On 18 June 2022, the Lider Bulut grounded. Yellow Rose Shipping Ltd (the defendant) owned the ship. The master of the vessel sent the emergency signal. The Azov-Black Sea Department of FSBI Morsapassluzhba (the claimant) received the signal and accepted the salvage request. The rescuing team was sent to the incident area by the Valeriy Barskiy and Vodolaz-31. On 27 June 2022, the salvage was completed. The salved ship's operator, LLC Veresk, sent a request to ensure the safe anchorage of the Lider Bulut. The claimant accepted the request and rendered the relevant services. The vessel involved in ensuring the safe anchorage was the Spasatel Demidov. The safe anchorage was ensured from 28 June-14 July 2022.

The claimant applied to arrest the Lider Bulut to secure the claim arising from ensuring the ship's safe anchorage.

Held: The arrest was granted.

Under art 390(1)(4) of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), the vessel involved in a maritime incident can be arrested if it was owned by the person liable when the claim arose. The same rule is stipulated by art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952. The person liable was the owner of the Lider Bulut, the defendant. Moreover, a maritime lien secures the claim arising from the salvage agreement (art 367(1) of the MSC RF). Claims secured by maritime liens have priority over those secured by ship mortgages.

The vessel was at the Port of Tuapse during the proceedings. The claimant had no information on the defendant's other property in Russia that could be available for enforcement. Therefore, the claimant argued that it would be difficult or impossible to enforce the claim if the arrest is not granted.

Informational Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 78 dated 7 July 2024, in ss 9 and 10, stipulates that not providing counter security cannot be the only reason to decline the security measure application. Under s 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 55 dated 12 October 2006, the security measures are preliminary remedies. The claimant need not provide evidence sufficient to prove the case on the merits. The claimant must prove the existence of the disputed right and its violation.

According to art 388(1) of the MSC RF, the 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. The same definition is contained in art 1.2 of the Arrest Convention 1952. Based on this, the claimant argued that the ship arrest is a special security measure that does not require meeting requirements other than those stipulated by the international treaty. These are the existence of a maritime claim and the ship's ownership.

Under art 342(2) of the MSC RF, the salvage reward is paid by all persons interested in the ship. The same provision is stated by art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989. The MSC RF and the Salvage Convention 1989 provide the criteria for fixing the salvage reward.

Therefore, based on the mentioned legal provisions and the worldwide practice of ship arrest, arrest is granted if two substantive criteria are met. These are the existence of a maritime claim against the particular vessel (arrest in rem) and that the ship is owned or chartered by the person liable for the claim (arrest in personam). At the same time, the Court separately emphasised that the special nature of ship arrest does not exclude the necessity of meeting the procedural requirements stipulated by the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (art 90(2)). The claimant must justify the difficulty or impossibility of the judgment enforcement if a security measure is not granted.

The claimant successfully meets the substantive and procedural requirements for ship arrest. The arrest is granted.