Interim Measures in Maritime Disputes: Jurisdictional Competition or Concurrent Competence

Unexpected Shift in Established Judicial Practice

The Ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Sevastopol dated 2 July 2025 in Case No. A84- 9433/2025 marks a landmark judicial act. For the first time court has questioned its own jurisdiction to impose interim measures under an arbitration clause referring disputes to the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (MAC at the RF CCI).

The factual background of the case is not uncommon in maritime practice: a foreign company sought interim relief by requesting the arrest of a shipment of gypsum delivered by the vessel AYA ZANOUBYA III to the Port of Sevastopol. What distinguished this case, however, was the court’s response to an arbitration clause that referred disputes to the MAC at the RF CCI.

Procedural Riddle: What Exactly Was the Court Asking?

An examination of the reasoning part of the judgement reveals that it referred to the arbitration clause contained in the charterparty and invoked paragraph 2 of the MAC Rules, which empowers the President of the Commission to order the arrest of a vessel or cargo located in a Russian port. The court then invited the applicant to “provide a legal justification, with reference to specific provisions of law, for submitting the application for interim relief to the Commercial Court of the City of Sevastopol.”

This wording is perplexing and raises a number of questions. Does it suggest that the court doubted its own jurisdiction to grant interim relief? Did it consider that, where an arbitration clause in favour of the MAC at the RF CCI exists, the applicant is first required to approach the President of the Commission? Is there a jurisdictional conflict between state courts and arbitral tribunals when it comes to the granting of interim measures?

These are the questions we will seek to address below.

The Legal Nature of the President’s Authority under MAC at the RF CCI

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 388 of the Merchant Shipping Code of the Russian Federation, a vessel may be arrested not only by a ruling of a court or commercial court, but also by a ruling issued by a body “authorized by law to impose arrest on the vessel to secure a maritime claim.” Such a tribunal is the MAC at the RF CCI, whose President is vested with the relevant powers under paragraph 5 of Annex 2 to the Law of the Russian Federation On International Commercial Arbitration.

However, paragraph 36 of Resolution No. 53 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, dated 10 December 2019, titled “On the Exercise by the Courts of the Russian Federation of Functions of Assistance and Supervision in Respect of Arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration,” states that rulings by an arbitral tribunal on the granting of interim measures are to be complied with by the parties solely on a voluntary basis. In other words, the current legal framework lacks a state enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with interim measures ordered by the President of the MAC at the RF CCI.

This point is crucial when evaluating how effective such measures really are, since the interim relief granted by the President of the MAC at the RF CCI offers very little real relief in practice.

Jurisdictional Allocation: Exclusive or Concurrent Powers

The key question, as it appears to have been posed by the court, is as follows: does an arbitration clause in favour of the MAC at the RF CCI prevent a party from applying to a state court for interim measures?

The answer to this question should be an unequivocal no, for several reasons.

Firstly, under current procedural law, parties to arbitration proceedings are entitled to apply to a state court for interim measures. Part 3 of Article 99 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that such preliminary measures may be granted at the location of the applicant or at the location of the funds or other assets to which the application solicits for taking measures aimed at securing property interests, or at the location of violating the applicant’s rights.

Secondly, as clarified in paragraph 29 of Information Letter No. 158 of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, dated 9 July 2013, titled “Review of the Practice of Commercial Courts in Cases Involving Foreign Parties,” an arbitration agreement does not preclude a party from applying to a state court for interim relief. In doing so, the court will consider whether any interim measures have already been granted by the arbitral tribunal, and whether such measures are being complied with voluntarily.

Thirdly, the lack of an enforcement mechanism for interim measures ordered by the President of the MAC at the RF CCI undermines any claim of exclusive jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal in this regard. At the same time, as noted by the SCC of the Russian Federation in paragraph 24 of Information

Letter No. 78 dated 7 July 2004, titled “Review of the Practice of Applying Preliminary Interim Measures by Commercial Courts,” the enforceability of interim measures must be taken into account when they are granted.

Legislative Reform Prospects: Solution or Source of New Challenges

In the context of the judicial act under discussion, particular attention should be given to the draft federal law On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, prepared by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in 2025.¹ The initiative seeks to establish a mechanism for the mandatory enforcement of interim measures rendered by arbitral tribunals in disputes overseen by permanent arbitration institutions.

Under the proposed amendments, a party to arbitral proceedings would be entitled to apply to a state court for the enforcement of an interim measures ruling issued by a permanent arbitral institution. In such cases, the state court would have no authority to reassess the facts established by the arbitral tribunal or to review the ruling on its merits. It is expected that applications for a writ of execution will be processed within 14 days, without the need for a court hearing.

Information on the Value of the Assets Subject to Arrest

It is also worth noting that the court refused to consider the application for preliminary interim measures on the additional ground that the applicant had not provided information about the value of the cargo to be arrested or specified the amount claimed from each defendant.

What is doubtful is whether a lack of information on the value of the cargo can serve as a valid ground for leaving the application unprocessed under Part 2 of Article 93 of the CPC of the Russian Federation. At the same time, such information may be necessary if the court invites the applicant to provide counter-security and suspends further consideration of the application. In that case, the lack of such information would create additional difficulties for the applicant, which is particularly concerning given the urgent nature of interim measures. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary delays and the risk of losing the opportunity to obtain an arrest order on procedural grounds, this information should be provided at the time of filing the application for interim relief.

As for the allocation of claims against each defendant, such a deficiency may indeed serve as valid grounds for leaving the application without further action. It is likely that, in the case under comment, the claimant listed several companies as procedural co-defendants without providing justification for their joint and several liability. Perhaps the issue is that, without information on the amount claimed from a specific debtor, it may be difficult for the court to assess whether the relief sought is proportionate to the claim asserted. At the same time, it’s not entirely clear whether, for the sake of assessing proportionality, the court actually needs to see a detailed breakdown of the claims against each defendant. In practice, this means the applicant should either justify holding all debtors jointly and severally liable or clearly indicate the amount claimed from each one and explain the reasoning behind the allocation of that amount.

Conclusions

The Ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Sevastopol dated 2 July 2025 in Case No. A84- 9433/2025 highlights the need to clearly delineate the respective competences of state courts and the MAC at the RF CCI in matters of interim relief. Given the current lack of a mechanism for the mandatory enforcement of arbitral tribunal judgements, an arbitration clause should not restrict the parties’ right to seek interim measures from a state court.

Even if the draft law had already been adopted in its current form at the time the ruling under comment was issued, it would still be difficult to argue that the applicant should be required to seek interim measures exclusively from the President of the MAC at the RF CCI. The applicant must retain the right to choose whether to apply for interim relief through the state court or through the President of the MAC at the CCI.

The prospective legislative changes aimed at establishing such a mechanism require a carefully considered approach. It is essential to maintain equilibrium between the effectiveness of interim measures and appropriate state oversight, while minimising the risk of abuse.

This court case under discussion highlights the importance of careful preparation when filing an application for preliminary interim measures: in cases involving multiple debtors, it is essential to distinguish clearly between the claims asserted against each party and to provide the court with as much relevant information and supporting evidence as possible, including the estimated value of the property sought to be arrested.

Such an approach can significantly increase the chances of interim relief being granted. ■

Notes