This was an application by LLC Morskiye Tekhnologii (the claimant) to arrest the ship Bereg Mechty, owned by Kasira Marine Ltd (the shipowner). The arrest aimed to secure a claim against the shipowner and CJSC RIMSKO for unjustified enrichment caused by leaving the ship at the berth in the port operated by the claimant. The claim amounted to the price for the actual stay of the vessel in the port from 1 January 2019-21 December 2022 and interest.

The claimant applied: 1) to restrict the shipowner from disposing of the ship; and 2) to restrict the ship's register in Belize from entering anything regarding the ship's ownership and encumbrances. A separate argument was that the shipowner was a company in the Republic of Cyprus that supported restrictive measures imposed by the European Union against Russia in 2022. The claimant contended that the ship was the only asset of the claimant.

Held: The application is dismissed.

The commercial court imposes security measures following the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF). Under art 90(1) of the CPC RF, the commercial court can grant a security measure to secure the claim and the applicant's proprietary interests. Security measures can be granted if not granting them may cause difficulty or impossibility of judgment enforcement, or to prevent significant damage to the applicant (art 90(2) of the CPC RF). The applicant bears the burden of proof of the circumstances justifying the arrest (art 92(2)(5) of the CPC RF).

According to arts 91(2) and 92(2)(5) of the CPC RF, ss 1,4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 11 dated 9 July 2003 and ss 9, 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia No 55 dated 12 October 2006 (Resolution No 55), a commercial court grants a security measure only if there is actual necessity. Considering the application, the court takes into account the reasonableness and justifiability of the particular measure, the possibility of causing significant damage to the applicant if the measure is not granted, and preventing violation of the rights of third parties and the public. The court should also consider how the particular measure relates to the subject of the claim, whether it is proportionate to it, and how it will ensure its purposes if granted. Under s 13 of Resolution No 55, proportionality is assessed by considering the rights and interests the applicant seeks to protect and the consequences of the measure if granted.

The Court found that the claimant failed to demonstrate how not granting the particular measure could make it difficult or impossible to enforce a judgment. Also, the court found that the particular security measure had no connection with the subject of the claim.

The Court also relied on the Arrest Convention 1952 and Ch 23 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). According to art 388 of the MSC RF, ship arrest can be granted only to secure a maritime claim. The claim for unjustified enrichment caused by leaving the ship in the port without paying for its anchorage was not a maritime claim under art 389 of the MSC RF and art 1.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952.