This was a claim brought by the Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia (the claimant) in the interests of Russia against 11 natural persons, eight entities (the defendants), and the Federal Fishing Agency regarding agreements and expropriation of shares in the entities on account of damage caused to the water natural resources. The claimant submitted an application to impose interim measures upon the entire property of the relevant entities. The interim measures were imposed. Among other things, an injunction was issued prohibiting the master of the seaports and the heads of administration of ports in Primorskiy region and East Arctic, Sakhalin, Kurily, Kamchatka, Okhotskoye Sea, and Tatarskiy Strait to permit two vessels belonging to Rybnyi Ostrov LLC (the shipowner), the Demis and the Lotus 04, to leave port.

The shipowner submitted an application to set aside the interim measures. It argued that the measure imposed upon the vessels amounted to ship arrest. The claims were not of a maritime nature under art 389 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), so the vessels could not be arrested. The Court of first instance dismissed the shipowners' application. The shipowner appealed.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the claims were not of a maritime nature. According to paras 16-17 of the Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Appeal of Russia No 81 dated 13/08/2004 (CMI2348), if the MSC RF stipulates rules different from the provisions of Ch 8 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia, the MSC RF applies. Article 388 provides that a vessel may be arrested only for a maritime claim. The list of maritime claims is contained in art 389 of the MSC RF. The claims submitted against the shipowner are not listed in the relevant provision. Therefore, under arts 388 and 389 of the MSC RF and the Arrest Convention 1952, the vessels cannot be arrested. At the same time, the Court stated that the interim measure imposed upon the vessels did not amount to ship arrest.

The following interim measures were imposed on the vessels:

• the masters and heads of administration of the ports were prohibited to give the vessels permission to leave Russian ports;
• the shareholders, governing bodies, and other authoritative persons within the shipowner were prohibited to take any actions and make any decisions on the alienation, encumbrance of assets with the rights of third parties, reduction of their value, damage or loss, or to perform other operations (actions) worsening the property status of the shipowner; and
• the Administration of the Sea Ports FSBI at the place of the vessel’s registration was prohibited from amending the registration entry of the vessels.

Of these three measures, the shipowner only appealed against the first. As the Court of first instance found, the vessels could leave Russian territory due to their characteristics, making it impossible to enforce the judgment. This corresponds to the provisions of art 90 of the CPC RF, under which an interim measure may be imposed if its non-imposition would make it difficult or impossible to enforce the judgment and to avoid causing significant damage to the applicant. The appellant did not provide evidence that there are no longer grounds for the interim measures' imposition. The interim measures, therefore, were imposed not under the MSC RF, but in accordance with the general rules on interim measures stipulated in the CPC RF.

On the basis of the above, the appeal was dismissed.