Statistics
Statistics and General Overview
The fourth issue of the journal “Maritime Law” in 2022 covers the calendar period from October to December. We traditionally summarise the quarterly statistics on “maritime” disputes heard by commercial courts. The most significant cases have been reviewed and commented on in the journal.
The Cases Heard by the Commercial District Courts (Cassation Instance)
Between October and December 2022, 19 maritime cases were heard in the commercial courts of districts. Two pf these cases dealt with public law matters and 17 cases – with private law ones.
In public law, one case was devoted to challenging a harbour master’s act to refuse to include a vessel in the schedule of ships to be loaded. The second case concerned a challenge to the act of holding a shipowner liable for violating fishing regulations. Both cases were heard by the Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District.
In the private law are, disputes have mainly focused on the recovery under various types of contracts, time charter, carriage, bareboat charter, and others. Separate disputes dealt with the recovery of salvage rewards and insurance compensation for damage to the vessel.
| District Courts | Categories of Cases |
|---|---|
| The Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District | 5 cases in total: – on challenging the decision of the Harbour Master to refuse to include the vessel in the schedule of ships; – on recovery under a maritime storage agreement (3); – on liability for violation of fishing regulations. |
| The Commercial Court of the Moscow District | 2 cases in total: – on recovery under the bareboat charter agreement; – on recovery of demurrage. |
| The Commercial Court Northwestern District | 7 cases in total: – on recovery under the maritime agency agreement; – on recovery under contract of carriage of goods by sea; – on declaration of the towing agreement unconcluded; – on lifting the arrest of a ship (2); – on recovery of costs incurred under the agency agreement; – on recovery of insurance indemnity under the shipowner’s liability insurance contract. |
| The Commercial Court of the North-Caucasus District | 3 cases in total: – on recovery of salvage reward; – on recovery under the freight forwarding agreement; – on recovery under the bareboat charter agreement. |
| The Commercial Court of the Central District | 2 cases in total: – on recovery of insurance compensation under the maritime insurance contract; – on recovery under the time charter agreement. |
Special attention should be given to the case No. A56-101578/2021 heard by the Commercial Court of the Northwestern District. The case concerned the issue of declaring a towing contract unconcluded due to the fact that the contract did not specify the exact period for towing the vessel. The courts dismissed the claim since the contractor had accepted the towing services and the contract had thereby proved its validity. In that case the court did not consider the issue of the material term of the towing contract but merely referred to an estoppel. However, in our view, the material terms problem is relevant to Russian law which is prone to formalism in determining whether a contract has been concluded or not.
Cases Heard by the Commercial Courts of Appeal
Between October and December 2022, 39 cases were heard by the commercial court of appeal. 12 of these cases involved public law issues. In the public law sphere, disputes are mainly related to violation of border crossing rules, there are also cases connected with the breach of the harbour master’s schedule of vessels calling and mooring, of contesting instructions in connection with environmental violations. Several cases deal with customs violations, mainly in connection with incorrect cargo declarations filling.
| Court of Appeal | Categories of cases |
|---|---|
| The 5th Commercial Court of Appeal (hereinafter the CCA) | 12 cases in total: – on recovery of damages caused by a ship collision; – on violation of customs declaration rules (2); – on damages for loss of goods by the carrier; – on violation of the border crossing rules (3); – on compensation for damage caused to a water body; – on obligation to provide a seagoing vessel for unloading containers; – on recovery under the time charter agreement (2); – on challenging the orders in connection with the securing of the ship’s mooring in the port. |
| The 9th CCA | 9 cases in total: – on recovery under the time charter agreement; – on recovery under the loading contract; – on challenging the seaport clean-up order; – on recovery under the freight forwarding contract; – on recovery of demurrage; – on recovery under the time charter agreement (2); – on recovery the insurance indemnity under the ship insurance contract; – on challenging an order to ensure compliance of seaport activities with environmental law. |
| The 13th CCA | 9 cases in total: – on recovery for damage to goods during loading operations under the freight forwarding contract; – on recovery of unjust enrichment on account of VAT for maritime services which are not subject to VAT; – on violation of the border crossing rules (3); – on recovery under the contract of carriage of goods by sea; – on declaring the floating crane rental agreement unconcluded due to the absence of a time limit for the transfer and return of the vessel; – on declaring a vessel missing; – on recovery of subrogation damages from freight forwarder. |
| The 14th CCA | 2 cases in total: – on recovery of demurrage; – on violation of the border crossing rules. |
| The 15th CCA | 5 cases in total: – on recovery of demurrage (2); – on lifting the arrest (3). |
| The 18th CCA | 1 case in total: – on recovery under the time charter agreement. |
| The 21st CCA | 1 case in total: – on recovery under the contract for passenger transport pick-up and service. |
In the private law field, 27 cases were heard during the period. As in previous periods, most of the cases involved recovery of money under various agreements, mainly time charter agreements and carriage of goods agreements. At the same time, a sharp increase in the number of cases in the appellate courts dealing with lifting the arrests of the vessels.
The case No. A56-13839/2022 devoted to the issue of recognition of the vessel as missing is interesting. The brief circumstances of the case are as follows. In the early 1990s, the floating crane boat was under the operational management of the state unitary enterprise (SUE). In 1992, the vessel was charted by ROSCO LLC and in the same year it was sold by the charterer to a Singapore company. The SUE filed a criminal complaint at the end of the charter. The case was dropped in 2012 due to the expiry of the time limitations. In 2018, during the reorganisation of the SUE, it was discovered that it had a vessel on its balance that was not actually under its management. Therefore, Saint Petersburg applied to the court to declare the vessel missing in connection with these circumstances. The court rejected such an application. In the judgement, it was stated that the falling out of the vessel’s ownership apart from the owner’s will could not constitute grounds to declare the vessel missing. The case is interesting since in the judicial practice there are rarely cases of this category. In the case under review, however, the court expressed its position on the vessel missing declaration institute and the scope of its application.
Cases Heard by the Commercial Courts of Subjects (First Instance)
A total of 104 maritime cases were heard in the courts of first instance between October and December 2022. 58 of these cases dealt with private law matters and 46 cases with the public law ones.
In the field of private law, the parties mainly disputed, as in previous periods, regarding the recovery of debts under various contracts, carriage, time charter, agency, and others. Two interesting cases were found in this category. The first case deals with the issue of reduction of the freight price in case of failure to provide the whole cargo for loading due to the circumstances beyond the shipper’s control (case No. А42-4182/2022). The second case concerned vindication of goods from the illegal possession of a broker who had not received payment for his services from a third party (case No. A40-198594/2022).
In contrast to the statistics in previous issues of the journal, there has been a significant increase in the number of cases involving the recovery of demurrage. In this context, attention should be drawn to case No. A53-32740/2022, in which the court speculates on the nature of demurrage and states that demurrage is neither a contractual charge nor a form of liability for detention of the vessel caused by the shipper.
In addition, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of cases involving illegal anchoring of ships at seaport berths and the storage of seagoing vessels. At present, it is difficult to establish the reason for this trend and whether it is accidental or not. However, this development in practice may be interesting from the point of view of reduced demand for Russian vessels due to sanctions imposed on Russian persons and reciprocal restrictive measures.
Under public law, the majority of cases still deal with violations of customs declaration rules and border crossing. At the same time, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of cases involving environmental offences and breaches of maritime safety. The case (case No A35-3807/2022) on the obligation of a state body to provide a water body for the use of a commercial company also deserves special attention. This case is interesting since the court determines in which cases the providing of a water body for use may be obligatory. One such ground is the impossibility for a company to carry out its commercial activity without such provision.
Conclusion
Therefore, between October and December 2022, a total of 162 maritime cases were heard by the commercial courts. 102 of these cases dealt with private law matters and 60 with public law ones.
In the period under review, there is a significant increase in the number of cases in cassation courts compared to previous periods in 2022. This can partly be explained by the fact that in the first and second quarters of 2022, there was a decrease in the number of cases in the first instance courts, many organizations were afraid to make claims to the Russian courts and took a break in their disputes. In the third quarter, the number of such cases normalized. The parties have been more active in challenging the judgements of the Russian courts and, as a result, the number of cases in the commercial courts of cassation has also returned to normal, but with a natural delay.
In this context, it will be interesting to look at the statistics on maritime cases in early 2023. Will the trend towards an increase in cases in the Russian courts continue, or, otherwise, will old disputes be resolved and new disputes in Russian jurisdiction arise in much smaller numbers?
The review was prepared by Bulat Karimov