BERLINGIERION
ARRESTOF SHIPSA COMMENTARY ON THE
1952 AND 1999 ARREST CONVENTIONS
FIFTH EDITION
BY
FRANCESCO BERLINGIERIFormer Professor of Maritime Law at the University of Genoa
President ad Honorem, Comite Maritime Internationalof Counsel, Studio Legale Berlingieri
FOREWORD BY KARL-JOHAN GOMBRII, PRESIDENT OFTHE COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONAL
PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OFTHE COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONAL
informa2011
Contents
Foreword vAcknowledgments viiGlossary xiIntroduction xxiiiTable of Authors liTable of Cases lvTable of Legislation Ixv7aWe of Conventions lxxiTable of CMI Conferences lxxvii7aWe 0/ Conventions—Travaux Preparatoires lxxix
1 HISTORY OF THE CONVENTIONS
History of the 1952 Arrest Convention1. The CMI Conference of 1930 in Antwerp 12. The preparatory work for a draft Convention on arrest of ships 23. The CMI Conferences of 1933 in Oslo and of 1937 in Paris 44. The CMI Conferences of 1947 in Antwerp, of 1949 in Amsterdam and of 1951 in
Naples 55. The Brussels Diplomatic Conference, 2-10 May 1952 7
History of the 1999 Arrest Convention6. The work of the CMI 87. The work of the Joint International Group of Experts on Maritime Liens and
Mortgages and Related Subjects (JIGE) 88. The Geneva Diplomatic Conference, 1-12 March 1999 and the subsequent
events 11
2 THE WAY TO UNIFORMITY OF MARITIME LAW IN RESPECT OF ARRESTOFSHIPS
1. Introduction 152. Methods of implementation 16
The 1952 Arrest Convention3. The reservations made by States parties to the 1952 Arrest Convention 174. The implementation of the 1952 Arrest Convention by Contracting States 21
(a) States that have given force of law to the Convention 21Algeria 21Belgium 22Benin 22Cameroon, Congo. Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 22Croatia 22
XXV
CONTENTS
Egypt 22France 24Germany 24Greece 25Haiti 25Ireland 25Italy 25Latvia 26Morocco 26Netherlands, The 27Poland 27Portugal 27Russian Federation 27Slovenia 28Spain 28
(b) States that have implemented the 1952 Convention by incorporating in wholeor in part its provisions into their national law 30China - Hong Kong 30Denmark 31Finland 31Nigeria 31Norway 31Sweden 32United Kingdom 32Caribbean jurisdictions 34
The 1999 Arrest Convention5. Implementation of the 1999 Convention 35
(a) Action required by States parties to the 1952 Convention 35(b) Action required by all States, whether parties to the 1952 Convention or not 36
6. The reservations permitted by the 1999 Convention 38
THE MARITIME CLAIMS
1. The Chapeau of the Article 41
1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the chapeau 41(ii) The corresponding chapeau in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention in their national laws 46
Denmark 46Finland 46Nigeria 46Norway 47Sweden 47United Kingdom 47Caribbean jurisdictions 48
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the chapeau and its history 48(ii) The corresponding chapeau in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention in their national laws 50
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 50Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 50China 50Latvia 50
xxvi
CONTENTS
Russian Federation 51Slovenia 51Venezuela 51
2. The individual maritime claims 51
Damage caused by a ship1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 51(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 52
China - Hong Kong 52Denmark 53Finland 53Nigeria 53Norway 53Sweden 53United Kingdom 54Caribbean jurisdictions 54
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 55(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 56
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 56Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 56China 57Latvia 57Russian Federation 57Slovenia 57Venezuela 57
Loss of life1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 58(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 58
China - Hong Kong 58Denmark 58Finland 58Nigeria 58Norway 59Sweden 59United Kingdom 59Caribbean jurisdictions 60
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 61(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 61
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 61Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea. Gabon. Tchad 61China 61Latvia 61Russian Federation 62Slovenia 62Venezuela 62
xxvii
CONTENTS
Salvage1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 62(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theconvention into their national laws 64
China - Hong Kong 64Denmark 64Finland 64Ireland 64Nigeria 64Norway 65Sweden 65United Kingdom 65Caribbean jurisdictions 67
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 67(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 68
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 68Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 68China 68Latvia 68Russian Federation 68Slovenia • 69Venezuela 69
Pollution damage1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 69(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 71
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 71Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 71China 72Latvia 72Russian Federation 72Slovenia 72Venezuela 72
Wreck removal1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 73(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 74
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 74Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 74China 74Latvia 74Russian Federation 74Slovenia 75Venezuela 75
xxviii
CONTENTS
Use or hire of a ship1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 75(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 76
China - Hong Kong 76Denmark 76Finland 76Nigeria 77Norway 77Sweden 77United Kingdom 77Caribbean jurisdictions 78
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 78(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 78
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 78Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 79China 79Latvia 79Russian Federation 79Slovenia 79Venezuela 79
Carriage of goods (and passengers)1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 80(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 83
China - Hong Kong 83Denmark 83Finland 83Nigeria 83Norway 83Sweden 83United Kingdom 83Caribbean jurisdictions 84
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 84(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 84
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador. Peru 84Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 85China 85Latvia 85Russian Federation 85Slovenia 85Venezuela 85
Loss or damage to goods and baggage1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 85(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 87
xxix
CONTENTS
China - Hong Kong 87Denmark 87Finland 87Nigeria 87Norway 87Sweden 87United Kingdom 87Caribbean jurisdictions 88
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 88(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 89
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 89Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 89China 89Latvia 89Russian Federation 89Slovenia 89Venezuela 89
General average1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 90(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theconvention into their national laws 90
China - Hong Kong 90Denmark 90Finland 90Nigeria 90Norway 90Sweden 90United Kingdom 91Caribbean jurisdictions 91
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 91(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 92
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 92Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 92China 92Latvia 92Russian Federation 92Slovenia 92Venezuela 92
Bottomry1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 92(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 93
China - Hong Kong 93Denmark 93Finland 93Nigeria 93Norway 93
XXX
CONTENTS
Sweden 93United Kingdom 93Caribbean Jurisdictions 94
Towage1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 94(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 94
China - Hong Kong 94Denmark 94Finland 95Nigeria 95Norway 95Sweden 95United Kingdom 95Caribbean jurisdictions 96
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 96(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 96
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 96Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 96China 96Latvia 96Russian Federation 97Slovenia 97Venezuela 97
Pilotage1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 97(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 97
China - Hong Kong 97Denmark 97Finland 97Nigeria 98Norway 98Sweden 98United Kingdom 98Caribbean jurisdictions 98
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 99(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 99
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador. Peru 99Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea. Gabon. Tchad 99China 99Slovenia 99Venezuela 99
xxxi
CONTENTS
Supplies1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 99(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 103
China - Hong Kong 103Denmark 103Finland 103Nigeria 103Norway 103Sweden 103United Kingdom 104Caribbean jurisdictions 104
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 105(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 105
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 105Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 105China 106Latvia 106Russian Federation 106Slovenia 106Venezuela 106
Construction and repair1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 106(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 107
China - Hong Kong 107Denmark 107Finland 108Nigeria 108Norway 108Sweden 108United Kingdom 108Caribbean jurisdictions 109
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 109(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 109
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 109Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 110China 110Latvia 110Russian Federation 110Slovenia 110Venezuela 110
Port and similar dues1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 110(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention j i ]
xxxii
CONTENTS
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, PeruCameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, TchadChinaLatviaRussian FederationSloveniaVenezuela
Wages1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 112(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 112
China - Hong Kong 112Denmark 112Finland 112Nigeria 113Norway 113Sweden 113United Kingdom 113Caribbean jurisdictions 114
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 115(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 116
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 116Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 116China 116Latvia 116Russian Federation 116Slovenia 117Venezuela 117
Disbursements1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 117(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 118
China - Hong Kong 118Denmark 118Finland 118Nigeria 119Norway 119Sweden 119United Kingdom 119Caribbean jurisdictions 120
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 120(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 120
Bolivia, Columbia. Ecuador, Peru 120Cameroon, Congo. Equatorial Guinea, Gabon. Tchad 120China 121Latvia 121Russian Federation 121
xxxiii
CONTENTS
Slovenia 121Venezuela 121
Insurance premiums1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 121(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 122
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 122Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 122China 123Latvia 123Russian Federation 123Slovenia 123Venezuela 123
Commissions, brokerage and agency fees1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 123(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 124
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 124Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 124China 124Croatia 124Latvia 124Russian Federation 125Slovenia 125Venezuela 125
Disputes as to ownership1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 125(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theconvention into their national laws 126
China - Hong Kong 126Denmark 126Finland 126Nigeria 126Norway 126Sweden 126United Kingdom 126Caribbean jurisdictions 127
/999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 128(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 128
Bolivia. Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 128Cameroon. Congo. Equatorial Guinea, Gabon. Tchad 128China 128Latvia 128Russian Federation 129Slovenia 129Venezuela 129
xxxiv
CONTENTS
Disputes between co—owners1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 129(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theconvention into their national laws 130
China - Hong Kong 130Denmark 130Finland 131Nigeria 131Norway 131Sweden 131United Kingdom 131Caribbean jurisdictions 132
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 131(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 132
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 132Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 133China 133Latvia 133Russian Federation 133Slovenia 133Venezuela 133
Mortgage or hypotheque1952 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 133(ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theconvention into their national laws 135
China - Hong Kong 135Denmark 135Finland 135Nigeria 135Norway 136Sweden 136United Kingdom 136Caribbean jurisdictions 137
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 137(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 138
Bolivia. Columbia. Ecuador. Peru 138Cameroon, Congo. Equatorial Guinea. Gabon, Tchad 138China 138Latvia 138Russian Federation 138Slovenia 138Venezuela 139
Sale of the ship1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the claim 139(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 139
xxxv
CONTENTS
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 139Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 139China 139Latvia 139Russian Federation 140Slovenia 140Venezuela 140
4 DEFINITIONS OF ARREST, PERSON, CLAIMANT AND COURT
1. Definition of arrest 141
7952 Convention(i) Analysis of the definition 141(ii) The notion of arrest in the law of certain Contracting States 146
Denmark 146France 147Italy 147Nigeria 147Norway 148Sweden 148United Kingdom 148
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the definition 149(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 151
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 151China 151Latvia 151Venezuela 151
2. Definition of person 152
7952 Convention
1999 Convention3. Definition of claimant 152
(i) Analysis of the definition 152
7952 Convention(ii) The relevant rules in the law of certain Contracting States 154
Belgium 154Benin 154Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 155China - Hong Kong 155Croatia 156Denmark 156Egypt 157Finland 157France 157Germany 157Greece 158Haiti 158Ireland 158Italy 159Latvia 159Morocco 160Netherlands, The 160
xxxvi
CONTENTS
Nigeria 160Norway 160Poland 161Portugal 161Russian Federation 161Slovenia 161Spain 162Sweden 162United Kingdom 163Caribbean jurisdictions 164
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of the definition 165(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 166
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 166China 166Latvia 166Venezuela 167
4. Definition of court 167
7999 Convention
CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF WHICH A SHIP MAY BE ARRESTED
1. Arrest in respect of maritime claims 169Introduction 169
7952 Convention(a) Claims secured by a maritime lien that are not mentioned in article 1(1) of the
1952 Arrest Convention 170(i) Claims arising under an international convention 170
(ii) Claims arising under a national law 172(iii) Claims in respect of which an action in rem is permissible 173
Denmark. Finland, Norway. Sweden 173Nigeria 173United Kingdom 174Caribbean Jurisdictions 176
(b) The European Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 177(c) The detention of a ship as a consequence of the attachment of property on
board that is not owned by the owner of the ship or by its demise charterer 178
7999 ConventionIntroduction 179(i) National laws of States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention 179
Bolivia, Columbia. Ecuador, Peru 180Cameroon, Congo, Gabon. Equatorial Guinea. Tchad 180Latvia 180Venezuela 180
ARREST OR DETENTION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
7952 Convention1. Introduction 1812. International conventions and agreements 182
(a) MOU 182
xxxvii
CONTENTS
(b) The IMO Procedures for Port State Control 183(c) UNCLOS 183(d) EU Directives 184(e) SOLAS 184(f) ISPS Code 185(g) International Code of Safety for High Speed Craft (HSC Code) 185(h) International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships 186(i) MARPOL 186(j) CLC 1992 187
3. National laws 187Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 187China - Hong Kong 187Croatia 188Denmark 188Egypt 188Finland 189France 189Germany 190Greece 190Ireland 191Italy 191Latvia 192Morocco 192Netherlands, The 192Nigeria 192Norway 193Poland 193Portugal 193Russian Federation 193Slovenia 194Spain 194Sweden 194United Kingdom 195Caribbean jurisdictions 195
7999 Convention4. Ships detained or prevented from sailing by public authorities 1965. Ships under arrest adversely affecting the use of the port installations 197
ARREST OF THE SHIP IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE CLAIM ISASSERTED
1. Introduction 1992. Appurtenances not owned by the owner of the ship — their treatment in the various
countries 200Algeria 200Benin 200Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad 200China - Hong Kong 200Croatia 200Egypt 201Finland 201France 201Germany 202Greece 202Italy 202
xxxviii
CONTENTS
Morocco 203Netherlands, The 203Nigeria 203Norway 204Poland 204Portugal 204Slovenia 204Spain 205Sweden 205United Kingdom 205Caribbean jurisdictions 206General comments 206
3. Relation between the claim and a particular ship 207
7952 Convention
1999 Convention(i) Analysis of the first part of article 3( 1) 207(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and PeruChinaLatviaVenezuela
4. Relation between the person liable and the ship(a) Claims against the owner of the ship
7952 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1)(ii) The interpretation of the rule in certain Contracting States
AlgeriaBelgiumCameroon, Congo, Gabon. TchadChina - Hong KongCroatiaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHaitiIrelandItalyLatviaMoroccoNetherlands, TheNigeriaNorwayPolandPortugalRussian FederationSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom
Claims for which a ship may be arrested in consideration of the character of theclaim
208208209209209209209
209213213213214214214215215215217217217217217217218218218218219219219219220221221
221
XXXIX
CONTENTS
Claims secured by a maritime lien or other charge on a ship 221All other claims 222
Scotland 225Northern Ireland 225Caribbean jurisdictions 225
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1 )(a) 226(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 227
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 227China 227Latvia 227Venezuela 227
(b) Claims against the demise charterer of the ship and other persons liable inrespect of a maritime claim. 228
7952 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(4) 228(ii) The interpretation of the rule in certain Contracting States 234
Belgium 234Benin 235Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad 235China - Hong Kong 236Croatia 236Denmark 236Egypt 237Finland 237France 237Germany 237Greece 237Ireland 238Italy 238Latvia 238Morocco 239Netherlands, The 239Nigeria 240Norway 240Poland 240Portugal 240Russian Federation 241Slovenia 241Spain 241Sweden 241United Kingdom 242Caribbean jurisdictions 243
/999 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1 )(b) and (3) 245(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 247
Bolivia. Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 247China 247Latvia 248Venezuela 248
(c) Claims based upon a mortgage, "hypotheque" or charge on the ship 248
xl
CONTENTS
7952 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3( 1 )(q) 248
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1 )(c) 249(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the i 999 Con-vention 250
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 250China 250Latvia 250Venezuela 250
(d) Claims relating to the ownership or possession of the ship 250
7952 ConventionAnalysis of article 1(1 )(o) and (p) 250
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3( 1 )(d) 251(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 252
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 252China 252Latvia 252Venezuela 252
(e) Claims secured by a maritime lien 252
7952 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1) 252
7999 Convention(i) Analysis of article 3(1 )(e) 253(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 255
Bolivia, Columbia. Ecuador and Peru 255China 255Latvia 255Venezuela 255
8 A R R E S T O F ' - S I S T E R ' SHIPS
7952 Convention1. Introduction 2572. When ships must be deemed to be in the same ownership 259
(i) Analysis of article 3(2) 259(ii) The interpretation of the rule in certain Contracting States 259
Algeria 259Cameroon. Congo. Equatorial Guinea. Gabon. Tchad 259Denmark 260Ireland 260Nigeria 260United Kingdom 260
7999 Convention3. The sister ship rule under the 1999 Convention 262
(i) Analysis of article 3(2) 262(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 263
xli
CONTENTS
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 263Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 263China 263Venezuela 263
9 A R R E S T O F ASSOCIATED SHIPS
7952 Convention1. Is piercing the corporate veil prohibited by the Convention? 2652. A review of national laws and jurisprudence 266
Algeria 266Belgium 266China - Hong Kong 267Croatia 267Denmark 267Egypt 268Finland 268France 268Germany 270Greece 271Haiti 272Ireland 272Italy 272Latvia 273Morocco 274Netherlands, The 274Nigeria 274Norway 275Portugal 275Slovenia 275Spain 275Sweden 278United Kingdom 278Caribbean Jurisdictions 282South Africa and United States 282
3. Conclusions 2844. State-owned ships 284
1999 Convention5. The UK proposal on associated ships—consequences of its rejection 286
10 WHEN ARREST OF " S I S T E R " SHIPS IS NOT PERMITTED
I. The maritime claims in respect of which the prohibition applies 289
/952 ConventionAnalysis of the exceptions to the right of arrest of "sister" ships 289
1999 ConventionAnalysis of the exceptions to the right of arrest of "sister" ships 291
Bolivia. Columbia. Ecuador, Peru 291Cameroon. Congo. Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 291China 291Latvia 292Venezuela 292
xlii
CONTENTS
11 ARREST OF SHIPS OWNED BY THE CHARTERER IN RESPECT OFCLAIMS OF THE OWNER OF THE CHARTERED SHIP
1. Analysis of the jurisprudence 2932. Some considerations on this problem 297
12 RIGHT OF REARREST AND MULTIPLE ARREST
7952 Convention1. The travaux preparatories 3012. The structure of the provision 303
(a) The prohibition 303(b) The remedy 304(c) The exceptions 305
3. Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated theConvention into their national laws 309
Denmark 309Nigeria 310Norway 310Russian Federation 310Sweden 311United Kingdom 311
7999 Convention4. An analysis of the specific exceptions 312
(a) Rearrest 313(i) Inadequacy of the nature or amount of the security already obtained 313
(ii) Inability of the person who has given the security to fulfil his obliga-tions 313
(iii) Release of the arrested ship or of the security previously given 313(b) Multiple arrest 314
5. Corresponding rules in the States that have introduced the provisions of theConvention into their national law 314
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 314China 314Latvia 315Venezuela 315
13 JURISDICTION FOR THE ARREST
7952 Convention1. Introduction 3172. Analysis of the relevant issues 317
(a) Judicial authority 317(b) Authority having jurisdiction 319(c) Jurisdiction before the arrival of the ship 321(d) Jurisdiction after the ship has sailed 322(e) Arrest pursuant to an order of a foreign court 322(f) Choice of the judicial authority of the State in the jurisdiction of which the
arrest is made 323(g) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has no jurisdiction on the merits 323(h) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has jurisdiction on the merits but the ship
is not within its jurisdiction 325(i) Jurisdiction for arrest when a decision on the merits has already been
obtained 325
xliii
CONTENTS
(j) Exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the 1952 Convention on Penal Jurisdictionand to UNCLOS 326
(k) Lis pendens—Related actions 327
7999 Convention3. A review of the same issues 328
(a) Judicial authority 328(b) Authority having jurisdiction 329(c) Jurisdiction before the arrival of the ship 331(d) Arrest pursuant to an order of a foreign court 331(e) Choice of the judicial authority of the State in the jurisdiction of which the
arrest is made 331(f) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has no jurisdiction for the merits 331(g) Jurisdiction for arrest when a decision on the merits has already been
obtained 331(h) Lis pendens—Related actions 332
14 RELEASE OF THE SHIP FROM ARREST
7952 Convention1. Introduction2. An analysis of the relevant situations
(a) Release of a ship from subsequent arrest(b) Release after provision of security
(i) General comments(ii) Nature of the security(iii) Amount of the security(iv) The conditions for payment under the security(v) Security provided in a Contracting State in order to obtain the release of
a ship arrested in a non-Contracting State(vi) National rules on the provision of security
BelgiumChina - Hong KongCroatiaDenmarkEgyptFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHaitiIrelandItalyLatviaNetherlands, TheNigeriaNorwayPolandPortugalRussian FederationSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomCaribbean jurisdictions
334334334335335336336336
338339339339339340340341341341341342342342342343343343344344344344345345345346
xliv
CONTENTS
(c) Failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time limit fixed by thecourt 347
(i) General comments 347(ii) Which court must fix the time? 350
(iii) When the time limit must be fixed 351(iv) Agreement on the jurisdiction of a particular court or on arbitration 351(v) Implementation of Article 7(2), (3) and (4) by Contracting States 351
Belgium 351China - Hong Kong 352Croatia 353Denmark 353Egypt 353Finland 353France 353Germany 354Greece 354Ireland 354Italy 354Morocco 354Netherlands, The 355Nigeria 355Norway 355Poland 355Russian Federation 355Slovenia 355Spain 356Sweden 356United Kingdom 356Caribbean jurisdictions 356
(d) Constitution of the limitation fund 357(i) Provisions under the 1957 Limitation Convention 357(ii) Provisions under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for
Maritime Claims (LLMC Convention) 357(iii) Provisions under the CLC 1992 358(iv) Provisions under the 1996 HNS Convention 359
(e) Judicial sale 359(f) Bankruptcy 359
7999 Convention3. Release of the ship from arrest 361
(a) Introduction 361(b) Release after the provision of security 361
(i) Amount of the security 361(ii) Form of the security 362
(iii) Subsequent reduction, modification or cancellation of the security 363(c) Release from subsequent arrest 364(d) Failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time fixed by the court 364
4. Release of the security 364(a) Introduction 364(b) Provision of security in a State Party 364(c) Provision of security in a non-State Party and in a State Party 365
15 WHEN THE RELEASE OF A SHIP UNDER ARREST IS NOT PERMITTED
7952 Convention1. The reasons for the exception 367
xlv
CONTENTS
2. Trading of a ship under arrest 369(i) Analysis of the provision 369(ii) National laws in respect of the trading of ships under arrest 369
Benin 369Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 369China - Hong Kong 370Croatia 370Denmark 370Egypt 371Finland 371France 371Germany 372Greece 372Ireland 372Italy 372Netherlands, The 372Nigeria 372Norway 372Poland 373Portugal 373Russian Federation 373Slovenia 373Sweden 373United Kingdom 374Caribbean jurisdictions 374
7999 Convention3. Reinstatement of the existing rule 375
(i) General comments 375(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 376
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 376Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad 376China 376Venezuela 376
16 LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL ARREST
7952 Convention1. The history of the rule 3772. A review of national rules in some of the Contracting States 380
Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad 380Belgium 380China - Hong Kong 380Croatia 381Denmark 381Egypt 381Finland 381France 382Germany 382Greece 382Haiti 382Ireland 383Italy 383Latvia 383Morocco 384
xlvi
CONTENTS
Netherlands, The 384Nigeria 384Norway 384Poland 384Portugal 385Russian Federation 385Slovenia 385Spain 386United Kingdom 386Caribbean jurisdictions 388
3. Security for damages—a review of the national rules in some of the ContractingStates 388
(i) General comments 388(ii) Analysis of the position in the above countries 388
Belgium 388China - Hong Kong 388Croatia 389Denmark 389Egypt 389Finland 389France 389Germany 389Greece 389Italy 390Morocco 390Netherlands, The 390Nigeria 390Norway 390Portugal 390Spain 391Sweden 391
7999 Convention4. Analysis of the rule in the light of its history 391
(i) General comments 391(ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Con-vention 394
Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru 394Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Tchad 394China 394Latvia 394Venezuela 395
17 PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE ARREST
7952 Convention1. Conditions for obtaining the authority 3972. Enforcement of the arrest 3993. A review of the national rules in some of the Contracting States 400
Belgium 400Benin 400Cameroon, Congo, Gabon. Tchad 400China - Hong Kong 401Croatia 401Denmark 402Egypt 403
xlvii
CONTENTS
Finland 403France 404Germany 404Greece 405Ireland 405Italy 406Latvia 407Morocco 408Netherlands, The 408Norway 408Poland 409Portugal 410Russian Federation 411Slovenia 411Spain 411Sweden 412United Kingdom 412Caribbean jurisdictions 413
7999 Convention4. Conditions for obtaining the authority 4145. Enforcement of the arrest 415
18 JURISDICTION ON THE MERITS AND RELATED MATTERS
79521. The travaux preparatories 4172. The structure of Article 7 4203. Jurisdiction on the merits 4204. A review of the rules in the United Kingdom and some other common law
countries 422United Kingdom 422Caribbean jurisdictions 424China - Hong Kong 424Ireland 424Nigeria 425
5. A review of the individual links enumerated in Article 7(1) 425(a) Habitual residence or principal place of business of the claimant 425(b) Claims arising in the country in which the arrest is made 425(c) Claims concerning the voyage of the ship during which the arrest is made 430(d) Claims arising out of a collision or in circumstances covered by article 13 of
the 1910 Collision Convention 432(e) Salvage claims 432(f) Claims upon a mortgage or hypothecation of the ship 432
6. Possible conflicts of the links enumerated in paragraph 1 with other Conventionsand with EC Regulation 44/2001 433(a) EC Jurisdiction Convention and Lugano Convention 433(b) CLC 1992 434(c) Hamburg Rules 435(d) Athens Convention 2002 435(e) EC Regulation 44/2001 436
7. The time within which the claimant must bring proceedings on the merits 4378. When the action may be deemed to have been brought 4389. The recognition by the State in which the arrest is effected of a foreign judgment
or arbitral award on the merits 439
xlviii
CONTENTS
10. Consequences of the failure to bring action on the merits within the time pre-scribed 440
7999 Convention11. The history of the provision 44112. Jurisdiction on the merits 44213. Conflict with other Conventions and with the EC Regulation 44/2001 442
(a) EC Jurisdiction Convention and Lugano Convention 442(b) CLC 1992 442(c) Hamburg Rules 443(d) Athens Convention 2002 443(e) EC Regulation 44/2001 443
14. The time within which the claimant must bring proceedings on the merits 44415. Consequences of the failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time
prescribed 444
19 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS
7999 Convention1. The history of the provision 445
20 SCOPE OF APPLICATION
7952 Convention1. Introduction 4492. The notion of ship 450
(a) Waters in which the ship is sailing or intended to sail 450(b) Size and characteristics of the ship 451
(i) Propulsion 452(ii) Tonnage 452
(iii) Structure 452(iv) Whether the ship or craft must be manned 453(v) Registration 453(vi) Physical conditions of the ship 454
(c) Intended use 4543. The notion of flag 4554. Application to ships flying the flag of Contracting States 4565. Application to ships flying the flag of non-Contracting States 4576. Review of the attitude adopted in certain Contracting States 460
(i) States that have incorporated the provisions of the Convention in their national lawsin which the Admiralty jurisdiction is recognised 460
United Kingdom 460Caribbean jurisdictions 461China - Hong Kong 461Nigeria 461
(ii) States that have incorporated the provisions of the Convention in their national lawsin which the notion of a specific Admiralty jurisdiction does not exist 461
Denmark 461Finland 461Norway 461Sweden 461
(iii) States that have given the force of law to the provisions of the Convention 461Belgium 462Croatia 462Egypt 462France 462
xlix
CONTENTS
Germany 463Greece 463Italy 464Morocco 464Netherlands, The 464Slovenia 465Spain 465
7. Exclusions from the application 4658. Limits to the application 4669. Subordination of the Convention to national rules 468
7999 Convention10. Ships to which the Convention is applicable 47011. Exclusions from the application 47212. Subordination of the Convention to national rules or to other Conventions 472
(a) Ships owned by a person subject to bankruptcy or similar proceedings 473(b) Ships in respect of which the limitation of liability is invoked 473
APPENDICESI. Text of the 1952 Convention—International Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, 1952 475English Text 475French Text 480
II. Text of the 1999 Convention—International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999 485English Text 485French Text 492Spanish Text 499
III. Table of Comparison between the 1952 and the 1999 Conventions—A Comparisonwith the 1999 Convention 507
English Text 507IV. Synopsis of the Responses to the Questionnaires on the Implementation of the 1952
Arrest Convention 521Questionnaire I 521Questionnaire II 525
V. Responses to the Questionnaire for States not Mentioned in the Fourth Edition 529VI. Report of the United Nations/International Maritime Organization Diplomatic Con-
ference on Arrest of Ships 565VII. The Travaux Preparatories of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships 575
Index 761
