This was an application for the arrest of the Hanuman, owned by SKHP Logistics Ltd (the defendant), brought by the Black Sea Maritime Directorate of the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources (the claimant). The claimant sought to arrest the ship in respect of a claim for damage caused to the Black Sea, which is an object of environmental protection.

Held: The arrest is granted.

According to s 1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No 15 dated 1 June 2023 (Resolution No 15), security measures are granted to prevent violations of the rights, freedoms, and legal interests of the applicant or third parties, to reduce the negative consequences of any such violation, and to create the conditions for enforcement of the judgment.

Under s 14 of Resolution No 15, a court establishes the grounds for granting security measures, determines how the particular security measure is connected with the claim, whether it is proportionate to the claim, and how it ensures the actual realisation of the purposes of security measures.

A court grants security measures if at least one ground for them is met (art 90(2) of the CPC RF). Accordingly, the court should take into account the reasonableness and justifiability of security measures, the connection between the security measure and the subject of the claim; the probability of significant damage arising from the lack of security measures; the balance of the parties’ interests; and the need to prevent violations of public interests and third parties’ interests. To prevent significant damage to the applicant, security measures can be aimed at preserving the status quo between the parties.

Under s 16 of the Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 81, dated 13 August 2004 (CMI2348), if the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF) provides rules that differ from the provisions of the CPC RF, the MSC RF prevails.

Under art 388 of the MSC RF, arrest is any detention of a ship or restriction of its movement when it is in Russia, based on the judicial act of a court, commercial court, or authorised arbitration institution, for maritime claims as defined in art 389 of the MSC RF, excluding the seizure of a ship in the execution of a judgment. A ship may be arrested only for a maritime claim. It may be arrested even when it is ready to leave port. It may be arrested, irrespective of whether the claim is to be considered by a court or an arbitral tribunal, in a foreign court under the governing law and arbitration clause. The ship can be arrested if it is owned by the liable person (art 390 of the MSC RF). Thus, based on the provisions mentioned and international practice regarding ship arrest, a ship can be arrested if two criteria are met: there must be a maritime claim against the ship (arrest in rem), and the ship must be owned by the liable person (arrest in personam) (Resolution 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).

Under art 1.1.a of the Arrest Convention 1952, a claim for damage caused by any ship, whether in collision or otherwise, is a maritime claim. According to art 1.2 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.

On 26 March 2026, an oil spill occurred from the Hanuman. The ship was being loaded at berth No 2 of the Sheskharis oil terminal. According to a survey conducted by the expert of the eco-analytical laboratory, Federal State Budgetary Entity CherAztekhmordirektsiya, 45,000 m² of water was polluted. According to an announcement by PJSC NMTP, the pollution occurred as a result of ballast water discharge from the ship.

The claimant submitted a pre-trial demand to the defendant for RUB 45,027,446 of damages. The defendant agreed to pay this sum, provided that it includes the costs of oil spill elimination.

The claimant argued that the only way to ensure that the damages are compensated is through ship arrest, as the ship could leave the port of Novorossiysk, where it was located, and become unavailable for enforcement. The defendant is a foreigner with no other property in Russia. The damages were caused to the interests of the Russian Federation.

The Court accepted the claimant's arguments and granted the arrest.