This was a claim brought by Upravlyayushaya Kompaniya 'Reka-More' LLC (the claimant) against Prostory LLC (the defendant) for recovery of a debt under a time charterparty of RUB 657,376 for the cost of bunker fuel, RUB 3,092,206.09 for freight, and RUB 70,000 for survey expenses. The defendant submitted a counter-claim for RUB 1,931,997.50 for the cost of bunker fuel remaining on the ship when it was returned to the claimant, and RUB 4,200,000 for loss of profits.

On 11 May 2018, the claimant and the defendant entered into a time charter of the Kazak. The vessel was returned to the claimant on 27 June 2018. During this period, the vessel was arrested for 8 days from 30 May‑6 June 2018 by the Commercial Court in Mersin, Türkiye. Due to the arrest, the defendant could not fulfil its obligation under a carriage contract with Yemeris Industrial Minerals Greece SA.

The claim was satisfied in full. The defendant did not defend it. The counter-claim was satisfied in part for the cost of bunker fuel. However, the Court of first instance declined the claim for loss of profits. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The defendant submitted a cassation appeal.

Claiming for loss of profits, the defendant stated that, during the period of the arrest, the vessel was unseaworthy and could not perform its functions under the time charter. Moreover, the defendant referred to art 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952 [sic: 1999], which stipulates that liability for unreasonable arrest is regulated at the national level, and art 393 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), which stipulates that the arresting party bears the liability for damages caused by the arrest. The defendant argued that the arrest of the ship was caused by the fault of the claimant in paying for the bunker fuel in 2014. Moreover, the claimant failed to take all reasonable actions to prevent the arrest, and did not provide security for the prompt release of the vessel. The party who suffered damages from the arrest was the defendant. Therefore, the claimant should compensate for losses caused by the arrest.

Held: The cassation appeal is dismissed.

The Courts of first and appellate instances found that the arrest of the ship was imposed erroneously to secure a claim, not against the shipowner, but against a third party, the previous charterer of the ship. The claimant took all reasonable actions to release the vessel from the arrest, and deposited money to ensure the release of the vessel before the decision on its arrest was revised. Thus, the arrest of the vessel was not imposed due to the fault of the claimant. Moreover, the vessel was available for loading operations in the port during the arrest. Based on this, the argument regarding the vessel's unseaworthiness was rejected.

As for the interpretation of art 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952 [sic: 1999] and art 393 of the MSC RF, the Court stated that these provisions are devoted to claims for damages against the person who applied for the arrest of the ship and not the shipowner due to whose actions it was possible to arrest it. The Court concluded that the purpose of the relevant provision is to make it possible to find the arresting party liable for an unlawful or unreasonable arrest.