The plaintiff, Marina Far Vilanova SA, sought the arrest of the Blue Horizon IV, flying the English flag, owned by Rasra Services Ltd, and berthed in the Port of Vilanova i la Geltrúas, as security for the enforcement of its maritime claim of EUR 41,584.83. The plaintiff based its arrest application on arts 1.1.l, 1.1.m, and 1.1.n of the Arrest Convention 1999, which provides as maritime claims legitimising ship arrest:

(l) goods, materials, provisions, bunkers, equipment (including containers) supplied or services rendered to the ship for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance;

(m) construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the ship;

(n) port, canal, dock, harbour and other waterway dues and charges ...

Held: The arrest of the Blue Horizon IV is approved as security for the plaintiff's claim of EUR 41,584.83. The applicant must submit security of EUR 7,000. The master of the vessel is appointed as depositary. The applicant is to file its claim on the merits within 20 days from the arrest of the vessel.

The requested measure is subject to the Arrest Convention 1999, ratified by Spain on 31 May 2002. The arrest of a ship supposes, according to art 1.2 of the Convention, the 'detention or restriction on removal of a ship by order of a Court to secure a maritime claim'. Regarding the applicability of the Arrest Convention 1999 to this case, and the competence of this Court, it is appropriate to confirm it in view of the grounds alleged in the application and the alleged maritime claim, in accordance with arts 2, 7, and 8 of the Convention.

Likewise, the Maritime Navigation Law of 2014 (the LNM) must be applied, due to the reference made in art 6 of the Convention. Article 472 of the LNM establishes: 'In order to decree the arrest of a vessel for a maritime claim that is defined in article 1 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, it will suffice that the rights or claims are alleged, the cause of action that motivates them, and the arrestability of the ship', adding in art 475: 'Any ship with respect to which a maritime claim is alleged may be seized in the terms of, and within the scope of, the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships.'

The requirements to be able to adopt this measure are: first, that a maritime claim under art 1.1 of the Convention is alleged; secondly, that there is a danger that the claim that is being enforced, or that arises from the maritime claim, will be rendered ineffective (periculum in mora); thirdly, that sufficient security be provided to guarantee the damages arising from the immobilisation of the ship; and, fourthly, that a ship's depositary be appointed to take care of its conservation while the measure is maintained, under art 626 of the Civil Procedure Law.

In this case, the claim by virtue of which the arrest is requested turns out to be one of those provided for in arts 1.1.l, 1.1.m, and 1.1.n of the Convention. Its allegation is sufficient, in accordance with the literal tenor of art 1 of the Convention.

The second of the requirements, like that of any precautionary measure, is the so-called periculum in mora, which consists of the well-founded fear that the measure taken to enforce the claim will become ineffective because the ship will leave the jurisdiction of the national Courts, a risk that, as a general rule, is inherent in the nature and activity of the ship. Even when the Convention exempts the applicant from proving periculum in mora, it cannot be questioned that this assumption is relevant in this case because, as alleged and proven, the ship could leave the port at any time, which in itself entails a risk of loss that can frustrate the effectiveness of an judgment. In any case, as provided in art 472 of the LNM, it is not necessary to prove the assumptions of danger of procedural delay and urgency, since these are already presumed by virtue of art 476 of the LNM.

The third of the requirements is that the applicant must provide a sufficient bond, which must be at least 15% of the amount of the alleged maritime claim (art 472 of the LNM), to cover the possible damages and losses flowing from arrest, such as commercial losses derived from the immobilisation of the ship, port expenses, conservation expenses of the ship, and legal expenses.

The fourth of the requirements refers to the appointment of a depositary. The immobilisation of a ship requires someone to take responsibility for it. As a general rule, that person can be the debtor itself, or the master of the ship. There is, however, a risk that the debtor may abandon the ship. To avoid this situation, whoever applies for an arrest must assume responsibility for the effectiveness of this measure, since it is adopted for their benefit. In the absence of a master, or in the event that s/he abandons the ship, a depositary must be designated.

The ship may oppose the arrest for the reasons provided for in art 3 of the Convention, and art 739 of the Civil Procedure Law, to which art 6.2 of the Convention refers.