This was an application by the Azov-Black Sea department of FSBI Morspassluzhba (the salvor) to arrest the Lider Bulut. The shipowner was Yellow Rose Shipping Ltd. On 18 June 2022, the ship grounded. The master sent an emergency signal. The rescuing team was sent to the incident area by the Valeriy Barskiy and Vodolaz-31. On 18 June, the emergency team installed booms to prevent an oil spill. On 27 June 2022, the salvage was completed.

On 19 June 2022, the ship's agent, LLC Veresk, guaranteed payment of the salvage reward. On 30 June 2022, the salvor sent the shipowner a claim for a salvage reward of RUB 61,000,000. Neither the shipowner nor the agent responded. The salvor applied to arrest the salved ship.

The salvor argued that the ship can be arrested to secure a claim for salvage reward because it is a maritime claim under art 389 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). A maritime claimant can arrest the vessel involved in the relevant incident (art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952). The vessel stayed at the port of Tuapse. The applicant had no information on any other property of the shipowner in Russia.

Held: The arrest is granted.

According to art 388(1) of the MSC RF, arrest is any detention of a ship or restriction of its movement when it is located in Russia based on the judicial act of a court, commercial court, or authorised arbitration institution aimed at securing a maritime claim. A similar definition is given in art 1.2 of the Arrest Convention 1952. A maritime claim is a special remedy that does not require any additional justification except those mentioned in the MSC RF and the Arrest Convention, the existence of a maritime claim and the ship's ownership.

According to art 342(2) of the MSC RF and art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989, the salvage reward is paid by all persons interested in the ship. The salvor may calculate the reward in accordance with arts 341 and 342 of the MSC RF and arts 12 and 13 of the Salvage Convention. The criteria that are taken into account are listed in the relevant provisions. Successful salvage gives rise to the salvage reward. The salvor calculated the salvage reward at RUB 65,000,000.

A claimant may arrest either the particular ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose, or any other ship which is owned by the person who was, at the time when the maritime claim arose, the owner of the particular ship (art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention). In the case of a charter by demise of a ship, where the charterer and not the registered owner is liable in respect of a maritime claim relating to that ship, the claimant may arrest such ship or any other ship in the ownership of the charterer by demise, but not a ship in the ownership of the registered owner (art 3.4 of the Arrest Convention). The MSC RF stipulates the same rules (art 390 of the MSC RF).

Therefore, according to the mentioned provisions and international practice of ship arrest, the ship may be arrested if two criteria are met: 1) the existence of a maritime claim against the particular ship (arrest in rem); 2) the particular ship is owned by the person liable for a maritime claim (arrest in personam).

The special provisions of the MSC RF do not exclude the necessity of meeting the procedural requirements for security measures stipulated in the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF). In the Informational Letter No 78 dated 7 July 2004, the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia stated that the security measure might be granted if at least one of the criteria listed in art 90 of the CPC RF is met. The relevant art provides that the security measure can be granted if non-granting of the measure may result in difficulty or impossibility of the execution of the possible judgment, including where the judgment execution is supposed to be conducted outside Russia. However, this rule does not stipulate that the necessity to execute the judgment outside Russia can be a sufficient justification for granting the measure by itself. The commercial court must assess how the measure applied corresponds to the subject of the claim and is proportional to it. It must also assist in realising the goals of the security measures stipulated by the CPC RF. So, the commercial court should consider the substantive grounds for the arrest, the violated right, and the procedural grounds provided by the CPC RF. The substantive grounds for ship arrest are those from the MSC RF.

The applicant must justify the necessity for the security claim or the risk of causing significant damage to the applicant if the measure is not granted. The Court found that the applicant successfully did so and granted the arrest.