The Administración General de Puertos Sociedad del Estado (AGP, the General Administration of Ports) claimed against Dynamic Marine SA and/or the disponent owner and/or shipowner and/or charterer of the Argentinian-flagged motor vessel Dynamic Explorer for unpaid port services for the use of AGP's dock.

AGP invoked in its favour the maritime lien arising from art 476(d) of Navigation Law No 20,094 (which gives domestic effect to the MLM Convention 1926 in Argentina) and applied to have the ship arrested. AGP's application was denied by the Court of first instance on the basis that 'the required precautionary measure does not fit within the provisions of art. 476(c) of Law 20,094 invoked, nor do the amounts indicated coincide'.

AGP appealed, arguing that the defendant 'has not paid a single penny for the Use of the Dock and Services ... from the date of delinquency (2017) to the present' and that the payment plan of the defendant's debts was never fulfilled. AGP argued that there was a real and imminent danger that the vessel could be removed from the mooring area, thus frustrating its rights. The arrest and immobilisation of the ship was necessary in order to avoid possible insolvencies, disposals, or encumbrances by the defendant.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The Judge at first instance denied the application for ship arrest on the basis that AGP's claim was not included in art 476(c) of Law 20,094; and also because the amounts indicated in the application did not coincide with the claim.

Regarding the first point, it must be said that AGP did not invoke the maritime lien arising from art 476(c), but rather art 476(d): 'The rights, taxes, contributions and charges for services, derived from the exercise of navigation or the commercial exploitation of the ship ...'. Although it is true that art 476(c) was entered in the pleadings by mistake, it was also made clear that the application was 'based on the maritime lien of the first group over the vessel that assists it as provided for in art. 476(d) and concordant with the Law 20,094', explaining that it was a claim derived from rates and duties of the AGP for payment of port services. This situation is far from being assimilated to a claim for the construction of a vessel provided for in art 476(c).

Regarding the latter point, the Court observes that the final amount for which the attachment is sought is ARS 7,607,448.53, which coincides, with a difference of the decimal point, with the original amount demanded, plus the figures indicated in each extension of demand.

Thus, the reasons given for denying the ship's arrest are unjustified. The maritime lien deriving from art 476(d) of the Navigation Law No 20,094 provides the right to enforce the ship arrest provided for in art 531 of the same Law, according to which:

Vessels flying the national flag can be arrested in any port of the Republic for maritime liens and for other claims in the port where their owner has its domicile or main establishment. The arrest for claims outside the ship, or its exploitation or navigation, must meet the requirements demanded by common law.

The arrest of a ship, and the interdiction of its navigation, constitute the means used by the creditor of the master, the disponent owner, or the shipowner, to obtain the realisation of its claim before it sails and is exposed to the risks inherent in navigation.

The AGP is in charge of the direction, administration, and utilisation of the Port of Buenos Aires, the only port that has remained under the administration of the National Government. In the exercise of its functions, the AGP is empowered to collect fees for the port services it provides within its jurisdiction, from the shipowner, disponent owner, or maritime agent of the vessel responsible for payment. The ship has been moored and inactive at the Port since February 2017. Dynamic Marine SA is the owner of the ship and in this capacity made several presentations at the offices of the AGP in which it recognised the debt maintained with the agency and made several requests related to it.

In the case of a maritime lien derived from the non-payment of port services linked to the navigation and commercial exploitation of the ship - use of the dock and provision of water and electricity - it is appropriate to allow the arrest of the ship.