This was an application to arrest the ship A on 31 August 2022. The plaintiff contended that it had a maritime claim of HRK 4,027,000 against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the prerequisites in art 344.1 of the Enforcement Act, read in connection with art 951.1 of the Maritime Code, had been met. In addition, the plaintiff submitted that the risk [ie periculum in mora] specified in art 344.1 of the Enforcement Act existed, if the claim had to be executed abroad (art 344.3 of the Enforcement Act), and that art 344.1 of the Enforcement Act provided that the plaintiff did not have to prove risk if it was likely that the defendant would suffer only minor damage from the proposed arrest measure. Since the defendant, in addition to ship A, owned three other ships, and maintained three national liner services, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had a 'surplus' ship that was not in operation, and that the proposed ship arrest would cause the defendant only minor damage, because it would still be able to maintain all its existing liner services with its remaining ships.

The plaintiff argued that its claim enjoyed the status of a maritime claim. For this reason, the arrest of the ship could be ordered. The Arrest Convention 1952 was applied in the former Yugoslavia (Official Gazette, no 12-150/1967), which application is continued in the Republic of Croatia on the basis of art 3 of Constitutional Decisions on the Independence and Sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia from 1991 (Official Gazette, no 31/91), and according to art 140 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette. no 56/90, 135/97, 8/98, 113/00, 124/00, 28/01, 41/01, and 55/01). The Republic of Croatia is a contracting State of the aforementioned Convention, and art 1 of that Convention prescribes which claims have the characteristics of maritime claims, ie, those claims for which a ship may be arrested. Among other things, these include art 1.1.d: 'agreement relating to the use or hire of any ship whether by charterparty or otherwise', art 1.1.e: 'agreement relating to the carriage of goods in any ship whether by charterparty or otherwise', and art 1.1.f: 'loss of or damage to goods including baggage carried in any ship'.

Held: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant are domestic companies with headquarters in the Republic of Croatia, and the ship A is registered in the Register of Ships of the [local] Port Authority Z. There is thus no reason to apply the provisions of the Arrest Convention 1952, because the international element is missing.

Article 951.1 of the Maritime Code provides that before instituting or continuing civil, enforcement, or administrative proceedings, the Court may, in order to secure the plaintiff's monetary claim, at the application of the plaintiff, determine any measure that achieves the purpose of such a claim, and in particular the prohibition of alienation or other disposal of a ship, taking custody of a ship, or detaining a ship, in accordance with the conditions established by the Enforcement Act, if the provisions of the Maritime Code do not provide otherwise. Article 952 of the Civil Code stipulates that the temporary measure of arresting the ship is carried out on the basis of the prohibition of the ship's departure from the port.

Furthermore, art 344.1 of the Enforcement Act stipulates that a temporary conservatory measure for the purpose of securing a monetary claim is permissible if the plaintiff proves the existence of its claim on the basis of probability, and also demonstrates on the basis of probability that without such a measure, the defendant would prevent or significantly complicate the enforcement of the claim by alienating, concealing, or otherwise disposing of its property.

The plaintiff does not have to prove this risk if it demonstrates that it is likely that the proposed measure would cause the defendant to suffer only minor damage (art 344.2 of the Civil Code). The plaintiff has failed to prove this last requirement. Submitting a photograph showing four ships is not proof that all these ships are owned by the defendant. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant is the user or owner of those ships, and thus did not prove that the arrest of one ship meant that the defendant could perform its activities with the other three ships, as a result of which the defendant would have suffered only minor damage.