This was an application for the arrest of the vessel named 'X', flagged in the Marshall Islands, which was moored at Port d'Arenys de Mar, as security for a maritime claim arising from a mooring rental contract, for the amount of EUR 9,623.60, corresponding to invoices not paid since December of last year.

Held: Application granted.

The Arrest Convention 1999 applies mandatorily by virtue of art 470 of Law 14/2014, of 24 July, on Maritime Navigation (the LNM) not only to foreign ships flying the flag of a contracting State, but also to foreign ships flying the flag of non-contracting States.

Article 472 of the LNM provides:

1. In addition, to decree arrest of a ship for a maritime claim as defined in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, it shall suffice to allege the right or credits claimed, the cause that gives rise to these and that the ship may be arrested.

2. In all cases, the Court shall demand a guarantee for a sufficient sum to respond to the damages, losses, and costs that may arise. That guarantee may be of any of the classes recognised by law, including a bank guarantee.

Once that guarantee is established, which shall be at least 15 per cent of the amount of the maritime claim alleged, the Court may review its amount, of its own motion or at the request of a party, according to the carriage and the size of the ship, the cost arising from the ship staying in the port, its daily commercial rate, whether or not it is on a regular line, whether it is loaded or not, as well as its contractual commitments.

Therefore, the judicial control over the precautionary measure in question is limited to verifying that the creditor alleges the claimed right or credits and the cause that motivates them, which is complied with in the present application, since a maritime claim, in the amount already mentioned, has been unpaid.

Since the cause of the debt expressly considered as a maritime claim is found in art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1999, and active and passive legitimacy having been verified, it is no longer possible to consider the traditional requirement of periculum in mora. This is due to art 476, according to which '[i]t shall be assumed that arrest of ships arises due to the danger of procedural delay and urgency mentioned in Articles 728, 730.2 and 733.2 of the Civil Procedure Act'.

For this reason, the plaintiff's application for preventive seizure must be granted.