FSUE Rosmorport (the claimant) submitted a claim against Rhenus Maritime Services GmbH, BWK Schiffsinvest GmbH, and Campo do Largo Shipping Co Ltd for the damage caused by the collision of the RMS Goole, the defendants' ship, and the Krutoyar, the claimant's ship. The RMS Goole was arrested by a ruling of the Court of first instance on 1 December 2017. The arrest was set aside due to providing an alternative security in the form of a bank guarantee. Later, the claim statement was amended, and the damages claimed increased.

The Vyborg District Court found the master of the RMS Goole criminally liable for the collision that caused the death of two people.

The claimant submitted another application for ship arrest, which was declined on 23 March 2021. After that, the claimant submitted a third application, stating that the current security was insufficient.

Held: The arrest is granted.

According to art 388 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), a ship involved in a maritime incident can be arrested to secure a maritime claim. Under art 389 of the MSC RF and art 1.1.a of the Arrest Convention 1952, a claim arising out of a collision is a maritime claim. Pursuant to art 390(1)(4) of the MSC RF, a ship can be arrested if it is owned or chartered, when a claim arises, by the person liable. Art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 provides that a claimant may arrest either the particular ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose, or any other ship which is owned by the person who was, at the time when the maritime claim arose, the owner of the particular ship. Under art 388(1) of the MSC RF, the arrest is any detention of a ship or restriction of its movement when it is located in Russia on the basis of the judicial act of a commercial court.

Based on the abovementioned provisions that the Court referred to, the Court concluded that ship arrest under the 1952 Arrest Convention and the MSC RF was a special security measure that did not require any additional justification other than those stipulated by the international treaty that are the maritime nature of a claim and the ship's ownership connection. The claimant proved that the claim against the RMS Goole was a maritime claim, and the ship was owned by the persons liable.