Trans-Group Sankt-Peterburg LLC (the claimant) applied for the arrest of the vessel Kapitan Danilkin owned by Resheniye LLC (the defendant). The claimant and the defendant entered into a time charter agreement. During the agreement period, the claimant bunkered the vessel at its own expense in the amount of RUB 24,290,000. Upon contract termination, the parties agreed to set off their claims. Consequently, the defendant was obligated to pay the claimant RUB 2,708,483.89. The defendant failed to do so.

The Court of first instance dismissed the application. The claimant appealed.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

According to art 90(2) of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF), security measures are granted if not granting them would make it difficult or impossible to enforce the judgment, including if the enforcement is supposed to be conducted outside Russia, and to prevent significant damage to the applicant. The application is dismissed if these grounds are not met (art 93(3) of the CPC RF).

Under s 14 of Resolution of the Supreme Court of Russia No 15 dated 1 June 2023 (Resolution No 15), a commercial court considering the application for a security measure shall establish the grounds for granting this measure, how this particular measure is connected with the subject of the claim and proportionate to it, and whether this measure ensures the purposes of security measures. The commercial court considers the measure's reasonableness, the probability of causing significant damage to the applicant if the measure is not granted, the balancing of the parties' interests, and prevention of the violation of third parties' rights. To prevent significant damage to the applicant, the security measures may be aimed at ensuring the status quo in the parties' dealings. According to s 15 of Resolution No 15, the security measures are preliminary remedies. Therefore, there is no need to provide the evidence to the standard necessary to prove the claim on the merits.

The ship is not the subject of the claim but the property from which the claim may be satisfied. The claimant did not provide evidence that the defendant tried to hide or dispose of its property. Therefore, there were no grounds to grant the arrest.

The argument that the claimant's claim is of a maritime nature does not automatically mean that the ship can be arrested. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia on the arrest of ships do not exclude the applicability of the CPC RF and do not relieve the applicant's obligation to prove grounds for security measures.