LLC Expo-Line-Plus (the applicant) applied to arrest the ship Seebreeze II, owned by Saluta Shipping Ltd (the defendant). The applicant acted as an agent for the loading of the ship. The defendant allegedly failed to pay for the services in the amount of RUB 4,594,683.70. The applicant argued that neither the defendant nor the other party related to the ship, Cunda Shipping Ltd, had its registered office in Russia, nor had any property in Russia. A judgment in favour of the applicant would be unenforceable without the arrest.

Held: The arrest is granted.

The Commercial Court grants the security measure in accordance with Ch 8 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF). Under art 99 of the CPC RF, the security measure may be preliminary to the submission of the claim. After the claim is submitted, the preliminary security measure remains in place as an ordinary security measure.

The special rules on ship arrest are set out in Ch 23 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). According to art 388(1) of the MSC RF, arrest is any detention of the ship or restriction of its movement while it is in Russia, granted by a court, a commercial court, or an authorised arbitration institution to secure a maritime claim, excluding arrest for the execution of a judgment. The ship can be arrested only for a maritime claim. The list of maritime claims provided by art 389 of the MSC RF corresponds to the list of claims in art 1.1 of the Arrest Convention 1999.

Arrest of ships is also governed by the Arrest Convention 1952. Under art 2.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952, arrest means the detention of a ship by judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment. Under art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952, the applicant can arrest either the particular ship or any other ship owned by the party who would be liable for the claim. According to art 3.4, if the demise charterer of the ship is liable for the claim, that ship can be arrested for the claim against the demise charterer, or any other ship owned by the demise charterer, subject to the provisions of the Convention, but no other ship in the ownership of the registered owner can be arrested. Under art 6, the procedural rules governing ship arrest are subject to national law.

Therefore, the ship arrest is granted when two criteria are met. First, there is a maritime claim against the particular ship (arrest in rem). Second, the ship is owned or chartered by demise by the person who would be liable for the claim (arrest in personam) (Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 9284/02 dated 19 November 2002, Rulings of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No VAS-9003/13 dated 17 February 2014 and No VAS-2562/14 dated 7 March 2014).

A security measure is granted when at least one criterion for its granting is met (Informational Letter of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 78 dated 7 July 2004). The risk of disposing of the assets may be a sufficient reason to grant the arrest (Informational Letter of the Supreme Commercial Court of Appeal No 72 dated 24 July 2003).

The Court finds that the circumstances described by the applicant are sufficient to justify the arrest. The arrest corresponds to the potential claim and is proportionate to it. The arrest of the ship does not obstruct the ship's operations within the port of Eysk but guarantees that the future judgment is enforceable. Based on that, the arrest is granted.