€7.1 million to cover 2018 sunken barge damages

The Contentious‑Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has upheld, as lawful, the administrative decision of 25 July 2022 that required the consignor Cargo Lanzarote to pay €7.1 million. The sum covers the costs of removing several sunken vessels from the port of Gran Tarajal (Fuerteventura) after the “Emma” storm of 2018, as well as the damage inflicted on the port infrastructure.

In a press release, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) highlighted that the court has rejected the appeal filed by Puertos Canarios and has completely overturned the judgment of the Contentious‑Administrative Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which had previously cleared the company of any payment obligation.

The incident dates back to 28 February 2018, when several vessels used for maritime works—part of the fleet operated by KMarine Co. Ltd.—sank inside the port while Cargo Lanzarote acted as consignor.

According to the ruling, the port authority had previously warned of adverse weather conditions and had instructed the vessel owners to adopt preventive measures, such as reinforcing moorings. Those measures were not effectively implemented, and the sinking caused contaminant spills and serious damage to the port facilities.

PUERTOS CANARIOS TOOK OVER THE REMOVAL OF THE WRECKAGE

Facing the inactivity of the responsible parties, Puertos Canarios assumed the tasks of removing the wreckage, containing the spills, and repairing the damage in order to restore port operations and protect the public maritime domain.

Subsequently, the public authority issued an April 2018 resolution that declared the shipowner and consignor liable. The decision became final after the company did not appeal, and it was later confirmed by the courts.

The Chamber now holds that the claimed obligation does not stem from a civil extracontractual liability but from a specific legal duty set out in port regulations, which obliges parties linked to the vessel’s operation to bear the costs of removal and the resulting damages.

Consequently, the court rejects the prescription argument raised by the lower court, stating that the one‑year limitation period of the Civil Code does not apply. It emphasizes that the contested rulings do not revisit the already‑final liability declaration; they merely quantify the amounts owed.

In this respect, the Chamber warns that a previously settled administrative and judicial debate cannot be reopened, citing the need for legal certainty.

The court also dismisses the force‑majeure claim, considering the storm foreseeable and noting that meteorological warnings and prior administrative directives for preventive action had been issued. The damages and expenses were deemed proven through the documentation and reports attached to the case file.

Finally, the judgment orders the costs of the first instance to be borne by the plaintiff, as well as the costs of the appeal, with a maximum cap of €5,000 for all concepts.