This was an appeal brought by an association representing the pilots of the Port of Motril against a decision of the Court of first instance denying its application for the arrest of a Russian-flagged ship, the Zapolyaryei, owned by the respondent, Murmansk Shipping Co.

Held: Appeal upheld. The order issued by the Court of first instance is revoked, leaving the ship under arrest and immobilised to guarantee the enforcement of a maritime claim of EUR 10,113.73. The effectiveness of the ship arrest is conditional upon the prior provision of bail by the appellant, within a period of 10 days, of EUR 1,520, with the warning that otherwise the ship arrest will be rendered null and void. Provided that this amount is established as bail, the ship arrest becomes effective. This measure will further be conditional upon the fact that, within 20 days from the effective immobilisation of the vessel, the appellant files a corresponding lawsuit on the merits of the matter before the competent Court.

The requested measure is subject to the Arrest Convention 1999, which was ratified by Spain on 31 May 2002, and the Law on Maritime Navigation 2014 (the LNM). Article 472 of the LNM provides that 'to decree arrest of a ship for maritime claims as defined in Article 1 of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, it shall suffice to allege the right or credits claimed, the cause that gives rise to these, and that the ship may be arrested'; adding in art 475: 'All ships with regard to which a maritime claim is alleged may be arrested pursuant to the terms and within the scope of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships.' Even if the State to which the ship belongs has not signed the Convention, it must still be applied by virtue of art 473.3: 'Arrest of ships flying the flag of a State that is not a party to the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, done at Geneva on 12th March 1999, shall be governed by the provisions of that Convention, notwithstanding it being possible for them to be arrested both for maritime claims as well as for any other claims.'

Starting from the applicable legislation, and from the fact that the arrest of a ship supposes its immobilisation with the authorisation of the competent judicial authority to guarantee a maritime claim, in accordance with art 1.2 of the Convention, the requirements to adopt the measure are met in the present case, since they would be the following:

• Allegation of the existence of a maritime claim provided for in art 1.1 of the Convention, without the need for any kind of documentary justification or proof (it is not required to prove fumus boni iuris, ie the presumption of a sufficient legal basis on the merits).
• The plaintiff must state in its application what maritime claim it has against the owner of the ship and the reason why it deserves that qualification. In the present case, the maritime claim by virtue of which the arrest is sought is that derived from the invoices corresponding to the towing and pilotage of the ship, for the amount of EUR 10,113.73. Therefore, being one of the maritime claims listed in art 1.1 of the Convention, its sole allegation is enough to obtain the ship arrest.
• That the debtor holds the status of owner of the vessel to be seized. That is not in contention here.
• A sufficient bond is provided to guarantee the damages derived or that could derive from the immobilisation of the ship, which will be at least 15% of the amount of the alleged maritime claim (art 472 LNM). In this case, the Court considers the amount offered sufficient. It does not seem that ship arrest could cause great harm to the shipowner because, at the moment, it seems that it cannot start the ship's engines due to a lack of fuel, and it has no possibility of acquiring fuel.

In any case of ship arrest, as provided for in art 472 LNM, it is not necessary to prove assumptions of danger of procedural delay and urgency, since these are already presumed under art 476 LNM.