Maritime Arrest Procedures in Domestic Law

Maritime Arrest Procedures in Domestic Law the Practical implication of Maritime arrest procedures in domestic law in Germany and Sweden the following thesis gives an insight into the recent development in international law on the arrest of ships as well as the Practical implication of Maritime arrest procedures in domestic law in Germany and Sweden in practice only a short time is available for inquiries concerning the prospect of success of a creditors application for arrests or the adapters possible defenses the legal procedures arising from an arrest May last for years and raise important in question for high economic value for both parties open the maritime arrest is is the Last Hope for the creditors to retrieve money from adapter and for the adapter search a procedure means a major irritation for his business even with heavy Financial consequences regarding demo Rage or loss of a Time Charter in a foreign board at the vessel usually represents the adapters only as yet reachable to the creditors ships as being movable are easily withdrawn from judicial execution of the Sea and the right could also depreciate the value of the vessel in many legal system finally the liability in Personnel is distinguished from the liability in rem that accredited Mike with the claim might have to enforce it against a particular vessel consequently he is dependent on immobilizing the vessel by a quick arrest search and add causes a lot of inconvenience and is regularly not good for Mutual business but it might be the ultimate mean of achieving security for claim and it's therefore sometimes unavoidable nevertheless a rest should be considered as the last resort therefore it is all the more important that the arrest procedures are clearly Divine and well understood by those who have recourse to it the problems of Maritime arrests are of great practical and academic significance not only in the like of the new 1999 arrest convention but also of development in domestic law the arrest convention the 1952 arrest convention after more than 20 years of preparation a diplomatic conference in Brazil in May 1952 resulted in the International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to the arrest of sea going ship for the approximation of domestic laws to the advantage of international shipping only four of the nine European economic Community or eec countries at that time ratified this convention namely Belgium France Germany and the United Kingdom the purpose of the convention was to restrict the possibilities to ownership in foreign Port among the Contracting State through such a approximation the convention however is to be seen as a compromise between common law on the one hand and civil law on the other hand the 1952 arrest convention falls into two part articles 2 to 6 regulate the condition for arresting a ship and for its release while article 7 is concerned with jurisdiction based on arrests made in accordance with the previous articles the compromise character of the convention is conspicuous especially with a regard to requirement of an arrest claimed to be maritime civil law considers a vessel as an asset which may be arrested no matter whether the claim to be secured is of Maritime or non-mary damn nature on the other hand common law allows and arrests in ship only for maritime claim but just as long as they arose from the operation of the particular vessel this dual legal approaches have been taken into account in Article 2 and 3 of the 1952 arrest convention an arrest is a load according to Article 2 only in respect of Maritime claims specified in the catalog of Article 1 of the 1952 arrest convention these are the majority of claim which could arise with regard to the operation of a ship one damage caused by any ship either in Collision or otherwise two loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or a curing in connection with the operating of any ship 3. salvage four agreement relating to the use or higher of any ship whether by Georgia party or otherwise 5. agreement relating to the carriage of good in any ship whether by Georgia party or otherwise 6 loss or damage to good including baggage carried in any ship seven General average eight bottom Bree nine third wage then Violet age 11 dudes or materials wherever is applied to a ship for her operation or maintenance dwell of construction repair or equipment of any ship or dark charges and use 13 weeks of Master officers or crew 14 Master's disbursement including disbursement made by shippers charterers or aging on behalf of a ship or her owner 14 dispute as to the title to our ownership of any ship 15 dispute between co-owners of any Shield as to the ownership possession employment or earning of that ship 16 the mortgage or hypothecation of any ship the claim on the letter 1 and 2 are a spatial nature since they do not always pertain to money claims of insurers were offered due premium as well as Social Security Institution for contribution aren't mentioned an important exception however from the applicability of the convention has been made concerning the protection of Clinton under Public Law according to this exception the provision of the 1952 arrest convention shall be of no effect with regard to rise and powers of public and poured out the radius of esteem to arrest or otherwise to prevent the departure of a ship according to its domestic law hence despite the 1952 arrest convention the authorities have the right to take action against a vessel to secure claims on the public law a private claim of an authority however is uncovered by this exception according to article 3.1 of the 1952 arrest convention the Clayman May arrest either the particular vessel in respect of which the maritime claim arose or any other vessel which is owned by the person who was at the time when the maritime claim arose the owner of the particular vessel in respect of which the claim arose even though the vessel arrested be ready to sail if permitted by the law of procedure as an exception from the prohibition of arrests according to Article 2 of the 1952 arrest convention the Creditor has also the possibility to obtain Security even in another shift of the same operator or sister ship as long as either the owner is liable or the sister ship is liable for the Meridian claim according to subsection 2 this is also applicable if any other owns all shares in the vessel this provision is a quiet conscious and therefore hard to interpret it might be better understood with the respect to the following examples by berligory within this example a shall be the vessel in respect of which in the claim arose and B shall be another vessel if a vessel a is fully owned by eggs and vasel B by X and Y vessel B cannot be arrested because of a maritime claim if vessel a is owned by X and Y however and vassal B is fully owned by eggs vessel B can be arrested because of a maritime claim if a vessel a is owned half by eggs and each a quarter by Y and Z and vassal B is only to equal shares by X Y and Z fossil B can be arrested because of a maritime claim if the vessel A and B owned by two joint stock companies and all stock are held by x vasel b cannot be arrested because of a maritime claim because the companies are considered as being two independent legal person hence the Creditor May arrest because of a maritime claim only one ship either the ship in respect of which the claim arose or resistorship thank you

Share :