  • Signalling: the combination must be equipped with two V-2 light signals or amber flashing devices located at the upper front and rear ends, the V-6 long vehicle signal, the V-23 environmental signalling badge, and all other mandatory signals for goods transport.
  • Overtaking restrictions: on single carriageway roads for both directions, they may not invade the lanes intended for the opposite direction to overtake vehicles travelling at more than 45 km/h. In addition, overtaking is prohibited on ramps with gradients of 4% or more, on viaducts longer than 150 metres and in tunnels.
  • Speed restrictions: the maximum speed shall be that established in Article 48 of the General Traffic Regulations for vehicles with a maximum authorised mass exceeding 3,500 kg.
  • Traffic restrictions: those published by the DGT for goods transport combinations exceeding 7,500 kg.
  • Suspension of traffic on conventional single carriageway roads for both directions of traffic when weather conditions pose a risk to traffic: driving is prohibited when visibility is less than 150 metres ahead and behind, or when the State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) has activated extreme risk warnings: specifically, red level for wind, or orange level if the vehicle is travelling without a load; or the orange or red level for rain or snow, regardless of whether the vehicle is travelling with or without a load.
  • Stowage of cargo: cargo must be stowed correctly to prevent any movement that could compromise the stability of the vehicle while in motion.

Finally, it should be noted that on 22 October, the day after the resolution establishing the technical requirements and specific driving conditions that Euro-modular vehicle combinations must meet in order to travel on Spanish roads, the DGT issued a new resolution establishing the network of routes suitable for Euro-modular vehicle combinations in Spain. The document details the specific roads, listed in Annex I and organised by autonomous communities, on which these large vehicles are authorised to travel. In addition to the defined sections, the regulations allow a maximum distance of 10 kilometres on roads not included in the network to connect to the main network or access a destination, always under the responsibility of the driver to verify the viability of the route.

The DGT’s resolution of 21 October, in force since 23 October 2025, marks an important regulatory change for Euro-modular combinations in Spain. The technical and traffic requirements it establishes include strict conditions on power, active safety and operational restrictions that seek to ensure the safety and efficient integration of these higher-capacity vehicles into the road network. With all these measures and the new network of routes suitable for Euro-modular combinations, the transport sector must now rigorously adapt to the new regulations in order to take advantage of the logistical benefits of these vehicles, while maintaining safety as a priority.

AIYON Abogados commemorates its 10th anniversary at its headquarters in Bilbao, marking the culmination of a great year of celebrations

/in , , , , , /by

AIYON Abogados celebrates its 10th anniversary at its headquarters in Bilbao, after a decade in which it has consolidated its position as a national and international leader in maritime and transport law, reaffirming at all times its commitment to professional excellence and personalised service to its clients.

Our boutique firm celebrated its tenth anniversary with a wonderful event held at La Torre de Iberdrola on 2 October, attended by clients and partners, as well as representatives from the logistics and transport sector at national and international level. An event that brings a great year of celebrations to a close, after a decade of hard work and shared enthusiasm.

Founded in 2015 by a team of expert lawyers, all specialising in maritime law, transport, international trade and insurance, the firm has grown to have offices in Madrid, Cadiz and Algeciras, in addition to its headquarters in Bilbao, which hosted the event. Its multidisciplinary team of solicitors, with an average of more than twenty years’ experience in the sector, offers a comprehensive 360º legal service (24/7) within its areas of expertise, as well as in any other area of law with the help of its regular collaborators.

During these ten years of work, the AIYON team has demonstrated its ability to adapt to the challenges of the sector. Over the years, the firm has advised companies and professionals of all kinds, handling both small queries and actively participating in large-scale projects. In addition to being appointed to assist in major maritime accidents occurring at sea, the firm’s solicitors are at the forefront of new technologies being implemented in the sector, such as offshore platforms and, more specifically, floating offshore wind farms. Our close collaboration with local engineering firm SAITEC Offshore Technologies is proof of this.

AIYON Abogados has not only consolidated its presence in the domestic market, but we are also one of the main collaborating firms for numerous companies in the sector based in other countries, including multinationals and insurance companies with an international presence, prestigious law firms and P&I Clubs, and institutions such as the IOPC Funds (IMO). In this way, we position ourselves as a leading law firm, offering tailored legal advice and solutions.

In a global and constantly evolving environment, the solicitors at AIYON know that the sector always requires dynamic measures tailored to each case and each client. The five partners, Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa, Verónica Meana, José Antonio Domínguez, Enrique Ortiz and Zuberoa Elorriaga, whose work has been recognised by specialist British directories such as The Legal500 and Chambers & Partners, lead a team of young professionals who aspire to contribute to the firm’s growth in the coming years so that, in another decade, we can all once again commemorate the good work of our firm and its hallmark, which combines the serious, professional and dedicated practice of its profession with an approach that is always friendly and attentive.

Go to press article…

Closure of the II Advanced Arbitration Practice Course for Arbitrators, with recognition for creativity for Verónica Meana

/in , , , , , /by

On September 27, 2025, the II Advanced Arbitration Practice Course, organized by CIAM-CIAR, came to a close, with our partner Verónica Meana among its participants.

The program provided an in-depth exploration of key issues in arbitral practice, including the validity of the arbitration agreement, the appointment of arbitrators, the duty of disclosure, emergency arbitrators and interim measures, the case management conference, the first procedural order, the taking of evidence, procedural incidents, allocation of costs, as well as the drafting of awards and possible challenges.

The experience proved to be highly enriching thanks to a top-quality program, flawless organization, and outstanding faculty. Verónica wishes to publicly express her gratitude to Juan Fernández-Armesto, Giulio Palermo, the CIAM-CIAR team —Marta Lalaguna, María Paula Jijón, Thalía Jiménez, and Stefano Lobatón—, as well as the rest of the faculty, for their academic excellence and dedication throughout the course.

At the closing ceremony, Verónica was honoured with the Extraordinary Award for Creativity, a recognition that is a particular source of pride for our firm.

MORUs and Maritime Law: A New Legal Challenge from a Spanish and International Perspective

/in , , , /by

Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa, partner of AIYON Abogados S.L.P.

In recent years, the shipbuilding and energy industry has witnessed a profound transformation driven by the transition to sustainable energy sources. In this context, MORUs (Mobile Offshore Renewable Units) emerge as one of the key elements for the exploitation of renewable resources in the sea. These floating structures, designed to generate wind, solar, wave or tidal energy, represent a considerable technical advance, a challenge for the shipbuilding industry, but also, without doubt, a major legal challenge.

The Comité Maritime International (CMI), a non-governmental organisation in consultative status with the United Nations, has positioned itself as one of the main forums for the development of a uniform international legal framework for maritime affairs. Founded in 1897, the CMI’s main objective is the progressive harmonisation and unification of maritime law. In 2023, in view of the growth in the navigation of our seas by these new offshore structures, the CMI set up an international working group to study the legal status of MORUs and, in order to gather information on how these units are treated in different legal systems as part of this process, launched a questionnaire addressed to national maritime law associations.

The Spanish Maritime Law Association actively participated in this initiative, constituting a group of legal experts coordinated by Jose Sánchez-Fayos and myself. Its aim was to analyse the legal treatment of MORUs within the Spanish regulatory framework, the conclusions of which were presented at the Spanish Maritime Law Association National Congress held in Madrid in June 2025.

One of the central questions that arises when dealing with the MORU phenomenon is their legal status: are they legally ships or not? This is not a purely technical question as the answer will depend on whether or not essential maritime law regimes apply to them, such as the Convention on the Arrest of Ships, the LLMC maritime claims limitation regime, the rules on nationality and flag, maritime privileges or the possibility of being registered and mortgaged as a ship – essential for financing their construction. Ultimately, their legal qualification determines not only their administrative treatment, but also the legal architecture that guarantees their operation, financing, insurance and conflict resolution.

In the Spanish case, Law 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation establishes a typology of shipping vehicles that distinguishes between ships, vessels, naval artefacts and fixed installations. Most MORUs, not being self-propelled and not intended for navigation in the strict sense of the word, cannot be considered as ships. They do not easily qualify as vessels either. Thus, it can be concluded that most MORUs should be classified as naval craft, defined as floating structures not intended to sail, but capable of being towed and of accommodating persons or equipment.

This classification has important practical consequences as MORUs, identified as naval artefacts, can be entered in the Register – although this will require adjustment to accommodate them – and can benefit directly from the ship mortgage regime foreseen for ships. However, the 1999 Convention on Arrest of Ships does not apply to them, which prevents them from being arrested according to the procedures established for ships, something that we believe should be changed given the mobility of these artefacts.

On the other hand, as far as insurance is concerned, Article 406 of the Maritime Navigation Act admits the application of marine insurance to naval artefacts if they are subject to risks inherent to navigation, which opens the door to coverage during phases such as towing, installation or operation at sea.

Looking at the responses from other countries, France, for example, has recently passed the APER Law (2023), which explicitly excludes these structures from the concept of ship and creates a specific legal framework for them, recognising their stationary nature. Denmark, on the other hand, adopts a broader interpretation of the concept of ship, allowing MORUs to be registered as such in the Danish maritime register, which facilitates their insurance and financing. In the United States, the case law of the Supreme Court in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach has set a standard by considering any structure that is reasonably capable of being used as a means of maritime transport to be a vessel, which has allowed some MORUs to be classified as such. In China, although the legal concept of ‘maritime mobile unit’ could be applied to MORUs, in practice there is still no possibility to register them as property in a public register. Brazil, on the other hand, allows their registration only if they are construed as vessels under the guidelines of the maritime authority.

As far as the registration aspects in Spain are concerned, it is noted that, for the time being, there is no specific framework in Spain that allows the registration of MORUs in the ship register of the Directorate General of the Merchant Navy as a category of its own, except by means of an analogue application. This is a major constraint that the DGMN should address as soon as possible so as not to prevent them from accessing financing through ship mortgages and using them as collateral in transactions. Furthermore, the absence of express recognition as ships limits their access to limited liability regimes, but not to the rights of innocent passage or transit through the sea, which are regulated by conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The conclusions reached underline the need to adapt part of the Spanish -and in general, the international- legal framework to this new technological reality. It is proposed to review the registration regime and clarify its status in relation to liability, seizure and navigation rules. In short, the aim is to provide these units – essential for the energy transition – with the necessary legal security to operate effectively in international waters and in the exclusive economic zone of coastal states, as well as to ensure that there are no obstacles to their constructive financing, which is essential for their acceptance by the shipbuilding sector.

The emergence of MORUs is an opportunity for maritime law to evolve in step with technology. The work of the CMI and national contributions, such as in this case that of the Spanish Maritime Law Association group, constitute a fundamental first step in building a clear, predictable and future-proof legal framework for the sea.

Access the article…

Fair Competition in Sustainable Air Transport

/in , , /by

Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on safeguarding a level playing field for sustainable air transport or ‘ReFuelEU Aviation’, on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport, entered into force in 2023 with the aim of reducing emissions from the use of hydrocarbons in aviation. To this end, it establishes a plan that mandates the use of sustainable aviation fuels by 2050. With this legislation, the European Union (EU) is strengthening its strategy to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, as part of the so-called ‘European Green Pact’.

What is the ‘European Green Pact’? It is a growth strategy established by Europe based on the contribution of all policy areas to the fight against climate change, with the aim of achieving climate neutrality by 2050.

Air transport, together with maritime and land transport, plays an important role in our daily lives, both in passenger and freight transport. While it is true that this sector represents a smaller share of global emissions compared to shipping, it also requires attention due to its growing demand and intensive use of fossil fuels.

Specifically, the ‘ReFuelEU Aviation’ Regulation establishes rules for the use and supply of sustainable aviation fuels and, to this end, grants the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) the functions of promoting and monitoring the use of new sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) in civil aviation, monitoring the effects of these fuels and keeping informed users or travellers who choose to use air transport.

The goal is to make 70% of aviation fuels sustainable (SAF) by 2050. Within that percentage, 35% would be synthetic aviation fuels, out of all fuel supplied at EU airports. This makes it mandatory for a minimum percentage of 2% of sustainable aviation fuels to be applied from 1 January 2025.

EASA’s functions also include the publication of the annual technical report. This year, a report has been published with the aim of improving the level of environmental protection in the civil aviation sector and helping the EU to ensure that the aviation sector contributes to the objectives of the ‘European Green Pact’ through effective collaboration and continued commitment. The report provides an overview of the current situation and proposes recommendations for further progress in environmental protection, in cooperation with national aviation authorities, in the case of Spain, with AESA.

Regarding SAF, the report recommends reducing the price gap between SAF and fossil fuels, as the price of SAF is currently higher than the price of fossil fuels. It also highlights the allowances allocated in the Regulation and the measures needed to comply with the mandate. In addition, the promotion of less carbon-intensive SAFs is mentioned to maximise their contribution to the ‘European Green Pact’. The identification and optimisation of the composition of aviation fuels, both fossil and SAF, is also recommended to mitigate overall climate and air quality impacts.

In conclusion, through the different regulations addressed in the ‘European Green Plan’ for the year 2050, which includes this ‘ReFuelEU Aviation’ Regulation, not only aims at achieving climate neutrality, but also a more sustainable transport system. As mentioned by EASA in its report, this objective can only be achieved through real and effective international cooperation, with the involvement of all concerned operators.