From 2021 to 2025, the Russian courts issued 175 rulings related to the arrest of ships. In total, 49 arrests were granted. The other 126 applications were unsuccessful. Four rulings, even though they did not grant maritime arrest, prohibited changing the register entries regarding the ship.

Outcomes in Arrest Cases: Before and Now

0 2012–2020 2021–2025

■ Granted ■ Dismissed

In most cases involving oil spills and tort claims, such as collisions and allisions, arrest applications are granted.

Grounds for dismissal:

• Non-maritime claim –12.

• Insufficient evidence to prove that failure to grant a security measure requested will make the judgment enforcement difficult or impossible – 49.

• Ship arrest will cause disproportionate damage to the defendant – 37.

• The claimant's arguments regarding the possible ship disposal are speculative – 31.

• The security measure is disproportionate to the claim amount – 25.

• The ship arrest will cause unreasonable damages to third parties – 11.

• The claimant fails to provide evidence that the defendant has no other property and so it will be impossible to enforce the judgment – 9.

• There is no evidence that the ship belongs to the defendant – 9.

• The ship is outside the port – 8.

• The court is incompetent, or other procedural violations are committed – 4.

• The claimant failed to fulfil the court’s request to provide counter-security in form of money deposited to the court's bank account – 3.

• The arrest does not affect the procedure for the monetary debt collection from a foreign person by a court order – 3.

• The defendant provides counter-security, and/ or registration activities are prohibited – 3.

• The losses are not specified or justified – 2.

• The time limit for the security measure requested is not specified – 1.

• The event for exhausting the security measure is not specified – 1.

32%

9%

10%

24% 20%

■ impossibility of enforcement

■ damages to the defendant

39%

■ arguments about ship disposal are speculative

■ security measure is disproportionate to the claim amount

■ non-maritime claim

29%

■ damages to third parties

■ other

Grounds for granting:

• The claim is maritime as the sole reason – 6.

• Non-granting the security measure requested will make it more difficult or impossible to enforce the judgment – 19.

• The defendant is a foreign entity located outside the Russian Federation, and the ship may leave Russia – 14.

• There is no information on the other defendant’s property in Russia – 13.

• Non-granting the security measure requested may cause significant damages to the applicant – 8.

• The damage is caused to a large and important port, ie, to the Russian public interests, and arrest ensures the protection of public interests – 6.

• The applicant provides counter-security – 5.

• The ship has already unloaded the cargo, and arrest will not cause losses to third parties – 1.

• The defendant has another vessel in commercial operation, and the arrest will not result in the business suspension; the balance of interests is maintained – 1.

• There is a non-final judgment on a separate dispute, under which the defendant has a monetary debt – 1.

18% ■ impossibility of enforcement

10%

12%

16%

27%

■ the vessel may leave Russia

39%

■ no information on the other defendant’s property in Russia

■ significant damages to the applicant

■ protection of public interests

29%

■ counter-security was provided

■ other

Thus, while making decisions, courts take into account the following grounds (The MSC, Arts 388, 390; the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia, Arts 90, 93; s 14 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No 15 dated 01 June 2023):

1) the existence of a maritime claim;

2) proportionality of the security measure to the claims;

3) risk of impossibility of the judgment enforcement;

4) keeping the balance of the parties’ rights and interests.

An important factor in deciding on ship arrest for oil spills or allisions with the port facilities is whether the public interest has been violated. (this argument was often used by the Commercial Court of Krasnodar Region in 2024).

Some noteworthy rulings:

1. In its ruling of 6 May 2022 in case A42- 3901/2022, the court granted the arrest and ordered the ship to be transferred to a third party with the right to use it.

2. In the ruling of 22 February 2023 in case No A51-2808/2023, the arrest dismissal was reasoned by the following: “The event for exhausting the security measure is not specified.” This contradicts to Art 391(1) of the MSC, according to which a vessel may be released from arrest only on the basis of a court ruling, upon the provision of sufficient security in an acceptable form. Thus, the courts requirement to specify an event is excessive. Another court’s remark that the applicant did not specify the period for which the security measures should be granted is also unfounded.

In the Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Astrakhan Region dated 31 August 2022, in case No A06-7540/2022, the applicant applied for the cargo arrest and to prohibit the master of the Astrakhan port from granting permission for the ship to leave the port until the cargo is unloaded and transferred to the warehouse. Similar occurred in the Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Astrakhan Region in case No A06-7541/2022 dated 30 August 2022. The arrest of cargo is a rare security measure. Interestingly, the applicants specifically requested the arrest of the cargo. It made the court consider the relevant legal provisions. In addition to the arrest of the cargo, the applicants demanded a prohibition from leaving the port until the cargo is transferred to the warehouse, thus conditioning the vessel’s movement upon the cargo’s handover. Arrest, in its traditional meaning, is imposed and lifted solely by court rulings. In its reasoning for rejecting the applicant’s arrest application, the court referred to the relevant legal provisions. ■