The article examines the institution of general average, focusing on the development of the concept and its key characteristics. The author explores the historical stages of the institution’s formation and the modern approach to its application.

The article deals with the legal nature of the contract of carriage of goods. For this purpose, the author defines the economic purpose of the contract, its subject matter and the liability for its breach. According to these three components, the article is divided into three parts. The author also examines the regulation of the contract of carriage in foreign jurisdictions, namely English, German and French law. On the basis of the material analysed, the author concludes that it is possible to subdivide the obligations under the contract of carriage into obligations on the cargo and obligations on the vessel. It is pointed out in the article that Russian legal doctrine has a view of carriage which is a bit unique from the other legal systems while there are no actual grounds for such understanding. The author concludes that the contract of carriage in Russian law is an obligation on the cargo which includes an obligation on the vessel.

In December 2021 a bill on autonomous shipping has been introduced into the Russian State Duma. The article analyzes whether it is time to adopt legislation on this subject. The author describes international experience in the field of autonomous shipping and sets out various scenarios according to which Russian legislation on this matter can be developed. Some concerns are raised in relation to the Bill’s terminology, its provisions on classification of autonomous vessels, status of remote crew, and performance of shipping contracts. The article points out that adoption of the Bill in its current wording, especially without detailed provisions on autonomous vessels’ liability and its insurance, may result in serious problems.

The article is devoted to the history of the institution of the judicial letters (Richterbriefe), the implementation of which was one of the measures of the German Reform of 1942 of justice institutions and judicial system. According to the idea of its creators, this institution was supposed to form a «correct» view of judicial manpower concerning the judicial practice, corresponding to the needs of society and of the state, by means of the selective publications of extracts from judgements on specific cases. The Imperial Ministry of Justice was assigned to make the systematisation of the judicial practice for its «streamlining» and «direction». Law reviews and generalisations were published in a specially created press organ with a Ministry’s assessment of the correctness of the judgements. The task of the judicial letters was not to create direct, meaningful directives on the judgements to be made in specific cases, but indirectly to formulate principles for evaluating positive law through the prism of society’s needs in certain adjudication. The article describes the conditions for the establishment of the institution of judicial letters in Nazi Germany, defines also the causes and the motives of the reform of justice announced in 1942, its goals and objectives, as well as its measures to overcome the «crisis of justice». Concerning the institution of judicial letters, the article represents the provided by the reform process of the collection and systematisation of judicial practice, the selection criteria for publication of court decisions, analyses the methodological impact of judicial letters on the law enforcement process, describes the introduction of this institute into practice, including the distribution of judicial letters, and related complications relating to this history. Such a way of influencing the process of administration of justice was not accepted by the German judiciary. It was manifested in the large-scale evasion of judges from fulfiling the obligation to send copies of judgements to the Ministry for systematisation of judicial practice, strengthening with the end of the war approaching. More experienced and old judges interpreted the judicial letters as an instrument for intrusion into their exclusive competence area, which

Commentary to case No. A70-14648/2021 (FSUE “Atomflot” v. Zapsibgazprom-Gasification Ltd.)

The article analyses the legal nature of “dead freight” as losses caused by the failure default to execute the obligation of the charterer to provide the volume of cargo agreed under the contract of carriage of goods by sea. The author gives examples of approaches to the qualification of “dead freight” in Russian and foreign judicial practice, emphasizes the practical relevance of the correct legal qualification of “dead freight”, and also highlights the features of the “dead freight” institute.

The relations on transshipment (reloading) of goods remain poorly studied, questions arise about the possibility of separating transshipment (reloading) into the class of independent, but related to carriage, transport obligations. Transshipment (reloading) cannot be considered outside the form and content of civil law regulation and be identified only with a technical operation in transport. The legal regulation of transshipment (reloading) in Russian and foreign legislation is not uniform, the legislator is faced with the difficulty of harmonizing the interests of all persons in the law, whose rights may be affected by its implementation. The Russian legislation initiated an approach requiring discussion to the regulation of offshore transshipments with the inclusion of special articles in the Merchant Shipping Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – MSC RF), although no fewer interesting questions about determining the nature of obligations for transshipment (reloading) of goods in private maritime law remain on the agenda.

Case No. A05-3827/2021 (PJSC “Rosgosstrakh” v JSC “Northern River Shipping”)

Commentary to the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 3, 2021, No. 307-ЭС21-1344 in case No. А21-4281/2018 (Rosprirodnadzor v “Global-Flot”)

Commentary to the Case No. А51-9022/2020 (LLC “Fesco Service” v LLC “Avers”)

Part 2 of this article deals with in rem arrests, known in the US as Rule C arrests. This type of proceeding means action is brought directly against the vessel as defendant in order to enforce a maritime lien. Drawing on US case law and legislation, the author considers the peculiarities of maritime liens in general and the special features of these liens in the US, in particular. The article then goes on to discuss several scenarios where Rule C arrests are most effective against one-ship companies.

The Resolution of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the Far-Eastern District dated 17 February 2021 in case No. F03-104/2021 (FSOE “Border Administration of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in the Primorsky Region” v “Korea Surim Trading Corporation”)

Judgement of the 9th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 09АП-69250/2020 in case No. А40-40737/2020 (Federal state budgetary institution (FSBI) “Northern UGMS” v Rosmorrechflot)