Conrad Management Co LLC-FZ (the applicant) applied to arrest the Romeos against Multu Shipping Ltd (the defendant). The applicant argued that the ship should be arrested to secure its claim for damage to the cargo in Port Marmara, Türkiye, reimbursement of overpaid demurrage, and compensation for all other consequential losses, as well as interest. The preliminary amount of the claim against the defendant was RUB 81,544,736.48. The measure was proportionate to the claim because the ship was the only known asset of the defendant, and in the absence of arrest, significant damages could have been caused to the applicant. The claim could not be enforced in the absence of arrest due to the sanctions against Russia.

Held: The arrest is granted.

The claim arising from the contract of carriage of goods constitutes a maritime claim under art 389 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF) and arts 1.1.e and 1.1.f of the Arrest Convention 1952. Therefore, the Commercial Court can arrest the ship, and the arrest is not contingent on the proportionality of the arrest to the claim.

The person liable for damage to the cargo on the ship was its shipowner, the defendant. The ship may be arrested for a maritime claim if it is owned or chartered by demise by the party liable for the claim (art 390(1)(4) of the MSC RF). The person holding a maritime claim can arrest either the ship involved in the incident or any other ship owned or chartered by demise by the liable party (art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952).

The applicant provided counter-security of RUB 85,000,000. However, offering counter-security is not a mandatory requirement for granting a security measure (ss 9 and 10 of the Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 78 dated 07/07/2004). Security measures are applied to prevent violations of the rights of the applicant and third parties, minimise the negative consequences of any violations, and establish the conditions for proper enforcement of a judgment (s 1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No 15 dated 01/06/2023).

The Court also emphasised that ship arrest is a special measure aimed at securing maritime claims and does not require any justification beyond what is specified in the Arrest Convention 1952. The ship may be arrested if, at the time the arrest procedure begins, it is owned by the person who owned the ship involved in the incident at the time of the incident.

Based on this, the ship can be arrested if two criteria are met:

1. a maritime claim arose against the particular ship (arrest in rem); and
2. the particular ship is owned by the person liable for the claim (arrest in personam).

The Court found that the lack of arrest could hinder or make it impossible to enforce the potential judgment and could cause significant losses to the applicant. The applicant has no information about the defendant's other property in Russia. The security measure relates to the subject matter of the dispute, is reasonable, and helps to maintain a fair balance of the parties' interests and preserve the status quo in their relations.

At the time of the ruling, the ship was in the Black Sea en route to the port of Novorossiysk. Therefore, the Court had jurisdiction over the application: see Ruling of the Commercial Court of Krasnodar Region in Case No A32-34735/2022 dated 02/09/2022 (CMI2333).