Felicisimo 'Nautica Pou' applied for the arrest of a vessel moored in Port de Premià, managed by Club Nàutic Premià, as security for the enforcement of a maritime claim of EUR 4,323.03. The plaintiff offered EUR 648.45 as security to respond to possible damages caused by the arrest.

Held: The arrest of the vessel is denied.

The requested measure was applied for pursuant to the Arrest Convention 1952. However, this Convention ceased to be applicable in the Spanish territory from 28 March 2012, by virtue of a denunciation made by Spain of this Convention under art 17. As of that date, the only relevant Convention applicable in Spain is the Arrest Convention 1999, ratified by Spain on 31 May 2002.

Likewise, the Maritime Navigation Law of 2014 (the LNM) must be applied, due to the reference made in art 6 of the Convention. Article 472 of the LNM provides: 'In order to decree the arrest of a vessel for a maritime claim that is defined in article 1 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, it will suffice that the rights or claims are alleged, the cause of action that motivates them, and the arrestability of the ship', adding in art 475: 'Any ship with respect to which a maritime claim is alleged may be seized in the terms of, and within the scope of, the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships.'

The Convention must also be applied by virtue of art 473 of the LNM: 'The arrest of ships flying the flag of a State that is not a party to the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, done in Geneva on 12 March 1999, will be governed by the provisions of said Convention ... , with the exception that they may be seized both for maritime claims and for any other claims'.

The arrest of a ship supposes, in accordance with art 1.2 of the Convention, the immobilisation of a ship with the authorisation of the competent Court, to provide security for a maritime claim. A maritime claim is a claim provided for in art 1.1 of the Convention. The arresting party must state in its application what maritime claim it has against the shipowner or charterer and the reason why its claim deserves that qualification. In the present case, the maritime claim by virtue of which the arrest is sought is that outlined in art 1.1.m: 'construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the ship'. In this case, the claim is for repair and equipping of the ship.

There must be a danger that the enforcement of the maritime claim will be ineffective (periculum in mora); that is, that there is a well-founded fear that the judgment pronounced to enforce the claim for which the ship arrest is requested will be ineffective because the ship has left the jurisdiction of the national courts: a risk, as a general rule, that it is inherent in the nature and activity of the vessel. As provided for in art 472 of the LNM, this requirement is presumed by virtue of art 476 of the LNM. In this case, the applicant alleges that the danger 'derives from the very condition of the property on which the seizure measure is requested, which is a ship that can leave the port at any time'.

However, the intrinsic mobility of a vessel is not a sufficient reason to understand that there is a danger that justifies the adoption of a measure as burdensome as the one requested. In this case, the vessel is of Spanish nationality (not foreign); the owner is also a Spanish national residing in Spain; the boat is moored in a well-known and nearby port or yacht club; no proof is provided that the boat is being sold; and, in short, there is no evidence whatsoever which reveals the intention of the defendant to leave the country.

In view of the circumstances set forth, there is no risk whatsoever that justifies ship arrest, without the plaintiff having even filed a lawsuit claiming the amount due.