Sara Cabañas Area*
Between Limitation and Non-Limitation: Regulatory Overlap between the LLMC and Directive (EU) 2024/2853 in Autonomous Shipping
Suggested citation:
Cabañas Area, S. (2026). Between Limitation and Non-Limitation: Regulatory Overlap between the LLMC and Directive (EU) 2024/2853 in Autonomous Shipping. Lex Portus, 12(2), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.62821/lp12202
Published online: 29.05.2026
*Assistant Professor, PhD in Law, Universidad Camilo José Cela (Madrid, Spain), Research Group “Análisis y Relaciones Globales, Orden y Seguridad (ARGOS-UCJC)”
ABSTRACT
The increasing deployment of autonomous ships is challenging the traditional foundations of maritime liability, historically centred on human fault and the central role of the shipowner. This shift is reinforced by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products, which extends the notion of “product” to include software and digital components. In the maritime context, this development is likely to intensify claims based on product defects, particularly where failures in autonomous navigation systems cause damage. Against this background, this article examines the interaction between the liability regime established by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 and international conventions on the limitation of maritime liability, with particular focus on the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). While the LLMC allows shipowners to limit their liability for certain maritime claims, the Directive introduces a strict liability regime and, under Article 15, excludes the possibility of limitation in cases involving defective products. In specific circumstances, shipowners may qualify as economic operators within the meaning of the Directive, thereby falling within its scope. The article analyses whether shipowners facing product liability claims may rely on the LLMC, or whether the application of EU law constrains the operation of limitation regimes. Drawing on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it explores how situations of regulatory overlap between EU law and international maritime regimes should be addressed. The analysis shows that the relationship between the LLMC and Directive (EU) 2024/2853 is best understood as a situation of regulatory overlap. While both regimes may formally coexist, their concurrent application may generate tensions, particularly where limitation mechanisms are invoked. In such cases, the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law may require national courts to ensure that the rights conferred by the Directive are not undermined. The article concludes that, while the LLMC is not automatically displaced, its operation may be significantly constrained in cases involving defective products, with important implications for the structure of maritime liability in the context of autonomous shipping.
Keywords: maritime liability, limitation of liability, LLMC, product liability, autonomous ships, Directive (EU) 2024/2853, regulatory overlap, EU law.
REFERENCES
Alba Fernández, M. (2025). La responsabilidad extracontractual por daños causados por el buque de navegación autónoma. In E. Sierra Noguero (Ed.), Conducción autónoma y seguridad jurídica del transporte desde la perspectiva europea e internacional (pp. 763–796). Tirant lo Blanch.
Baughen, S. (2023). Civil liability all at sea: The challenges of unmanned cargo ships. In P. Morgan (Ed.), Tort liability and autonomous systems accidents: Common and civil law perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cabañas Area, S. (2025). Responsabilidad por productos defectuosos en buques autónomos: implicaciones de la Directiva (UE) 2024/2853. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 17(2), 80–114. https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2025.9872
Carey, L. (2023, March). Contractual and tortious maritime liability regimes and the introduction of autonomous vessels (NUS Law Working Paper No. 2023/012; NUS Centre for Maritime Law Working Paper No. 23/03). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4403620
Castillo de la Torre, F. (2018). El Tribunal de Justicia y las relaciones exteriores tras el Tratado de Lisboa. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 60, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.60.01
Collin, F. (2018). Maritime product liability at the dawn of unmanned ships: The Finnish perspective (Faculty of Law Research Paper Series No. 2/2018). University of Turku. https://www.utu.fi/sites/default/files/public:/media/file/RPR_2_2018.pdf
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), 1999. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/fb1137ff561a4819a2d38f3db7308758/mc99-full-text.pdf
Convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims, 1976. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201456/volume-1456-I-24635-English.pdf
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1964, July 15). Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64), EU:C:1964:66. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:61964CJ0006
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1974, April 30). R. & V. Haegeman v Belgian State (Case 181/73), ECLI:EU:C:1974:41. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61973CJ0181
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1978, March 9). Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (Case 106/77), EU:C:1978:49. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61977CJ0106
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1979). Burgoa (Case 812/79), ECLI:EU:C:1979:188. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61979CJ0812
Court of Justice of the European Union. (1996). Commission v Luxembourg (Case C-473/93), ECR I-3207. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61993CJ0473
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2003, November 18). Budějovický Budvar v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (Case C-216/01), ECLI:EU:C:2003:618. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0216
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2008, June 3). Intertanko and Others v Secretary of State for Transport (Case C-308/06), ECLI:EU:C:2008:312. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0308
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2008, June 24). Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA and Total International Ltd (Case C-188/07), EU:C:2008:332. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62007CA0188
de Gregorio Merino, A. (2009). La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 3 de junio de 2008, Intertanko e.a., C-308/2006 y la relación entre Derecho internacional y Derecho comunitario. Gaceta Jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la Competencia, 10, 101–108.
European Maritime Safety Agency. (2025, October). Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2025. https://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/item/5562-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-incidents-2025.html
European Parliament and Council. (2024, October 23). Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2853/oj/eng
Fobe, J. M. (1994). Aviation products liability and insurance in the EU: Legal aspects and insurance of the liability of civil aerospace products manufacturers in the EU for damage to third parties. Kluwer Law & Taxation Publishers.
Geistfeld, M. A. (2017). A roadmap for autonomous vehicles: State tort liability, automobile insurance, and federal safety regulation. California Law Review, 105, 1611–1691. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2931168
González Pellicer, J. M., & Delagrange, O. (2018, July 5). Rumbo al derecho de la navegación marítima automatizada. Diario LA LEY. Wolters Kluwer.
International Maritime Organization. (2021). Regulatory scoping exercise for the use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) (MSC.1/Circ.1638).
International Maritime Organization. (2024a, March 25). Consideration of common issues, taking into account those identified at the RSE and by FAL 47, LEG 110 and MSC 107: Human element and competencies for MASS crew (MASS-JWG 3/3).
International Maritime Organization. (2024b, September 16). Development of a goal-based instrument for maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS): Report of the Intersessional MASS Working Group (MSC 109/5). https://www.imokorea.org/upfiles/board/92.%20ISWG-MASS%203%C2%F7%20%B0%E1%B0%FA%BA%B8%B0%ED%BC%AD(%BF%B5%B9%AE).pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2024c, January 19). Measures to address maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS) in instruments under the purview of the Legal Committee: Summary of the research of the Comité Maritime International (CMI) International Working Group (IWG) on MASS in relation to liability issues (LEG 111/10/2). https://blogs2.abo.fi/balex/wp-content/uploads/sites/260/2025/01/LEG-111-10-2-Summary-of-the-research-of-the-Comite-Maritime-International-CMIInternational-Working-Gr.-Comite-Maritime-In.pdf
International Maritime Organization. (2025). Symposium on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) 2025 and IMO MASS Code. https://www.imo.org/en/about/events/pages/mass-symposium-2025.aspx
International Maritime Organization. (2025, June). Maritime Safety Committee – 110th session (MSC 110), 18–27 June 2025. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MSC-110th-session.aspx
Ishii, Y. (2025). Environmental and maritime security, civil liability regimes, and maritime autonomous vehicles. In N. Klein, D. Guilfoyle, M. S. Karim, & R. McLaughlin (Eds.), Maritime autonomous vehicles and international law: Maritime security perspectives (pp. 275–292). Routledge.
Kim, C., et al. (2022). Potential liability issues of AI-based embedded software in maritime autonomous surface ships for maritime safety in the Korean maritime industry. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10, 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10040498
Košenina, A. U. (2013). Aviation product liability: Could air carriers face their “life and limb” being placed in peril for the exclusivity of the Montreal Convention? Air and Space Law, 38(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.54648/aila2013017
Lange, E. R. (2025). Regulating autonomous vessels: International, regional, and European regulation of maritime autonomous surface ships. Publications on Ocean Development. Vol. 103. Brill.
Lindsay v McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corp. (460 F.2d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 1972)), https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/lindsay-v-mcdonnell-douglas-884943008
Pantaleo, L. (2022). The Court of Justice finally rules on the analogical application of Art. 351 TFEU: End of the story? European Papers, 7(3), 1005–1026. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/603
Pauwelyn, J. (2003). Conflict of norms in public international law: How WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494550
PCCG Point Conception Consulting GmbH, et al. (2022, June 22). Internationale Umfeldanalyse zu Anwendungsfällen von autonomen maritimen Systemen (AMS). https://dmz-maritim.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Studie-AMS-Umfeldanalyse.pdf
Pepłowska-Dąbrowska, Z., et al. (2025). Collisions at sea involving maritime autonomous surface ships: Notes on prevention and liability rules. International Community Law Review, 28(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10148
Stępień, B. (2024). Towards a new horizon: 1972 COLREG in the era of autonomous ships. Ocean Development & International Law, 55(1–2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2024.2359908
Tettenborn, A. (2020). Shipping: Product liability goes high-tech. In B. Soyer & A. Tettenborn (Eds.), New technologies, artificial intelligence and shipping law in the 21st century (pp. 116–128). Informa Law from Routledge.
Ulfbeck, V. (2021). Autonomous ships and product liability under the EU directive. In Autonomous ships and the law. Routledge.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1986). East River S.S. Corp. v Transamerica, 476 U.S. 858. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/858/
Van Rossem, J. W. (2009). Interaction between EU law and international law in the light of Intertanko and Kadi: The dilemma of norms binding the member states but not the Community. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 40, 183–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S016767680900004X
Van Rossem, J. W. C. (2013). The autonomy of EU law: More is less? In R. A. Wessel & S. Blockmans (Eds.), Between autonomy and dependence: The EU legal order under the influence of international organizations (pp. 13–46). T.M.C. Asser Press. https://scispace.com/pdf/the-autonomy-of-eu-law-more-is-less-nyapq3733e.pdf
Villiger, M. E. (1985). Customary international law and treaties. Springer.
Von Papp, K. (2015). Solving conflicts with international investment treaty law from an EU law perspective: Article 351 TFEU revisited. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 42. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2726550
Zorzetto, S. (2024). The principle lex specialis: A critical explanation. Revista de Derecho Privado, 46. https://doi.org/10.18601/01234366.46.02
