This was an application of FSBI NIKIMP (the claimant) for the arrest of the Novaya Zemlya, operated by LLC Baltiyskaya Frakhtovaya Gruppa (the defendant). On 27 August 2024, in the course of the mooring operation, the vessel allided with Berth No 2 of the Feodosiya port. According to the claimant’s calculation, the damage caused amounted to RUB 25,309,120.

The claimant submitted that its claim for damage caused by the ship was a maritime claim secured by a maritime lien.

Held: The ship arrest was granted.

Under art 90 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF), a court may impose urgent security measures upon the application of the party involved in proceedings to secure the claim or the applicant’s interests. The security measures are granted if their absence may result in difficulty or impossibility of judgment enforcement, including when the judgment is to be enforced outside Russia, as well as to prevent significant damage to the applicant.

According to art 91(2) of the CPC RF, the security measures must be proportionate to the claim. Under art 92(2)(5) of the CPC RF, the applicant bears the burden of justifying its application for security measures. The court dismisses the application if the grounds for granting security measures listed in art 90 of the CPC RF are not met (art 93(3) of the CPC RF). Security measures are granted if at least one of the relevant grounds is met.

Pursuant to s 40 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No 15 dated 01/06/2023 (Resolution No 15), preliminary security measures are granted if the general conditions for security measures stipulated by the CPC RF are satisfied. Under s 14 of Resolution No 15, courts considering the application for security measure establish the grounds for granting the measure and determine whether the measure applied for relates to the subject of the claim, is proportionate to it, and how it meets the security measure's purposes. Thus, assessing the applicant’s arguments, courts take into account the reasonableness of the security measure applied for, the connection between the relevant measure and the subject of the claim, the probability of causing significant damage to the applicant if the measure is not granted, ensuring the balancing of the parties' interests, and preventing any significant damage caused to the interests of public and third parties if the measure is granted. To prevent significant damage to the applicant, the security measure may be aimed at ensuring the status quo in the parties' interests.

In s 15 of Resolution No 15, it is explained that security measures are preliminary and expedited remedies. Therefore, for their granting, it is not necessary to provide the evidence in the amount needed to prove the claim on the merits. As far as the legislation does not provide for any mandatory grounds for security measures, the court assesses all the circumstances at its own discretion.

The claimant’s application referred to arts 388 and 389 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF). The claimant argued that it had a maritime claim against the defendant for the damages caused by the allision of the vessel with the berth. Moreover, this claim was secured by a maritime lien (art 367(1) of the MSC RF). Under art 367(5) of the MSC RF, the claims based on tort arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel other than loss of or damage to cargo, containers and passengers' effects carried on the vessel were secured by a maritime lien. The maritime lien was a lien that arises from the operation of law. It did not need to be registered as an encumbrance.

Under s 17 of the Informational Letter No 81 (CMI2348) ship arrest is any detention of a ship or restriction of its movement when it is located in Russia on the basis of the judicial act of a court, commercial court, or authorised arbitration institution for maritime claims as determined in art 389 of the MSC RF, excluding the seizure of a ship in the execution of a judgment (art 388 of the MSC RF). According to s 16 of the Informational Letter No 81, if the MSC RF contains provisions different from those in the CPC RF, the CPC RF’s provisions apply, considering the MSC RF.

The Court found that the security measure applied related to a maritime claim and was aimed at securing the claim and enforcing the judgment. Moreover, it was emphasised that granting the arrest would ensure the balance of the parties’ interests and status quo in the parties’ dealings. On the basis of the above, the arrest was granted.