This case involved the ship arrest of the Croatian-flagged Ivona for unpaid port dues.

Held: Partially upheld.

The authority of the applicant Port Authority Split to collect port dues is prescribed by art 98 of the Maritime Property and Seaports Act (Official Gazette No 83/23).

Regarding the fulfilment of the general prerequisites for the determination of a provisional measure, prescribed by the provision of art 344.1 of the Enforcement Act, the applicant points out that it made the existence of its maritime claim against the defendant probable.

As regards the second assumption, namely the existence of a risk, the applicant points out that its claim is a maritime lien. Its claim is based on unpaid invoices for port dues, which is, pursuant to art 241.1.4 of the Maritime Code, protected by a maritime lien over the ship and for which claim, in accordance with art 953.2 of the Maritime Code, ship arrest is possible. The risk is that, without ship arrest, the applicant's claim will remain unpaid is contained in the very short limitation period of the maritime lien because, in accordance with art 246 of the Maritime Code, upon the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the claim, the applicant's lien ceases. Therefore, there is a real risk that the applicant will be deprived of its claims.

According to art 952 of the Maritime Code, ship arrest is implemented on the basis of a ban on the ship leaving the port.

Part of the applicant's claim represents a maritime lien over the Ivona. According to art 241 of the Civil Code, claims against the owner, charterer, or shipowner of a ship for port dues and fees charged in ports open to public traffic and special-purpose ports are secured by a maritime lien that exists over the ship in relation to which the claim arose. Here, these are invoices issued on the basis of a claim for port dues, which arose in relation to the Ivona.

Since the applicant's claim for EUR 3,595.91 is a maritime lien in relation to the Ivona, it was not necessary to specifically determine the existence of the danger referred to in art 344.1 of the Civil Code, especially since the maritime lien over a ship serves to secure a monetary claim until the lien ceases. Namely, a maritime lien is a special legal lien on certain claims for the realisation of which ship arrest may be ordered. In other words, ship arrest serves to realise the maritime lien, to which the creditor is entitled regardless of whether there is a danger that the debtor will prevent or significantly complicate the collection of the claim by alienating, concealing, or otherwise disposing of its property.

For the above reasons, the necessary prerequisites for ship arrest have been met.

In relation to the remaining part of the applicant's claim, it is not (any more) secured by a maritime lien. Therefore, in relation to that part of the claim, the necessary prerequisites for determining an interim measure within the meaning of art 344.1 of the Civil Code were not cumulatively met, and for this reason the applicant's proposal in that part was rejected as unfounded.