In late March, the Maritime Law Association held a scholarly seminar for its members on the regulation of container carriage by sea. The presentation was delivered by Mustafa Yilmaz, a specialist from the University of Liverpool (PhD in Maritime Law). He was a research fellow at the Centre for Maritime Law at the National University of Singapore, worked at the Ankara University, and taught as a visiting lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire. Mustafa Yilmaz is also the author of the first Turkish monograph on autonomous shipping.

This article examines whether storm conditions may serve as a basis for exempting the carrier from liability in the carriage of goods by sea. The author demonstrates that Russian courts apply a strict approach to the burden of proving “perils and accidents of the sea” and “force majeure,” taking into account the geography and season, the strength and duration of the storm’s impact, and the master’s awareness of weather conditions during the voyage. The concluding section outlines the key arguments on the basis of which courts typically refuse to exempt carriers from liability.

The essay examines jurisdictional clauses in bills of lading in the context of Russian and Spanish legislation. It analyses the impact of such clauses on legal proceedings and the correlation between contractual autonomy and exclusive jurisdiction. A comparison of legal systems reveals problems with the unification of norms, reflecting the relevance of the topic for the development of international maritime law and the activities of the Russian Maritime Law Association.

This article examines the establishment of those legal principles that have historically evolved in this area under French civil law. The article also traces the development of the practice of the French courts, which is gradually moving away from the limitations contained in previous decisions concerning the validity of jurisdictional clauses.

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.

The commercial court concluded that the risk of loss of the cargo sealed was borne by the carrier and not by the shipowner. Unless the property insurance contract provides otherwise, the insurer who paid the indemnity shall be entitled to claim the damages by way of subrogation.

Commentary to case No. A40-33406/2021 (DHL Global Forwarding LLC v ATP No. 99-SPb LLC)

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. A33-15874/2020 (FSUE “Rosmorport” v JSC “Khatanga Commercial Seaport”)

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

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

Commentary to the Case No. А51-10555/2016 (“SL Marine Co., Ltd.” v LLC “Ostrov”)

Commentary to the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 20, 2021, No. 305-ES21-10216 in case No. A40-328885/2019 (“OTEKO-Portservice” v “Kaproben”)

Case No. А24-3915/2020 (LLC “Kamchatskenergo” v LLC “NIKO”)

Case No. А73-7921/2020 (LLC “Alliance-DV Kamchatka” v LLC “Ventura”)

Case No. А40-127542/2020 (JSC “Belomortrans” v LLC “Neva-Charter”)

Noble Chartering Inc v Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Co Ltd (“Tai Prize”) [2021] EWCA Civ 87 (28 January 2021)

Herculito Maritime Ltd. and others v Gunvor International BV and others (m/v “Polar”), [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm)

Resolution of the 13th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 13AP-33576/2020 in case No. A56-11369/2020 (LLC Mortrans v LLC Detotex)

Judgement of the 5th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 05AP-7234/2020 in case No. A51-3969/2020 (LLC Far Eastern Sea Transportation v LLC Vostok-Mor-Stroy)

Judgement of the 5th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 20, 2021 No. 05AP-7848/2020 in case No. A59-1512/2020 (FGUP Rosmorport v LLC Sakhmorflot)