# Amicus Curiae Brief — Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0195%3A11 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 398 U.S. 306 ## Text Office-Sisri ¢ | FIL Ej SUPREME COURT, U. S. * FEB 96 1970 JOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK Suprens Court of the United States - ; October Term, 1969 No. 661 HELLENIC LINES LIMITED ' a 7 * i, _ Joun R. ‘SHENEMAN Attorney for Amici Curiae , Pineda Greek Chamber of Shipging | ‘and 2 9 ‘ The Union of Greek Shipowners 2 coe bo ™ 19 Rector Street Grab ener tp, eo New York, New York 10006 Epwin K. Rew | - Georce D. Benes | 7 Of Counsel 7 and UNIVERSAL CARGO CARRIERS, ING,, Petitioners, | v. , Oy ZACHARIAS RHODITIS, oni Respondent. AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE | Statement of Interest of Amict Curtae oo... 1 Argument ab cs rex cca latoheca oe hssssic pape oh ui aaa a Apspseaeaa Mane 4 Conclusion cestacestessafeiaanivepatcaced Re iccighickpivinsees i eee ae | Certificate of Servieo penne lnapalnteclanan ical agen tosey ioe 13 2 . ; } P Exhibit: A. PRG ie ee Sp cckeeaeni Foner Ree acon la ee Ma Reeiatetes nenweie Cone eee ies | * TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ” Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953) 345 U.S. 571 ....:.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,11 McCulloch y. Sociedade “Nacionale d. Marineros de Brazil (1963) BE BA. TI Seckcicomncdoseninaomne ae Nikitas Missos et al. v. Transpacific Cassiere — . and Hellenic Lines, Ltd. (U.S.D. G. 8. D. N.Y.) .. 11 | Romero -v. International. Terminal Operating Co. (1959) 358 U.S. 354 ......... TREE aE Rp POR We 5° Tjonaman v. A/S Glittre et al., 340 F'.2d'290 (2 CA. 1965) cert. den. 381 U.S. 925 (1965) reh. den. 382. : U.S, 873 (1965) ........... acs Sewech Anaaneiek Grtacia aethanoaimaaaanants a Tsakonites v. Transpacific Carriers Cotpveaitinn —_—... F.2d 426, 2 Cir. 1966, cert. denied 386 U.S. 1007 10° a ct ey Ieee) AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETIT IONERS IN THE a or Court of the United States October — 1969 a ‘ ee No. 661 e > > a —O— . ° HELLENIC LINES LIMITED. -and° UnrversaL Carco Carriers, INc., \ SAS Petitioners, o = v. . ZACHARIAS Ruopiris, , ° ' - Respondent. 4 | and of itself, is safficient to make the foreign flag illusory, \ and this is so’ despite the foreign formalities. and.device } including foreign residence ete. which the American places between himself and the flag. The cases pronoiince no more than the well’ establishe mciple of international - law, ‘which allows a state to govern - the conduct of itétown ) citizens on. the high seas,” in foreign countries, etc. . Buch principle was discussed by this Honorable Court i in Laurit- zen, wherein it stated at page 587 : .**A state is not debarred by any rule of interna- tional law from governing the conduct of its own citi- zens upon the high seas or even in foreign countries / or where the rights of other natjons or the nationals are not infringed. (Citations omitted.) Until recent times this factor was not a frequent occasion of con-- flict for the nationality of ship was that of its owners. But it is common knowledge that. in recent years the practice has grown; particularly among American ship- owners, to avoid s ro mir’ shiping laws by. seeking foreign registration; agerly offered by some countries. Confronted with such operations, sion have pressed, béyond the fo ur courts on occa- lities of a more Ye or less nominal registration te enf ce against Ameri- . can shipowners the obligations which our law. places _ : upon aneet / ; ane : . “Iti is worthy to cits that nowhere in its opinion did the [ : 2. . fre . the a tit the ‘‘Hellenic Hero’s’’ flag was one of : Fifth * @tvenit mention the numerous and substantial con- " 3 tacts with ditt of i Greek plaintiff, his Gréek dicadeaah Hellenic Lines, Ltd., the Greek owning company and the bor res - Greek flag” vessel, itself. It is submitted that:these contacts were more than sufficient'to show that the Greek character of the ‘‘Hellenic Hero’s’’ flag and of the owning company - were more than mere formalities. ‘In any event, this Hon- orable Court in Lauritzen, by ‘implication, announced that, citizenship of the defendant shipowner is to be considered ‘without heed paid to concepts of residency or.economic ad-. - vantage or disadvantage. While one of the contacts, which : _ this Court stressed, was the “« Allegiance: or Domicile of the_ ; Injured’’ seamen, in talking of the defendant- shipowner, it © merely used the term ‘‘Allegiance’’. It must be assumed hat this Court gave thoughtful reflection to use of the phfase ‘‘ Allegiance of the Defendant Shipowner’’ and used it against the backg#eund of international maritime law, _ which, it’ is submitted, doef’ not admit that allegiance should be based onthe transitory concept of residency, or base of operations or that it should be defined in terms of economic ties with the United States. , It is noteworthy that the Second Cireuit in Tjonaman v. A/S Glittre et al., 340 F. 2d 290 (2 oA reh. den. 382 U.S. 473 (1965) inserted the word ‘‘national’’ _ before the phrase “Allegiance of the erespecssad Ship- _ owner”, . Re i A. The idea of doing aT ae in or with the United States is essentially one of fragmented location of that part of foreign commerce between nations: The business is largely _ where the cargoes are. The United States because of its prodigious wealth has, at this time of history, an advan- igs a ta si position in international commerce; To ex- 1965) cert. den. 381 U.S. 925 (1965) © - -32 | Se! ee “The international complications of this postal if sanctioned by this Honorable Court can not-be underesti- mated. The great merchant fleets, passenger and cargo 4 Vessels, of sovereign powers trade continuously, systema- tically and substantially with all the major and minor ports _ of the United ‘States. - Concomitant with this trading, they maintain extensive offices, carry on extensive solicitations, ~ business and financial operations in the United States, in- deed far greater than the Petitioners here. Should we say to the Cunard Line, French Line, Italian Line, Holland- American Line and others, ‘your commercial presence in ‘the United States; i in and of itself, ‘overrides your flag and - you are subject/to our laws without: reference to your own ‘ldws’’? It is submitted that these questions answer. them- selves. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in the instant case is in direct and utter conflict with the decision of the-Second © Circuit fh Tsakonites v. Transpacific Carrier Corporation, 368 F. 2d 426, 2 Cir. 1966, cert. denied 386 U. 8. 1007. In Tsakonites, the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, a. Joel and ‘respected Admiralty- Court, revieweil and carefully considered the United States residence of the. majority stockholder and the United States base of busi- _ ‘ S%, bt » “- a oe Tess, sncabliage of the Greek sediail and held that these were not sufficient to outweighs the Greek flag. Tsakonites ‘was | * followed i in ' Nikitas Missos et al.. v. Transpacific. Carriers Corp. and Hellenic Line3, Ltd. in the Southern District of — New York. The memorandum opinion Y of J nudge. Frankel - is annexed as Exhibit A. After the.decision dismissing the suit, Christos Giakoumis, one of. the plaintiffs, -knewn as» \ > \ ee rome | i] ’ wa . é > 4 é “a * , > 4 4 O55 io ¥ 4 i vas Se . * ; ne * - ie | _ *% ‘ . ~ « “* Done DE 'GRECE 9,393 UNISTERE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES re Me pein 2S ts Number 423 - ; ‘ ; : : osI a 7 ock p.m. potere me, , Al. Pilinos, — nd for Piraqus and-in the presence of the ClerkyArteaas | resident of the isle of Ikaria, (card of identity “4.325.0017/66) 5 wees. WHO set forth, declared and mutually acknovledged . the following: : v Christos Yacounis declared that upon agreenent with the Representatives of the aforesaid Company, drawn up in Pirests, he let on lease his services as sailor sboard ie cargo gessel , managed by the sait Vompany, HELLENIC LRABER® with Contracts. shat in execution of that agreesent,he vent to > eS pices, on, this facie eee the 2etn day of the aout a of February, in the year 1968,nineteen saxty eight . at one ae Se. Justice of the ote wake , salary and upon other conditions 8 provided by the Prrectss 4 — ee _ gatarnes on beard the osid Vessel wi re he etteree “ $s Voceaber 29 1966, viiew he vas Wisaissed ia ‘| ba. “ovine to 0 aocitent of vbich be fehl victian . 4 2, OR y ts ge a raqpit of Bis fat frei a meer are ‘weere be wen vith other mcabers of a abye and, given ‘that bis lag'esetady satary rduting the £2 gonthe snscdiately preceding tx : 1 aoanted to érecande 6.652 of their equivalent Ty abe A ee At 0,12.5 anc b) beara eee , aidhardaety w eo cousicce wodis iy esha competed of his 78 te B aoreiee, and ig, therefore @atities to as enonnting to he” following #ua.i.e, 3, Aoording to the previaton of the paracraph 22 the art, 9 6f the Royal 4 . y * : — —_——— =. eens * 7. s . Ps ™ > ~sME DE GRECE 5a __4€ DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES Or a ; Bila ns. 5 ws “ SuRAy Ba TRADUCTION — Egy Ps : & ee - 3 ¥ r) — De 333. j Decree of the “voyal Decree - “He: ‘Asendseat of the “Act nt 55%" 55 ge asended - b; the arte 4 pare.¢ of the Act ne 4703/1930 » in } ae é is aN conjunction with the cezmon.decicien | ne 58904/1957 of the * a: he istere: ‘of public Wo Bs aerchant Warine and canner ’ which ‘ provide that the indemnity cue “once for all in the weit pt "he e ° partial persaxert impotence ,due.to a: lebour accident, aaa of (he sextuple of the cum by which the yearly revenpe Pe - tie victis was didiuisned or may be ‘ ¢dainighed OR. 4 ss ; } froa salary of the victja, ani in the case bf ican ae Die ei a exored-ng 30-000, Grachase thirty thousand , “the” onr fourthet such excess is adada hee fitters S Jing PO py EB ut $0, on thP basis of. f: shantee meniaay: salary of 6.8352 tie trachase the indeaity due PEE to drachane 145.251. rarther 5 the game de entitled to bebe; geeliecen éalaries/for 75 aye a4 \gpat of any clinic, at the rate of 244-0 per th and. further 7 saleries of 45 daye ‘dn clinic ac 31.4.0 per 2o..th, 4.¢6, he ai entitled to receive in all fo e s:id reason & 1.10.0 Of drachase 8.976, st the et rate of the British pound, “Les he‘ is entitled to receive in all, Grachuze 154,227 énc bun- st “ ne al _ G@rea@ end fufty. four thousend two hundred and twonty seven 5 on account of ‘which suc he recognizes end acknovhesgve that : he hee already received’ froa the *liellenic ines. outa" 1” & mutiatir,” ‘against receipts drezhnee (4) . ee ee ee haat ye fae attorney-aeles of the eid Coapanys: HARICLIA ANAREO. | ig 0. declares that a2 though che denies ang rejects the -. ‘ 2 : ate Ghrisioe tacowify, ait « alec his cleiss in general ; ‘any support by lay and the anttée,. 00 wueb- atten. hes’ uot suffered the aceicent. iavoned inthe | » thst bir soiiinn atenh siahsslepinh te the us Soy pid nar thet he becase totally iapotent: te wort ; . : eserk le Haid Chtatos Tecouats, in our’ Pr. cance, the eus " . ia -oclared ‘that he cossidern ‘ackrov= ~ eas es hincelf telly ind. ani‘ied ané gatasticd | i . : 7a S . iS ) ee a . Of any his claiz 6..6 pretent.on Sedinet the ranager of the ‘ga s werucl, *the eitente Lines ,bta" ite repr.eentatives, ovaera, - j.|, . operatoras exew , incurers and Agente of ‘the hip . Hellenic. fa 3 Leeoer® deriving from his bei ing been. wouncee on sot sl of the - eaid ship snc general :; fro: a hde. ‘AShe: tervice on Yoare of tae ease ,either on the ba.is of the vo¢ifrec pax 5e $3, ve ES fe’ , BP fore, arsagy! ot Pabcnaseen al ts -Private‘taw ‘ope ané sore eepecaatay trex its thats an \ eigtee ana farievictiogy ia th tals oF in enarther country, euch as any write of procees .nd righte ve}cus persons, copecially wy reason of aorul prejudice, acknowledging enc. Fecognizing that ali aforeedic pervone have n0 other reeponcioitlty or obliention by reason of bis secicenty, dee to bis own feuis and Feeponesbitity eee >: and not te any ae. wtudoal- defect or deficsency of the ship bid har eppurterancee, nor to aay dole, egiect or act of qntzeton of ze the officers and of the crev or the nen charged to charse@ or sascharge the vessel, her owners , aanagers, insurers and agents : “Moen fay pereon or percons appointed by the ovners| ear se Pe — ort “s . “oe : s (6) me,.92993_ nor, to. any “traxsgrescions of act anc fules by the the persons % : appointed for the surety of the crev, but . to the contrary, “4 to hie own. jin cince acd villing transgression of the Lave and on8,. and renounces expressly and without any reservation pat to attack i Sl reasonforasl or | . / my ~™ SS “ame Baissea sol in-ancreopouton, in her, capacity, in at snd acts , declared, that she accepts in the - . contrasting pestiee declared that they : ot ‘soste of taddd presents. iason hevaiet t ow ss 4 7, x cee, Be ; 4 é Taree e - < Sta ae Pay . ss 3, ait a —« 2 @ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0195%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.