Sudoremontniy Zavod Yuzhniy LLC (the claimant) claimed RUB 11,186,004 from TZK-Trans Shipping LLC and Amur Shipping 2515 Ltd (the defendants), including the price for repair works performed on the Amur-2515, and the price for the ship's anchoring, together with interest. The claimant also submitted an application to arrest the ship at the claimant's berth.

The Court of first instance dismissed the arrest application. The claimant appealed, arguing that it had the right to arrest the ship because it was owned by a foreign entity (Amur Shipping 2515 Ltd) and could leave Russia, and that, without the arrest, the claimant would be exposed to the risk of a prospective judgment being unenforceable.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

Under s 9 of the Resolution of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 55 dated 12 October 2006 (Resolution No 55), the court granting security measures should consider that these measures are allowed if their absence could make enforcement of the judgment difficult or impossible and if they are aimed at preventing significant damage to an applicant. The applicant bears the burden of proving that the claimed security measures are justified and that it has the substantive right against the defendant. At the same time, under s 10 of the Resolution No 15, the security measures are expedited remedies, and therefore the applicant must not submit evidence in the volume needed to prove the claim on the merits.

Under s 16 of the Informational Letter No 81 (CMI2348), the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF) apply to ship arrest only if they do not contradict the special provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). Under s 17 of the Informational Letter No 81 and art 388(1) of the MSC RF, the ship can be arrested only for a maritime claim. Under art 6 of the Arrest Convention 1952, the procedural rules on ship arrest are subject to the national law of Contracting States.

The CPC RF provides that, if the judgment is to be enforced abroad, the court may grant the security measure (art 90(2) of the CPC RF). However, this provision does not require a court to grant the measure in this case. The relevant court must assess whether the claimed measure is connected with the claim, proportionate to it, and how it will ensure the purpose of the security measures provided by art 90 of the CPC RF. The arrest is granted not only upon meeting the requirements stipulated in both the MSC RF and Ch 8 of the CPC RF.

The Court of first instance was correct to find that the claimant failed to prove the impossibility or difficulty of enforcing the prospective judgment in the absence of the security measures claimed. The claimant did not submit any justification for the proportionality and reasonableness of the security measures. On that basis, the Court of first instance did not have grounds to arrest the ship.