This case concerned a ship arrest effected in Amsterdam of the Russian-flagged Grumant, owned by Murmansk Shipping Co (MSC) and bareboat chartered to Reshenie OOO (Reshenie), on the application of Oslo Ship Service AS (OSS) for a claim for legal costs relating to an earlier ship arrest and an action on the merits in Norway (see OOO 'RESHENIE' Nizhniy Kislovsky v Oslo Ship Service AS, LH-2021-38884 (21-038884ASK-HALO) (CMI1526)). Reshenie sought an order for the lifting of the arrest in Amsterdam, as OSS had already arrested the ship in Norway for the principal claim and legal costs, which arrest had been lifted against the provision of security by MS and Reshenie.

Held: Judgment for Reshenie.

OSS disputes that the Arrest Convention 1952 applies in this case. In short, OSS argues that its claim on the merits has already been upheld in Norway. Enforcement claims are not subject to the requirement that seagoing vessels may be arrested only for maritime claims specified in the Convention. The Arrest Convention 1952 contains rules on arresting seagoing vessels. Article 1.2 provides that: '"Arrest" means the detention of a ship by judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment.' The Arrest Convention therefore does not relate to enforcement attachments.

At the time of the ship arrest, the decisions of the Hålogaland Court of Appeal and the Norwegian Supreme Court cannot yet be enforced in the Netherlands. Although OSS has requested their recognition and enforcement, that leave has not yet been granted. This means that there is currently a precautionary ship arrest in place. OSS's assertion that its claim in the main action has already been upheld by the Norwegian courts, so that the case is in fact between the phases of a prejudgment and an execution order, does not change the above. OSS neither requested nor had the arrest imposed in connection with an enforcement order. Given that the arrest must therefore be regarded as a precautionary measure, the Arrest Convention is applicable.

Article 3.3 of the Arrest Convention 1952 determines that a ship can only be arrested once for the same maritime claim by the same claimant, subject to specific exceptions. As OSS has already had the vessel arrested in Norway for its maritime claim, the vessel cannot be arrested again. This means that the arrest in the Netherlands has to be lifted and the ship has to be released. The circumstances that MS and Reshenie did not provide any, or sufficient security, and that they deliberately did not pay the legal costs of the previous proceedings, do not stand in the way of lifting the ship arrest.