海事请求、船舶优先权和船舶扣押：爱沙尼亚视角
2012-08-15LindpereHeiki
Lindpere Heiki
海事请求、船舶优先权和船舶扣押：爱沙尼亚视角
Lindpere Heiki*
本文旨在考察诉讼前船舶扣押的国际法律框架和爱沙尼亚相关国内立法以及实践,介绍相关国际公约和爱沙尼亚海商法发展的概况。第一,本文介绍了关于船舶扣押的两部国际公约——《1952年统一海船扣押某些规定的国际公约》和《1999年国际扣船公约》,①Francesco Berlingieri,Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships:A Commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions,5th ed.,London/New York:Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library,2011.以及《1926年统一船舶优先权和抵押权某些法律规定的国际公约》和《1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》这两部有关船舶优先权和抵押权的国际公约,以及爱沙尼亚相关国内法的发展情况。第二,本文分析了有时被称为“有特权的请求”的船舶优先权的性质、所包含项目以及执行程序。本文也讨论了爱沙尼亚法下船舶扣押和释放被扣押船舶的一些实践问题,这些问题对于海事业务中所涉船旗国或个人有重要参考价值。
海事请求 船舶优先权 扣押 查封 执行
一、引 言
世界海事实践中形成了海商法中的若干独特制度,如共同海损、承运人的责任限制、承运人免责、海上财产救助等,这些制度使得海商法成为律师眼中的有趣议题。依据海事请求或船舶优先权扣押船舶,②《爱沙尼亚共和国商船航运法》,由爱沙尼亚议会通过,于2002年10月1日生效。See Official Gazette,I,2002,55,345.即属于这些独特制度的一种,这种制度使得债权人有可能通过法院扣押船舶以确保其有效请求权获得可接受的担保。船舶扣押的复杂规定,将面对两种冲突的价值追求:一方面,其旨在保护船舶航行过程的服务提供者的利益——收回欠款;另一方面,保护船舶所有人和经营人的利益——在燃油、其它物料供应及港口费用等欠款尚未付清的情形下确保该船舶的航行不被延误。因此,船舶所有人为了确保不受干扰地使用他们的主要资产——船舶,作为回报,必须接受这种诉讼前的船舶扣押制度,以确保债权人可以通过提起不履行之诉或英国法下的对物诉讼①Robert Grime,Shipping Law,2nd ed.,London:Sweet&Maxwell,1991,pp.11～20.使海事请求获得担保。
“船舶优先权”、“海事请求”和“船舶扣押”等概念,也以有趣的方式出现在爱沙尼亚国内法中的相应位置。爱沙尼亚共和国,在1918年2月24日首次宣布独立之后,又于1991年8月21日再次恢复了其丧失的独立地位。1991年12月,爱沙尼亚通过了《爱沙尼亚共和国商船航运法典》(以下简称《商船法典》),该法典由372条规定构成,其接受了港口所有人可以命令滞留船舶最长达72小时的规定,提供给债权人的这三天期限,用以获得法院批准扣押债务人船舶的命令。该法典中的私法条款,已被2002年的《爱沙尼亚共和国商船航运法》(以下简称《商船法》)②所取代,该新法案废除了港口所有人滞留船舶的权利。当时,例如《爱沙尼亚共和国民事诉讼程序法》(以下简称《民诉法》)第139条规定,船舶扣押制度仅适用于担保有关救助报酬的海事请求。视船舶为准不动产和将船舶登记主管机关由爱沙尼亚海事管理部门移至省法院和市法院的《爱沙尼亚共和国船舶财产法》(以下简称《船舶财产法》),③《爱沙尼亚共和国船舶财产法》,于1998年3月11日由爱沙尼亚议会通过,1998年7月1日生效。See Official Gazette,I,1998,30,409.并未规定船舶扣押方面的内容,其仅依据《1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》(以下简称《1993年日内瓦公约》)中的内容规定了船舶优先权的封闭性项目。依据国际法上的国家继承原则,爱沙尼亚共和国仍是《1926年统一船舶优先权和抵押权某些法律规定的国际公约》(以下简称《1926年布鲁塞尔公约》)④《1926年统一船舶优先权和抵押权某些法律规定的国际公约》,于1936年4月10日在布鲁塞尔通过,并于1931年6月2日生效。See 120 League of Nations Treaty Series 187; according to the CMI there are 23 States only as Parties to that older convention,at http://www.comitemaritime.org/status-of-ratifications-of-maritime-conventions, 20 December 2011.的成员国。《1926年布鲁塞尔公约》赋予船舶优先权更宽泛的定义,比如包括“依据船长(无论其是否为船舶所有人)为了保全船舶或维持其航行所缔结的合同或进行的经营所产生的任何债务”。实际上,爱沙尼亚议会通过的国内法与1928年同意并批准的爱沙尼亚国际承诺并未完全保持一致,乃该国议会有意之举。爱沙尼亚议会历时两年半时间,废除了《1926年布鲁塞尔公约》并消除该公约引发的争议。2004年9月5日,爱沙尼亚成为《1993年日内瓦公约》的成员国。①See Official Gazette,Ⅱ,2002,37,176.
1999年讨论船舶扣押的日内瓦会议宣布召开时,爱沙尼亚政府决定不加入《1952年统一海船扣押某些规定的国际公约》(以下简称《1952年扣船公约》),②关于中华人民共和国,其并未成为这一个或其他一些布鲁塞尔公约的缔约国,但香港特别行政区于1963年3月29日加入《1952年扣船公约》。1997年6月4日,中华人民共和国驻比利时王国大使馆致函通知比利时外交部部长,香港特别行政区从1997年7月1日起将继续适用该公约。大使馆在信中表示,适用上述公约所产生的国际权利和义务将由中华人民共和国政府承担。而是成为《1999年国际扣船公约》(以下简称《1999年扣船公约》)③该公约自2011年9月14日起生效。的成员国。而事实上,后一公约只是对前一公约文本作了少量更改。依据《1999年扣船公约》修订的《船舶财产法》,有助于迅速填补爱沙尼亚国内立法中有关船舶扣押规定的空白。如今,在爱沙尼亚适用《1999年扣船公约》的唯一问题是爱沙尼亚语公约译本中出现的误译,这一点律师们应该引起注意。④例如,日内瓦《1999年扣船公约》第4条第1款规定,为所涉海事请求提供充分担保的情形下法官应当(shall)释放该船舶,而在爱沙尼亚语译本中,“应当”一词被“可以(may)”所代替!?法院仅对决定船舶释放申请所提供的担保金额是否充分享有决定裁量权,却无权决定船舶扣押的目的被满足情形下(即充分担保被提供)是否释放船舶。See details in:Lindpere Heiki,Merinõue ja merivõlg:nende erinevusest ning laeva arestimisest,Juridica,2008,Vol.1,pp.57～61.而且律师们应该考虑到,任何情形下,《1999年扣船公约》应当和修订后的《船舶财产法》一起解读,如有必要,还应该和《民诉法》一起解读,因为该公约的所有条款并非都包含在上述立法中。
《船舶财产法》第四部分“海事请求和船舶扣押的保全措施”包括三个条款(第781～783条),这是该法修正案中新增的,涵盖了《1999年扣船公约》中的主要核心条款。《船舶财产法》的总则部分规定,“为保全海事请求或诉讼,已登记和未登记船舶之扣押,依据本法和爱沙尼亚加入的国际公约之规定。”⑤原则上,依据《爱沙尼亚共和国宪法》第123条规定,在与宪法之外的其他国内法相冲突时,爱沙尼亚议会依法批准或加入的条约将优先适用(“条约必须遵守”原则的适用)。此外,该法782条第1款规定“船舶的扣押,只能依据本法第781条所列海事请求的范围。虑及本法的特别规定,为诉讼保全之目的而扣押船舶的,适用涉及保全措施的民事诉讼规定。”该条款的第二句使《船舶财产法》成为与《民诉法》相关的“特别法”。而实践中,《船舶财产法》为习惯优先适用《民诉法》(其与《船舶财产法》的制定依据不同)的法官制造了一些问题,有时法官由于未知晓这种(海事请求保全)措施因而拒绝颁发扣押船舶的命令。此情形使得债权人的出庭律师有时需要反复陈述船舶扣押申请,直至债务人的船舶被扣押为止。
一般情形下,船舶在准备起航的港口或近海转运码头被扣押。但是,《1982年联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称为《联合国海洋法公约》)第28条“对外国船舶的民事管辖权”的规定,允许两种例外:“……(2)沿海国不得为任何民事诉讼的目的而对船舶执行或加以逮捕,但涉及该船舶本身在通过沿海国水域的航行中或为该航行的目的而承担的义务或因而负担的责任,则不在此限。(3)第2款不妨害沿海国按照其法律为任何民事诉讼的目的而对在领海内停泊或驶离内水后通过领海的外国船舶从事执行或加以逮捕的权利。”
由于爱沙尼亚相关立法缺乏具体的规定,上述《联合国海洋法公约》第28条后一种例外情形并不适用于爱沙尼亚。
二、船舶扣押:爱沙尼亚立法和实践
外国债务人的船舶在爱沙尼亚能否被扣押的问题,于1998年第一次真正受到质疑。该案所涉船舶为M/V“游逆塞尔瓦”轮,悬挂荷属安的列斯旗,为秘鲁公司游逆塞尔瓦环球航运股份公司所有。1998年11月18日,塔林市法院的法官梅尔·奥达卡斯女士命令扣押了该轮。该轮在某一德国船厂接受修理后抵达了塔林,其欠下了总金额达430万德国马克的两笔债务。实际上该船厂主动放弃了留置权这一担保——该案所涉付款合同订立于1998年8月9日,而该船厂允许M/V“游逆塞尔瓦”轮驶离船厂。
船厂委托了爱沙尼亚律师公会的会员事务律师阿斯科·波哈拉先生申请扣船。阿斯科·波哈拉先生依据《民诉法》第139条第3款和第10款的规定,成功说服法官颁布了扣押船舶命令。第139条第3款视船舶为债权人的经济单位,第139条第10款规定了债权人在债务人出现的地方享有拘留债务人的权利。然而,该案还涉及另一个有趣的法律问题——该轮也同时被依法抵押给某一德国银行。该案中,爱沙尼亚法对船舶优先权的界定本来可能会真正遭到质疑,因为船厂的某部分债权——船长支付的费用——依据《1926年布鲁塞尔公约》,可以被看作是有利于船厂的船舶优先权。不过有关该法律问题的判决并不是由爱沙尼亚法院做出,当地法院仅仅是接受了两个德国债权人关于该轮在鹿特丹被强制拍卖的价款分配所达成的协议。
任何沿海国都应该在其相关的国内法中,制定有关扣押停靠在其港口的船舶方面的适当条款。例如,2003年2月,悬挂马耳他国旗、由贝丽拓贝有限责任公司所有的M/V“麦格拉克”轮,停靠在塔林的穆加港,希腊水手艾佛斯特拉逊·奈·莱昂塔拉斯先生因该轮于1999年拖欠的共计23167美元的工资款,对该轮享有海事请求。值得注意的是,他申请扣押船舶时已丧失了船舶优先权,因为依附于船舶的船舶优先权因一年期限的经过已经丧失。①他已签署了一份于1999年5月至10月在M/V“麦格拉克”轮工作的合同。该案表明,该海事请求与在爱沙尼亚申请扣押船舶命令之间的唯一联系是该轮出现在塔林。扣押船舶的法院地法适用于所有在爱沙尼亚被扣押的船舶,而不考虑该船舶船旗或船旗国是否已经加入关于船舶扣押的有关国际公约。请求人总是享有择地诉讼的权利,因为其有权选择在最合适的管辖法院申请扣押船舶。
在一等水手拉文先生的协助下,当事人向塔林市法院提起了两次船舶扣押的申请,因为第一位法官依据错误的理由拒绝了首次船舶扣押申请。更具体地说,第一次船舶扣押申请遭到拒绝,是由于法官认为被告的破产情况未能得到证明,而且过去并未有任何规定阻止当事人提交该扣船申请。显然,这位法官只知晓《民诉法》的规定,却并未注意到:待到船舶未被扣押且已经驶离港口的情形下,请求人提交船舶扣押申请且要求缴纳诉讼费的做法就属于无效行为了。第二天早上,同一扣船申请被提交给另一法官,她立即颁发了扣押船舶命令。
海事请求,是与船舶运营相关的、向船舶所有人提出的一种请求权,该请求权使得债权人享有申请扣押船舶、或者使船舶所有人及其雇佣人能享受责任限制的权利。
在爱沙尼亚,申请人只能根据海事请求扣押船舶,②第781条的一份海事请求清单中列出21个项目,包括了日内瓦《1999年扣船公约》中的全部项目。并且以作为特别法的《船舶财产法》和包括了部分一般规范的《民诉法》为依据。扣押债务人的财产,在后一法律中被视作权利保全的措施,其基本要求是请求人须证明若债务人的财产不被扣押将可能导致判决难以执行或不能执行。可见,爱沙尼亚与许多其他国家的做法不一样,并未直接将紧迫性问题作为诉讼前船舶扣押制度的一般要求。
《民诉法》第378条第1款规定了法院处理保全请求时的完整措施项目,该条第2款包含涉及船舶扣押内容的扣押被告财产的规定。原则上,申请人有必要在船舶停靠在港口时,而且显然要在提交申请前(因为提交申请会花费一些时间并且意味着要缴纳一笔国家费用)迅速实现船舶扣押。船舶扣押申请提出前可以为这种请求提供担保,这种可能性在第382条第1款已经有预见;但是,该款第2项也规定,法院颁布扣押船舶命令的情形下,申请人有义务在扣押船舶后一个月这一最长期限之内提起诉讼请求。该法第381条规定了船舶扣押申请书中所包含内容的详细项目。
依据《船舶财产法》第782条第2款,为保全海事请求而提交的船舶扣押申请书被法院批准的情形包括:
(1)在海事请求发生时拥有船舶的人对该请求负有责任,并且在执行扣押时仍是该船的所有人;
(2)在海事请求发生时船舶的光船承租人对该请求负有责任,并且在实施扣押时是该船的光船承租人或所有人;
(3)请求所依据的是在该船舶所设立的受限制的物权;
(4)请求与船舶的所有权或占有有关;
(5)对船舶所有人、光船承租人、船舶管理人或经营人提出的请求,具有船舶优先权。
在决定是否扣押船舶时,法官首先应当确认存在有效的海事请求、该索赔针对的被索赔人正确;在该海事请求有效且具有船舶优先权的情形下,法官有必要确认被扣押的是否是同一艘船舶(通过船舶国际海事组织编号来辨识)。
《1999年扣船公约》第3条第2款规定了“姊妹船”可扣押原则。《船舶财产法》第782条第3款也规定:在海事请求发生时,对该海事请求负有责任的船舶所有人、光船承租人、定期承租人或航次承租人所拥有的任何其他船舶,也允许扣押,本规定不适用于有关船舶的所有权或占有的争议。但是,因同一海事请求有可能被扣押的任何其他船舶,不应被扣押,但下述情形除外:已经提供担保的性质或数额不充分;或该轮依据下述两项海事请求被扣押:a)在岸上或水上发生的人身伤亡,与该船舶的经营有直接联系;b)救助作业或任何救助合同,如适用,包括与救助作业相关的某一船舶或其所运载的货物构成环境损害威胁时对船舶实施的救助所发生的特别赔偿。
一些国家,比如法国和南非,从更广的意义上适用了“姊妹船”可扣押原则,即允许扣押“关联船”,该船舶与负有债务或发生海事请求的船舶由同一公司实际拥有。然而,为了避免“姊妹船”被扣押,大量航运实践,已经形成了每一艘船舶由形式上合法的另一公司单独拥有、而此公司实际上为受益所有人所拥有的商业惯例。1983年《南非海事管辖规则法》创设的“关联船”及扣押“关联船的管辖权”这些术语,在海商法和管辖规则范围内,属于独特法律制度。南非“关联船”管辖方面的海事实践,被证明是一项重要的创新,尤其是在配合外国法院或仲裁庭行使旨在获得担保的扣押船舶的权力的程序方面。①See Malcolm John David Wallis,The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction,at http://hdl.handle.net/10413/678,20 December 2011.这种例外的船舶扣押制度,显然违反《1952年扣船公约》第7条第1款体现的原则——该条款通过规定船舶扣押所在地的法院应当对案件的实体问题享有管辖权,使得申请人有“择地诉讼”的可能。但是《1999年扣船公约》通过如下规定解决了上述矛盾:“扣船实施地国家法院或用以使船舶获释的担保提供地国家法院,应具有审理案件实体问题的管辖权,但各当事方有效地约定或已经有效地约定将争议提交接受管辖权的另一国家法院或付诸仲裁者除外。”这种扣押“关联船”的创新,是一种单边举措,这将促使拥有多艘船舶的所有人不停地更新了解其船舶抵达地所在国家的法律,然而这也可能使部分参与者找到防范措施来更好地隐藏相关船舶的真正实益所有人的身份。爱沙尼亚政府赞同海商法原则和规范的统一化,而不赞同追求尽管创新却单边的立法行动。从这种意义上讲,爱沙尼亚将和大多数沿海国家保持一致。
船舶不应当因同一海事请求被再次扣押或多次扣押,但下列情况除外:(a)就同一海事请求已提供的关于该船舶的担保在性质或金额上不适当,但其担保的累计金额以不超过船舶的价值为限;(b)已提供担保的人不能或有可能不能履行某些或全部义务;(c)被扣押的船舶或早先提供的担保因下述原因之一而被释放:(i)请求人根据合理的原因提出申请或予以同意或(ii)请求人无法采取合理的措施阻止释放。
从法律意义上讲,提交船舶扣押申请并不难,然而仍需要注意一些限制条件和建议。第一,《民诉法》第389条第2款规定,如果船舶在爱沙尼亚登记且其价值不高于640欧元,法院不得扣押该船舶,相关请求保全问题另通过其他途径来解决。奇怪的是,这一限制并不适用于扣押在爱沙尼亚海事管理部门登记光船租赁的船舶的情形,虽然这两种登记的条件基本相同。第二,笔者建议申请书中不仅需要详细说明海事请求的金额,而且最好列明诉讼费、文件公证费等所有相关费用,后者是为了方便法官计算释放被扣押船舶所需支付的担保金数额。第三,哈留省法院的法官指出,当船舶扣押持续六个月或更长时间时所引发的问题,比如请求人忘记申请强制拍卖情形下,法院不得自行强制拍卖。另外,法律也没有规定变更申请或请求情形下的时效限制。
《民诉法》第384条第1款规定,在扣押船舶申请书提交之日后的第二个工作日结束之前,法官必须处理该申请,并颁布批准扣押或拒绝扣押的命令。该申请书中的任何缺陷应当在法院规定的期限内阐明。
法院的扣押船舶命令通过执达吏执行,其需要向船长当面宣读该命令,并查封相关船舶文件。查封船舶声明的格式,由司法部2001年2月19日颁布的第13号命令(RTL,19.02.2001,22,303)规定。通过该格式可知,上述声明中列明的查封,应当由执达吏、作为债务人代表的船长、申请人的代表和其他证人签字。该声明中的船舶描述应该与其登记文件中的描述一致。
反担保。法院可以要求申请人按法院要求提供某一种类和某一金额的担保,以补偿扣押可能对被告造成并可能应由请求人负责的任何损失,包括但不限于下述情况可能对该被告造成的损失或损害:(a)扣押错误或不公正、(b)要求和提供的担保过多。
《船舶财产法》并未照搬《1999年扣船公约》第6条第1款,而《民诉法》第383条规定与该公约内容大致相同。实际上,2005年《民诉法》第141条规定,申请人承担提供反担保的法定义务,法院对是否需要提供反担保并不享有裁量权。该规定与《1999年扣船公约》中的法定义务冲突。2009年1月1日生效的《民诉法》修正案(RT I 2008,59,330)已经删除了上述第141条。然而,该修正案第383条也引入了若干补充规定:该条第11款规定了反担保的限制条件,涉及债权请求的案件中,若法院要求申请人提供反担保,其金额应不得低于该请求金额的5%或32欧元,也不得高于32000欧元;该条第12款规定,考虑到申请人的财务状况和案件的特殊情况,法院可以部分或完全免除申请人的反担保义务,也可以命令申请人以分期付款的形式支付反担保。哈留省法院的船舶扣押实践表明,要求申请人提供所请求金额15%的反担保,有时候对申请人来说负担过重。
申请人应该赔偿被申请人损失的情形包括:a)船舶扣押申请书已经生效,法院判决不支持当事人提交的海事请求的,或法院程序依据不属于当事人双方同意仲裁条款的其他理由终止该扣押的;b)扣押船舶申请书中未列明海事请求的;c)由于诉讼请求未按时提交法院,法院取消船舶扣押命令致使船舶扣押解除的。损失赔偿请求之诉,自上述a)至c)项所规定之日起的两个月后失效。
被扣押船舶的释放、替代船舶扣押的其他形式担保。《1999年扣船公约》第4条和《船舶财产法》第783条均规定,被扣押的船舶应在以令人满意的方式提供充分担保后予以释放,但船舶因有关船舶所有权和占有的任何争议、以及船舶共有人之间有关船舶的使用或收益的任何争议所列的任何海事请求而被扣押的情况除外。在当事人双方未就担保充分性和形式达成一致的情形下,法院有权决定担保的种类和金额,但以不超过被扣押船舶的价值为限。为释放被扣押船舶而提供担保的任何请求,不得解释为(被申请人)对所承担责任的确认,也不得解释为(被申请人)对责任限制权利的放弃。
三、船舶优先权及其行使
《船舶财产法》第72条至78条和《1993年日内瓦公约》,规定了船舶优先权。然而该公约第13条第2款的规定(“本公约中的任何规定均不得对国家所有或经营并且仅充作政府非商业性服务的任何船舶产生任何权利或对其行使任何权利”),并未照搬进《船舶财产法》中。该法第1条第3款规定如下:“船舶优先权依据本法以及爱沙尼亚加入的国际公约产生和消灭,无论其所担保的海事请求是针对已登记的(即:视为准不动产)的船舶或未登记的(即:视为动产)船舶。”
依据《船舶财产法》第72条,船舶优先权是为了担保海事请求的实现而设立于船舶的法定担保。该权利不需要进行船舶登记。船舶优先权依据与船舶使用相关的,向船舶所有人、船舶经营人或船长所提出的海事请求而产生。这些特定海事请求由于有船舶作担保,因此优先于其他海事请求。
船舶优先权的特征,可以从三方面阐述。第一,船舶优先权的一年存续期间,总是与船舶相联系。无论船舶买受人是否知道该船舶上附有船舶优先权,该权利随着船舶所有权的转让而转让,船舶优先权也随着登记地或船旗的变化而转让(《船舶财产法》第73条)。这一特征值得二手船舶的买受人以及船舶债权人注意。船舶优先权这一特性,也使得法官更容易作出是否扣押船舶的命令,因为此情形下海事请求的确认只需针对船舶,而不需考虑海事请求发生时和船舶扣押执行时的船舶所有人或光船承租人是否相同。该法第782条第2款第5项也值得注意,就船舶扣押问题而言,船舶优先权所列的被请求人范围比某一具体请求所针对的被请求人更宽。因海事请求提起的船舶扣押申请可以针对船舶所有人或光船承租人,而因船舶优先权提起船舶扣押申请情形下还可以针对其他债务人——比如船舶管理人或经营人(任何reeder①依据《商船法》第68条,“reeder”被定义为“使用在自己名下的船舶从事经济事务并持有海上运输活动许可证的人”,这一许可证由爱沙尼亚海事局颁发。)。第二,作为担保的船舶优先权,有可能使法院程序开始后进入强制拍卖被扣押船舶阶段。第三,《船舶财产法》第74条第1款规定的有优先顺序的具有船舶优先权的海事请求,优先于包括船舶抵押权在内的其他请求权。
《船舶财产法》第75条规定,船舶优先权自其产生之日起满一年不行使将消灭,此一年期限,原则上不得间断,但依法禁止扣押船舶的中止期间除外。涉及船长和船员的工资或其他款项支付的案件,该一年期限自工资或其他款项应当支付之日起算,其他船舶优先权自其所担保的海事请求产生之日起算。
海事请求转移的,其船舶优先权随之转移。但具有船舶优先权的海事请求人,无权依据保险合同(就保险人向船舶所有人支付的保险赔偿金)要求赔偿(《船舶财产法》第76条)。
船舶优先权的项目及其优先顺序。《船舶财产法》第74条第1款和《1993年日内瓦公约》第4条,适用列举式方法把船舶优先权划分为五项。该法和该公约均认可依据法律规定可能产生其他种类的船舶优先权,但它们的优先顺序排在船舶抵押权之后。如今,爱沙尼亚法所规定的船舶优先权,只有上述五项。
具有船舶优先权的五项海事请求如下:
(1)船长、高级船员和其他船上在编人员由于在船上任职而应得到工资和其他款项的给付请求,包括遣返费用和应为他们支付的社会保险费;②应该注意的是,《1993年日内瓦公约》第9条第2款第(a)项的爱沙尼亚译文有误。很明显,该公约规定船舶优先权自其产生之日起一年不行使而消灭,起算时间为请求人“从船上离职之时”,而译文翻译为自请求人“从船上卸货之时”之日起算!当然,该译文非官方译本。《船舶财产法》第75条第2款第(a)项规定“起算时间自请求人工资结账”,是正确的。
(2)直接与船舶营运有关的、无论是在陆地或水上发生的人身伤亡提出的赔偿请求;
(3)就船舶的救助报酬提出的给付请求;
(4)就港口、运河和其他水路手续费和引航费提出的缴付请求;
(5)根据侵权行为提出的索赔请求,其由于船舶营运直接造成的损失所引起,但不包括船舶所载运的货物、集装箱和旅客物品的损失。
那么,依据《商船法典》第110条至118条①在2005年适用作为私法的《商船法》之后,由372条构成的《商船法典》中的28条涉及公法的规定,仍然保留了下来。的规定,由海事管理部门支出的,与沉没财产的船舶、沉船、货物或残骸的清除有关的垫付费用,是否属于船舶优先权担保的范围?海事管理部门被授权的事项有:要求船舶所有人清理上述财产;确定清除的期限、路线和手段(涉及国家海军或其他军队财产的清除期限除外);安排清理或摧毁直接危害航行安全、人身安全和健康或污染海洋环境的沉船或残骸等,其费用由船舶所有人承担。被清除财产的所有人,自实际清除之日起两年内有权认领该财产,并有义务支付海事管理部门垫付的所有直接和相关费用以及赔偿相关损失。《商船法典》第117条的措辞,实际上赋予了海事管理部门对被清除财产的留置权,因为该条文授权海事管理部门出售所涉财产以收回所垫付的费用和相关损失,并将扣除后的剩余款项归还给所有人。若依据上述程序的出售所得,不足以支付海事管理部门因清除、保管和出售所涉财产所产生的所有垫付费用,则视为财产所有人还拖欠海事管理部门这部分差额费用。财产所有人放弃被清除财产的,并不免除其这一费用给付义务。
有观点认为,在爱沙尼亚,海事管理部门就上述清除所发生的费用和损失,向被清除财产的所有人提起的请求,应当视为上述具有第五项海事优先权的海事请求。若引用《1993年日内瓦公约》第4条第1款第(e)项的表达,将有助于我们更好地理解:“该索赔是由于船舶营运直接造成的有形灭失或损坏所引起的”。该观点尚未得到法院的认可。基于《船舶财产法》第91条(该条处理申请强制拍卖船舶的海事请求的优先受偿顺序)的相反观点认为,该条第1款规定了优先拨付“与船舶强制拍卖和查封相关的费用,以及国家为了航行安全而清除航道中船舶所发生的费用”,该条第2款单独列举了“具有海事优先权的请求”,后者与《1993年日内瓦公约》第12条第3款完全一致。
《船舶财产法》第74条第2款规定了依附于船舶的第二项和第五项船舶优先权的排除情形:
(a)运输石油或其他有毒有害物质的船舶,证明已经依据国际公约或国家法律承担严格责任、强制保险或其他财务保证担保赔付的,对其造成的油污损害提起的赔偿请求;
(b)运输放射性或者具备放射性与有毒、易爆或有害的混合性质的核燃料或放射性废物。
具有船舶优先权的请求的优先顺序,规定在《船舶财产法》第77条至第78条中。第77条规定了本法第74条第1款中所列的具有船舶优先权的请求(五项中的任何一项)应当优先于包括船舶抵押权在内的其他请求受偿的原则。另外,如果存在依据法律产生其他船舶优先权的情形,这些权利的受偿顺序后于船舶抵押权、先于其他请求权。
《船舶财产法》第78条规定了具有船舶优先权的海事请求各项目之间的优先顺序,合理地给予了海难求助报酬请求权优先性,因为救助人的积极性和成功施救对于其他船舶优先权实现的可能性是必要的。因多项海难求助报酬请求各自产生的船舶优先权,按照与这些海事请求产生的时间相反的顺序受偿。这些请求产生的起算时间应当自救助行为终止之日起算。当然,就共同海损分担向船舶所有人提起的请求,以及因船舶碰撞提起的赔偿请求,其与救助报酬相对应的部分,也具有船舶优先权。上述其他四项船舶优先权,不分先后,同时受偿;不足受偿的,按照比例受偿(它们之间受偿顺序平等)。
船舶优先权的行使。《船舶财产法》第74条第1款和《1993年日内瓦公约》第10条所规定的具有船舶优先权的海事请求人,能行使船舶优先权。原债权人以及受让原债权人所转让船舶优先权的第三人,均被允许行使船舶优先权。《船舶财产法》第83条规定了行使程序的适用,船舶优先权的行使直接针对的是船舶占有人。某些情形下,其行使也针对船舶所有人。《船舶财产法》第五部分第一章“行使程序”第79条至第93条规定了“行使程序”,船舶优先权和船舶抵押权适用相同的程序,都涉及针对船舶的付款请求。
船舶航行期间产生的海事请求具有的船舶优先权,不适用于该航程所赚取的运费。船舶优先权也不适用于船上的货物。《船舶财产法》第84条明确规定,货物和运费不属于船舶扣押的范围。
《船舶财产法》第2条第2款规定,船舶的附属物,适用《爱沙尼亚共和国民法》(以下简称《民法》)总则第57条和第58条有关附属物的规定(最新修正案RT I 2002,35,216,于2009年7月1日生效)。《民法》第58条将船舶的文件(包括技术文件)视为其附属物。《民法》第57条第3款规定,转移所有权或针对动产的任何权利时所产生的义务,也及于附属物。列入船舶财产目录的物品视为船舶的附属物。
《船舶财产法》第79条第1款规定,针对应当强制登记的已登记船舶或海船提起的给付请求,虑及《船舶财产法》的特性,适用2005年《爱沙尼亚共和国执行程序法》(以下简称《执行程序法》,最新修正案自2010年1月1日生效)中对债务人的不动产行使给付请求权的有关规定。船舶的查封和保管,依据有关动产查封的法律行使,但《执行程序法》第64条关于登记船舶的特别说明的情形除外。由于《船舶财产法》第五部分和《执行程序法》同时使用了“arrest”(扣押)及“seizure”(查封)这两个术语(而在爱沙尼亚语中这两术语由“arestimine”这同一个单词所涵盖),可能导致了一些误解和混乱。
向在其他国家登记的未登记船舶行使给付请求权,依据《执行程序法》(《船舶财产法》第79条第2款)中对债务人的动产行使给付请求权的有关规定。该款下一项规定“对应当在船舶登记机构登记的船舶行使给付请求权的,适用《执行程序法》中不要求在船舶登记簿中有记录的已登记船舶的有关规定”。
《船舶财产法》中对已登记船舶行使给付请求权的有关规定,是另一个强制规范。本法第80条规定:“(1)依据本法第79条第1款对物(即登记船舶)的给付请求权之行使,只可能通过强制拍卖的途径实现,但强制行政情形除外;(2)建造中船舶的强制拍卖,可能发生在其登记之前,该拍卖请求可以在船舶登记之前提交。”
上述权利的行使,可以直接向船舶占有人提起,也可以向船舶所有人提起。法律特别规定,船舶扣押的范围不应当扩至船舶上的货物或其所赚取的运费。
船舶扣押和查封,由执达吏执行,他将从船长手中没收船舶文件,并按照司法部颁布的标准格式颁发一份声明书。声明书中对船舶的描述,应当与船舶登记机构的描述一致。法院会指定一位管理人负责保养被扣押的船舶。该管理人受到司法权利的控制,听从法院的命令。而且该管理人不得使用被扣押船舶。
船舶的强制拍卖,包括《船舶财产法》中所规定的诸如通知和公告义务等安排。强制拍卖的通知应当向以下相关方发出:1)船舶登记机构;2)所有已知的享有担保性权利的人;3)所有已知的具有船舶优先权的海事请求人;4)船舶所有人。强制拍卖公告应当包括所有船舶优先权权利的明确信息,并依据《执行程序法》第84条第2款的要求发布。该条规定,在船舶拍卖之前,拍卖公告应当在“官方公告”和公开网络上提前十天发布。如果船舶价值超过6400欧元,拍卖公告还应当在拍卖所在地发行的至少一份报纸上公布。在权利请求人或债务人的请求下,执达吏应当在其他公开出版物上发布拍卖公告,此费用由请求人承担。强制拍卖通知和公告中的船舶描述应当与船舶登记中的描述一致。
强制拍卖的已登记船舶或应当强制登记的船舶的所有权转移,自其强制拍卖声明书生效时转移,而未登记船舶的所有权转移,自船舶占有转移时转移。
除《执行程序法》所规定的情形之外,若该船舶被拆除并按部分出售时所得价款明显高于强制拍卖所得价款,关于该船舶行使的程序也有可能终止。
船舶强制拍卖情形下,所得价款应当依据《船舶财产法》第91条所列的如下顺序分配:
(1)与船舶强制出售、扣押相关的费用,国家为确保航行安全从航道中移除该船舶而产生的费用;
(2)具有船舶优先权的请求;
(3)具有船舶抵押权的请求;
(4)其他请求。
由于船舶的强制拍卖,在船舶购买人的要求下,执达吏应签发一份证明该船舶上没有船舶优先权、抵押权和其他留置权的证书。在依据法律要求向上述所有权利人都发出强制拍卖通知的情形下,依据该证书,该船舶登记上的所有权利应当消灭。经船舶购买人同意保留的权利不消灭。
四、结 论
至今,爱沙尼亚在海事立法方面已取得突出进展。尤其在船舶扣押、海事请求和船舶优先权等方面,爱沙尼亚适用了公认的规范和原则。爱沙尼亚这个海运历史悠久的滨海小国,正试图利用其战略性的地理位置发展国际贸易,因此会顺利适应航运领域中国际公认的规则和法规。
(中译:赵丽娟 所在单位:上海交通大学)
Ⅰ.Introduction
From world maritime practice has developed a number of unique institutesin the field of maritime law such as general average,the limitation of or the release from the liability of the carrier,salvage of property at sea,which make maritime law an interesting subject for lawyers.Among them,arrest of ships①“Arrest”means any detention or restriction on removal of a ship by order of a Court to secure a maritime claim,but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or other enforceable instrument-International Convention on Arrest of Ships(adopted 12 March 1999 in Geneva,entered into force 14 September 2011)C.N. 112.2011.TREATIES-2 Art.1(2).on the basis of a maritime claim or maritime lien is an instrument which provides the possibility for a creditor to obtain an acceptable security for his or her valid claim through the detainment of the ship by the responsible Court.It could be a paradox but this institute of arrest of ships has been elaborated not only for the interest of shipping service providers in order to get their bills paid but also for the interest of ship owners and operators who aim at the sailing of their ships without delays in ports because of unpaid invoices for the bunker, other supplies,port dues etc.For this reason,ship owners have to accept this kind of conservatory arrest of ships aiming at securing claims of their creditors against debtors in default or in rem proceedings in the United Kingdom(UK)②Robert Grime,Shipping Law,2nd ed.,London:Sweet&Maxwell,1991,pp.11～20.getting in return the possibility to use effectively their main assets-ships without any interruptions.
Notions such as maritime lien,maritime claim and arrest of ships have found their proper places in the national law of Estonia in interesting ways. The Republic of Estonia was firstly announced on the 24th of February in the year of 1918 while it regained its temporarily lost independence on the 20th of August in 1991.In December 1991 shortly after the Estonian independence,the Merchant Shipping Code with 372 articles was adopted which among other provisions accepted that ships could be detained in ports for maximum 72 hours by the order of the Masters of the ports.These 3 days were provided to the creditors for obtaining a court order on arrest of the debtor’s vessel.The private law provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code were replaced in 2002 by the Merchant Shipping Act③Merchant Shipping Act of Estonia(adopted by the Riigikogu(Parliament)and entered into force 1 October 2002).See Official Gazette,I,2002,55,345.and the right of the masters of the ports to detain vessels was abolished.At that time,article 139 of the Law of Civil Procedure,for instance,provided for the arrest of ships in order to secure claims for salvagerewards only.The Ships Property Law(hereinafter SPL)①Law of Maritime Property Act of Estonia has been passed by the Riigikogu on 11 March 1998 and entered into force 1 July 1998).See Official Gazette,I,1998,30,409.which has made ships quasi immovable and removed their original registration from the Estonian Maritime Administration to the County and City Courts contained no relevant provisions for the arrest of vessels except for a closed list of maritime liens according to the modern Geneva 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages.The Government did not pay due attention that according to the principle of continuity of the State,the Republic of Estonia was still a Party to the older Brussels 1926 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages②International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages(adopted 10 April 1926 in Brussels and entered into force 2 June 1931.See 120 League of Nations Treaty Series 187;according to the CMI there are 23 States only as Parties to that older convention,at http://www.comitemaritime.org/status-of-ratifications-of-maritime-conventions,20 December 2011.which provided for a broader definition of a maritime lien by including additionally,for example,“all debts according to the contracts or operations which the master of the vessel(whether owner of her or not)has made in order to preserve the vessel or continue the trip”.In fact,the Riigikogu(the Parliament in Estonia) deliberately created such a unique situation where the adopted law was not in full conformity with the Estonia’s international commitments consented by the ratification in the Riigikogu in 1928.It took more than two and a half years to denounce the convention of 1926 and liquidate the dispute.After all,Estonia has been a Party to the modern Geneva 1993 Convention③See Official Gazette,II,2002,37,176.since 5 September of 2004.
While the Geneva 1999 Conference on Arrest of Ships was announced,the Estonian Government decided not to become a Party to the Brussels 1952 International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to arrest of sea-going ships④Concerning the People`s Republic of China it should be mentioned that it has never become a Party to this and several other Brussels conventions,but Hong Kong has acceded on 29 March 1963 to this arrest convention.With a letter dated 4 June 1997 the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Kingdom of Belgium informed the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium that the Arrest Convention will continue to apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997.In its letter the Embassy stated that the responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the above Convention will be assumed by the Government of the People`s Republic of China.but to the newer one,although the Geneva 1999 InternationalConvention①This Convention is in force since 14 September 2011.on Arrest of Ships had very little changes in the text.This Convention has promptly contributed to the fulfillment of the gap in the Estonian national law related to the arrest of ships by amending accordingly the SPL. The only problem in applying this Geneva 1999 Convention in Estonia has been the presence of some lapsus linguae in the Estonian translation of the text which lawyers should be aware of.②For example,Art.4(1)of the Geneva 1999 Convention provides that a judge shall release the vessel in case that sufficient security is provided to the maritime claim,but in translation the word“shall”is substituted with the word“may”!?The court has discretion only to assess whether the security provided is sufficient for the release but not whether to release or not if the aim of this arrest is fulfilled-sufficient security has been provided.See details in:Lindpere Heiki,Merinõue ja merivõlg:nende erinevusest ning laeva arestimisest,Juridica,2008,Vol.1,pp.57～61.Similarly,lawyers should take into consideration that in any case the Geneva Convention of 1999 should be read together with the amended SPL and in cases of necessity with the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter CCP)because not all of the provisions of the Convention are produced in the aforementioned laws.
The SPL refers to“Maritime Claims and Securing Actions by Arrest of Ships”in Part IV in three paragraphs(§§781-783)which were added by an amending law act including the most important provisions of the Geneva 1999 Convention.In the General Part of the SPL is stated that“both registered and unregistered ships are arrested,in order to secure a maritime claim or an action,pursuant to this Act and international conventions to which Estonia has acceded.”③In principle and according to§123 of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia the treaties ratified or acceded on the basis of law passed by the Riigikogu(Parliament)will prevail in cases of conflict over any legal act of national law,except the Constitution itself (the principle pacta sunt servanda is followed).Additionally,it is provided in§782(1)that“A ship may only be arrested in respect of a maritime claim specified in§781of this Act.Provisions of civil procedure concerning the securing actions apply to the arrest of ships for the purpose of securing an action,taking into consideration the specifications established in this Act.”The second sentence of this provision makes the SPL lex specialis in relation to the CCP which in practice has created some problems for judges who have been used to turning firstly to the CCP(which does not include similar kind of reference to the SPL)and sometimes refuse to issue orders for arrest on grounds not known for this kind of action.This urges advocates of creditors sometimes to present their applications for arrest re-peatedly until the debtor’s ship is finally arrested.
Ships are normally arrested while being in a port or an offshore terminal although they are ready to sail.However,article 28 under the title“Civil jurisdiction in relation to foreign ships”of the UNCLOS(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,1982)allows exceptions in two cases,providing that:“(2).The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings,save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.(3).Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the right of the coastal State,in accordance with its laws,to levy execution against or to arrest,for the purpose of any civil proceedings,a foreign ship lying in the territorial sea,or passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.”
The last exception is not applicable in Estonia because of the lack of specific provisions in the respective laws.
Ⅱ.Arrest of Ships:Estonian National Law&Practice
The first time when the possibility of arrest of a foreign debtor’s ship in Estonia was really questioned was in the year of 1998.She was M/V“Uniselva”flying the flag of Dutch Antilles and owned by the Peru company Uniselva Naviera Universal S.A..The judge,Mrs.Mare Odakas,of the Tallinn City Court arrested her by order of 18 November 1998.The ship had arrived in Tallinn after repairs at a German shipyard with two invoices with a total value of 4.3 mln DEM left unpaid.Actually,this shipyard deliberately gave away the security-possessory lien by letting M/V“Uniselva”sail although the contract on payment of debts was concluded on 9 August 1998.
The Yard had approached the solicitor Mr.Asko Pohla,a Member of the Estonian Bar,who succeeded in persuading the judge to arrest the ship on the basis of§139(3)and(10)of the Civil Procedure Law.Based on subsection 3 of the aforementioned article,the vessel was considered an economic unit of the debtor.Similarly,subsection 10 gave the right of arrest at the place of the debtor’s presence.But there was another interesting legal issue-namely the ship had been duly mortgaged in favor of a German bank as well.This was a court case where the definition of a maritime lien could have been really questioned because some of this debt to the Yard-master`s disbursements-could be considered on the basis of the 1926 Convention as a privileged maritime lienin favor of the Yard.Judgment on this legal issue was not made by the responsible court,which only had to accept the agreement of the two German creditors about the distribution of the proceeds of a forced sale which was effected in Rotterdam.
Every coastal State should include in its relevant national laws provisions for arrest of ships calling at its ports in a good and applicable order.For instance,in February 2003,the Malta flagged vessel“Megaluck”owned by Ballito Bay Ltd.called at the Port of Muuga in Tallinn and the Greek sailor Efstratios N.Leontaras had a maritime claim for unpaid wages in 1999 in the amount of 23,167 USD.It is noteworthy that he applied for the arrest having lost maritime lien as pledge on the vessel as the duration of one year had already lapsed.①He had been contracted to work on MV“Megaluck”in 1999 from May to October.This shows that the only connection with that claim for an Estonian legal order was the presence of this vessel in Tallinn.The lex fori arresti applies to all vessels which are arrested in Estonia irrespective of their flag and consequently irrespective of flag States participation in international conventions on arrest of ships.The claimant has always the right of“forum shopping”because it is up to his or her choice to apply for an arrest of the vessel at the most responsible jurisdiction.
Assisted by AB Lawin,Leontaras had to apply to the Tallinn City Court twice because the first judge denied the arrest on false grounds in that case. More specifically,the judge based her refusal on the grounds first that insolvency of the defendant had not been proven and second that nothing had prevented the submission of the claim.Obviously she had only read the CCP provisions and had not paid any attention to the fact that submitting a claim together with payment of state(court)fees is a useless action if the ship is not arrested and sails away.The next morning the same application was presented to another judge and she immediately issued a court order for the arrest.
Maritime claims.Maritime claim is a claim related to the operation of a vessel against the owner of the vessel,which entitles a creditor to apply for the arrest of the vessel or a shipowner and his servants to limit their liabilities.
A ship may only be arrested in respect of a maritime claim,and according to the provisions of the SPL as lex specialis and the CCP providing for some general legal norms.②A closed list of maritime claims is given in§781in 21 items covering the catalogue of the Geneva 1999 Convention in full.The arrest of a debtor’s property is considered in theCCP an action securing a claim and the basic requirement is for a petitioner to prove that it is quite probable to think that without doing so it is difficult or impossible to enforce the judgment.Therefore the question of urgency of the matter is not made directly in Estonia as a general requirement for a conservatory arrest as it is the practice in many other countries.
A complete list of measures at the disposal for a court to secure a claim is provided in§378(1)of the CCP including the arrest of defendants’property in paragraph 2 which refers to the arrest of ships.In principle,it is necessary for a claimant to effect the arrest of a ship quickly while she is in the port and obviously before submitting a claim which will take some time and presume the payment of a certain state fee.This possibility of securing a claim before it is submitted is foreseen in§382(1)but it is also stipulated in subparagraph 2 that in cases of the court order on arrest of the vessel the claimant is obliged to submit the claim within a month as maximum for the purpose of preserving this arrest.A detailed list of items which should contain such a petition is provided in§381 of the CCP.
According to the SPL(§782(2))arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of which a petition is filed with a court for securing a maritime claim if:
(1)the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest is effected;
(2)the demise charterer of the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is demise charterer or owner of the ship when the arrest is effected;
(3)the claim is based on the restricted real rights established on the ship;
(4)the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the ship;
(5)the claim is against the owner,demise charterer,manager or operator of the ship and is secured by a maritime lien.
In all cases related to the decision of whether a ship should be arrested or not,the judge should first acknowledge that a valid maritime claim exists and the application is against the right person.Additionally,in cases when the claim is valid and secured by a maritime lien,it is essential to be identified that this is the same ship(by IMO registration number)to be arrested.
The doctrine of“sistership”arrest is also provided in article 3(2)of the Geneva 1999 Convention and§782(3)of the SPL,which provide that arrest is also permissible of any other ship or ships which is or are owned by the person who is owner of the ship or demise charterer or voyage charterer of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arises,except if the claim arises from a dis-pute concerning the right of ownership or possession of a ship.But any other ship which would otherwise be subject to arrest in respect of the same maritime claim shall not be arrested,unless the nature or amount of the security already provided is inadequate or the ship is arrested on the basis of such maritime claims as a)loss of life or personal injury occurring,whether on land or on water,in direct connection with the operation of the ship;and b)salvage operations or any salvage agreement,including,if applicable,special compensation relating to salvage operations in respect of a ship which by itself or its cargo threatens damage to the environment.
Some countries like France and South Africa are applying this doctrine in a much broader sense,namely allowing“associated ship”arrest,which means the arrest of a ship which is beneficially owned by the same company as the ship on which debts and/or maritime claims have arisen.Nevertheless the overwhelming shipping practice in order to avoid sistership arrest has gone the way that each vessel should be owned by a separate formal-juridical owner company which is ultimately owned by the beneficial owner.The associated ship and the jurisdiction to arrest such a ship created in terms of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act No.105 of 1983 is a unique legal institution in the world of maritime law and jurisdiction.In South African maritime practice the associated ship jurisdiction has proved to be an important innovation,especially in conjunction with the power to arrest a ship for the purpose of obtaining security for proceedings in a foreign court or arbitration tribunal.①See Malcolm John David Wallis,The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction,at http://hdl.handle.net/10413/678,20 December 2011.This exceptional kind of arrest is obviously going against the principle embodied in article 7(1) of the Brussels 1952 Arrest Convention giving to the claimant a possibility of so called“forum shopping”prescribing that the courts of the country in which the arrest is made shall have jurisdiction to determine the case upon its merits. But the Geneva 1999 Arrest Convention solves this controversy by stating as follows:“The Courts of the State in which an arrest has been effected or security provided to obtain the release of the ship shall have jurisdiction to determine the case upon its merits,unless the parties validly agree or have validly agreed to submit the dispute to a Court of another State which accepts jurisdiction,or to arbitration.”(highlighted by HL).This kind of innovation with arrest of the associated ship is a unilateral measure which will lead shipowners of several vessels to keep themselves well updated with related national legislations ofcountries which their ships are visiting on the one hand but a counter-measure which will incline some of them to hide better the real beneficial ownership of the vessel in question.The Government of Estonia is favoring unification of maritime law principles and norms but not unilateral actions no matter how innovative they are.In that sense Estonia will follow the majority of maritime nations.
A ship cannot be rearrested or have multiple arrests for the same maritime claim unless:(a)the nature or amount of the security in respect of that ship already provided in respect of the same claim is inadequate,on condition that the aggregate amount of security may not exceed the value of the ship;or(b)the person who has already provided the security is not,or is unlikely to be,able to fulfill some or all of that person’s obligations;or(c)the ship arrested or the security previously provided is released either:(i)upon the application or with the consent of the claimant acting on reasonable grounds,or(ii)because the claimant could not by taking reasonable steps prevent the release.
Filing of a petition for the arrest of a ship is not difficult in legal sense but there are some limitations and recommendations to be noted.Firstly,§389 (2)of the CCP provides that a court will not arrest a ship entered into the Estonian Register of Ships if the value of the maritime claim is less than 640 euros and there are other possible means of securing this claim.Strangely this limit does not apply to the arrests of vessels registered at the Estonian Maritime Administration in the Registry of Bareboat Chartered Ships although the conditions for the registration are basically the same.Secondly,it is advisable in such a petition not only to specify the value of the maritime claim but also to specify all the related costs to the application of this petition including legal fees,notarized translations of documents etc.This is necessary in order to facilitate that these costs will be taken into account by the judge in ordering the right sum of deposit for the release of the vessel.Thirdly,judges in Harjumaa County Court have indicated problems closely related to ships according to which arrests are lasting six and more months and claimants are forgetting to apply for a forced sale,while the court cannot act so with its own initiative.No time limit has been prescribed for this change of petition or claim.
It is provided in§384(1)that an application for the arrest should be filed and respective motivated order or denial of arrest issued at least by the end of the next working day subsequent to the filing.Any deficiencies in that petition should be clarified within the period specified by the court.
Court order for the arrest of a ship will be effected by a bailiff in a way ofpresenting it to the master of this ship and seizing the documents of the ship. The form of the Statement of seizure of ship is approved by the Minister of Justice order No.13 of 19 February 2001(RTL,19.02.2001,22,303)according to which the seizure of the listed documents in the statement should be signed by the bailiff,the master as representative of the debtor,the representative of claimant and any witnesses.Description of the ship in the statement shall correspond to its description in the registration documents.
Counter-security.An applicant for arrest of a ship can,at the discretion of the court,be ordered to provide a counter-security“of a kind and for an amount,and upon such terms,as may be determined by that Court for any loss which may be incurred by the defendant as a result of the arrest,and for which the claimant may be found liable,including but not restricted to such loss or damage as may be incurred by that defendant in consequence of:(a)the arrest having been wrongful or unjustified;or(b)excessive security having been demanded and provided.”
The provision of article 6(1)of the Geneva 1999 Convention is not reproduced in the SPL but almost the same is stipulated in§383 of the CCP.In fact,this CCP of 2005 included a relevant provision in§141 which made it obligatory by law for an applicant to provide certain counter-security but not at the discretion of a court which could be seen as contradictory to the legal obligations assumed by the Geneva 1999 Convention.§141 of the CCP was deleted by an amending law on 1 January 2009(RT I 2008,59,330).However, with the same amending law there has been introduced in§383 of the CCP an additional provision(11)which provides for some limits for a counter-security: if a court decides to ask counter-security then it should be in case of a monetary claim not less than 5%of its value or 32 euros and not more than 32,000 euros.At the same time in§383 is also introduced the provision(12)according to which a court may exceptionally waive its obligation to provide counter-security,partly or fully,or order payment in several installments taking into account the financial standing of the claimant and the circumstances of a specific case.Court practice of the Harjumaa County Court in arresting vessels shows that counter-security is asked 15%of the claim value which sometimes could be too burdensome for an applicant.
The applicant has to compensate the damage caused to the defendant with the petition of an arrest if:a)a judgment enters into force which does not satisfy the secured maritime claim petition or the court procedure will be stopped on other grounds than an approval of the compromise between the parties;b)itappears that the maritime claim is absent;c)the court order is renounced and the arrest lifted because the claim itself has not been submitted in time.An action for asking such damage to be compensated is barred after a lapse of 2 months counted from the moments specified in above cited points a-c.
Release from the arrest and substitution of arrest with other form of security.Both,the Geneva 1999 Convention,article 4 and the SPL,§783,provide for release of the arrested vessel in cases when sufficient security has been provided in a satisfactory form,save in cases in which a ship has been arrested in respect of any of the maritime claims on bases of disputes on ownership or possession of the vessel and disputes between co-owners of the ship as to the employment or earnings of the ship.In the absence of agreement between the parties as to the sufficiency and form of the security,the Court shall determine its nature and the amount thereof,not exceeding the value of the arrested ship. Any request for the ship to be released upon security being provided should neither be construed as an acknowledgment of liability nor as a waiver of any defense or any right to limit liability.
Ⅲ.Maritime Liens and Enforcement
Maritime liens are governed in Estonia by§§72-78 of the SPL and the Geneva Convention of 1993.Nevertheless,article 13(2)of this Convention which provides:“Nothing in this Convention shall create any rights in,or enable any rights to be enforced against,any vessel owned or operated by a State and used only on Government non-commercial service”is not reproduced in the SPL,which is“the law of the land”.Article 1(3)of the SPL provides the following:“Maritime liens are created and extinguished pursuant to this Act and international conventions to which Estonia has acceded,regardless of whether the claims secured by maritime liens are against registered(read:quasi immovable)or unregistered(read:movables)ships.”
A maritime lien is according to§72 of the SPL a pledge on a ship created by law in order to secure claims provided by law.Maritime liens are not entered in the register of ships.A maritime lien is created on the basis of certain claims in connection with the use of ships against a shipowner,operator of a ship or master of a ship.Therefore some limited numbers of maritime claims are privileged compared to others because of the fact that they are pledges on the ship.
Specific qualities of a maritime lien could be seen in three aspects.First,amaritime lien is always connected with the ship during its existence of one year.A maritime lien is transferred together with the ship upon its transfer regardless of whether the acquirer of the ship knew of the encumbrance of the ship with a maritime lien or not and a maritime lien is also transferred with the ship upon change of location of the registration of the ship or flag of the ship (SPL§73).This should be duly noted by a buyer of a second hand vessel and its creditor.A maritime lien makes it easier for a judge to order an arrest of such a vessel because it is important besides the validity of a claim to identify the vessel only but not whether the owner or the demise charterer is the same person at the times when the maritime claim arises and when the arrest is effected.Additionally,one could also notice that according to§782(section 2, paragraph 5)of the SPL,a maritime lien provides for the arrest of the ship a wider list of persons against whom a claim is directed.While an arrest of a vessel in case of a maritime claim is accepted if it is against the owner or the demise charterer,in case of a maritime lien other debtors are also includedpersons like managers or operators(any reeder①According to§68 of the Merchant Shipping Act the notion“reeder”is defined as“a person who uses a ship on his or her name in economic affairs and to whom the licence to carry on with maritime transport activities has been issued”.This general kind of licence will be issued by the Estonian Maritime Administration.).Second,a maritime lien as a pledge gives the interested parties the possibility to demand forced sale of the vessel from the very beginning of the court proceedings.Third,the main privilege of a claim secured by a maritime lien is related to its ranking by giving to those listed in§74(1)of the SPL priority of satisfaction before other claims, including claims secured by maritime mortgage.
Extinguishment of a maritime lien is provided in§75 of the SPL.A maritime lien extinguishes after one year has passed from the due date and running of this period is in principle uninterrupted,and suspension is accepted only for the period during which,pursuant to law,it is prohibited to seize the ship.The term of one year shall be calculated in cases of wages and other sums due to the master and crew from the date of pay-off and in cases of other maritime liens starting from the date of creation of the claim which is secured by lien.
The transfer of a claim secured by a maritime lien results in the transfer of the maritime lien to the acquirer of the claim.But the owner of a claim secured by a maritime lien does not have the right to claim indemnity on the basis of an insurance contract(SPL,§76).
Categories of Maritime Liens and their ranking.The maritime liens enumerated in§74(1)of the SPL and in article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1993 are divided in five categories and represent a closed list.Both,the SPL and the 1993 Geneva Convention accept that law could also establish other maritime liens but in such a case they will have lower ranking than a maritime mortgage.Accordingly,there exist no other kinds of maritime liens in Estonia today than these five categories mentioned above.
These five categories of claims are secured by a maritime lien and are provided in the following order:
(1)claims for wages and other sums due to the master,officers and other members of the crew in respect of their employment on the ship,including costs of repatriation and social security contributions payable on their behalf;①It should be noted that the translation into Estonian of Art.9(2)(a)of the Geneva Convention of 1993 is incorrect.Namely,the one-year extinguishment of these maritime liens according to the Convention is to be calculated upon the claimant`s discharge from the vessel in this Convention which is translated as from the date when the claimant discharges the vessel!This translation is unofficial and Art.75(2)(a)of the SPL correctly States“from the pay-off of the holder of the claim”.
(2)claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring,whether on land or on water,in direct connection with the operation of the ship;
(3)claims for reward for the salvage of the ship;
(4)claims for port,canal and other waterway dues and pilot dues;
(5)claims(based on tort-HL)which arise out of direct damage caused by the operation of the ship other than damage to cargo,containers and property of passengers.
A question may arise whether the expenses of the Maritime Administration related to the removal of a ship,wreck,cargo or wreckage as sunken property under the authority of§§110-118②These are public law paragraphs among 28 out of 372 of the MSC which remained in the Code after adoption of the Merchant Shipping Act as a piece of private law in 2005.of the Merchant Shipping Code (MSC)could be secured by a maritime lien.The Maritime Administration is authorized to request the removal of such property by the owner and determine the deadline as well as the ways and means of removal(except for the deadline if such property belongs to the State navy or other military forces)or arrange such removal or even destroy it at the expenses of the owner in cases when a wreck,wreckage etc.is posing direct threat to the safety of navigation,life orhealth of persons or to the marine environment.The owner of the removed property has the right to claim it within two years from actual removal and is obliged to cover all direct and related expenses of the Maritime Administration and the damage caused.The wording of§117 of the MSC gives the Maritime Administration the possessory lien on removed property because it is authorized to sell the property in question in order to recover the expenses and damages and the rest is left to the owner.If the proceeds from such a sale do not cover all the expenses of removal,storage and sale,then the owner of this property is considered to owe the difference to the Maritime Administration.Abandonment of the removed property will not release the owner from these obligations.
It is considered in Estonia that a claim of the Maritime Administration on expenses and damages against the owner of a removed property is deemed to be secured by a maritime lien of category 5.It is more understandable if one uses the following wording of article 4(1)(e)of the Geneva Convention of 1993:“claims based on tort arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel”.This opinion is not yet confirmed in a court.The contrary opinion could be drawn from the interpretation of§91 of the SPL which deals with the order of satisfaction of claims upon forced sale of a ship and gives in section 1 the first preference by referring to:“the expenses connected with the forced sale and seizure of the ship,and expenses which the State incurs for removal of the ship from the waterways in order to secure safe navigation”and then in section 2 are separately listed“the claims secured by maritime liens”. The latter is in full conformity with article 12(3)of the Geneva Convention of 1993.
§74(2)of the SPL especially excludes and provides that“no maritime lien shall be attached to a ship to secure claims specified in categories 2 and 5 if:
(a)damage has arisen in connection with the carriage of oil or other hazardous or noxious substances by sea for which compensation is payable to the claimants pursuant to international conventions or laws providing for strict liability or compulsory insurance or other means securing the claims;and
(b)damage has arisen in connection with the radioactive properties or a combination of the radioactive properties with toxic,explosive or other hazardous properties of nuclear fuel or of radioactive waste.
Ranking of claims secured by maritime lien is provided in§77 and§ 78 of the SPL.The first one provides the principle that a claim secured by amaritime lien specified in§74(1)of the SPL(in anyone of those 5 categories)shall be satisfied before other claims,including claims secured by a maritime mortgage.Accordingly,§78 provides that any additional maritime liens established according to any law shall be ranked lower than a maritime mortgage but they have a preferential right with respect to all the other claims.
§78 sets the order of satisfaction of claims secured by maritime lien and considerably gives preference to the salvage claims,as the motivation and success of a salvor is essential in order to make it possible for other maritime liens to be collected at all.If there are several salvage claims,then the maritime liens securing claims for reward for the salvage of the vessel shall rank in the inverse order of the time when the claims secured thereby accrued.Such claims shall be deemed to have accrued on the date on which each salvage operation is terminated.Of course,claims against the shipowner for payment of the contributions of general average as well as for collision damage are secured by maritime lien in the part they correspond to the salvage reward.Other four categories of maritime liens securing maritime claims of the same ranking are equal and such claims are satisfied proportionally(shall rank pari passu as between themselves).
Enforcement of Maritime Liens.Any owner of a claim secured by maritime lien by virtue of§74(1)of the SPL and article 10 of the Geneva Convention of 1993,can enforce it.The original creditor as well as a third party subrogated in the rights of an original creditor is also allowed to enforce a maritime lien.§83 of the SPL on the application of enforcement procedure states that it could be directed against the possessor of a ship.In such a case,execution also applies to the owner.Enforcement procedure provisions are provided in Part V,Chapter 1“Enforcement Procedure Provisions”,§§79-93 of the SPL and are the same for both maritime liens and maritime mortgages and deal with claims for payment against a ship.
The maritime liens do not apply to the freight earned for the voyage during which the claim giving rise to the lien arises.The cargo on board is also excluded.Both the cargo and freight upon the seizure of a ship are explicitly excluded by virtue of§84 of the SPL.
Accessories of ships,according to§2(2)of the SPL,are determined pursuant to the provisions concerning accessories provided for in the General Part of the Civil Code,namely§57 and§58(RT I 2002,35,216 as amended,the latest version in force since 1 July 2009).The last one considers the documents of a ship(incl.technical)as her accessories.Section 3 of§57 presumes thatobligations arising out of the transfer of ownership or any encumbrance to that movable also goes to the accessories.In case of doubt,a thing is deemed to be an accessory if it is entered in the inventory list of a ship.
According to§79(1)of the SPL,a claim for payment against a registered ship or sea-going vessel which is subject to mandatory registration is made pursuant to the provisions for making a claim for payment against the real property of a debtor prescribed in the Code of Enforcement Procedure of 2005(hereinafter CEP,as amended and the latest version in force since 1 January 2010) taking into account the peculiarities of the SPL.The seizure and maintenance of a ship is effected pursuant to the provisions provided for the seizure of movable property,except from the making of a notation in the register of ships which is effected pursuant to§64 of the CEP.However,some misunderstanding or confusion could be created because the notions“arrest”and“seizure”in Part V of the SPL and in the CEP are covered by one and only Estonian word“arestimine”.
The making of a claim for payment against an unregistered ship which goes to any ship registered in other states is effected pursuant to the provisions for making a claim for payment against movable property of a debtor prescribed in the CEP(§79(2)of SPL).The next section of this paragraph States that“in making a claim for payment against a ship which should be registered in the register of ships,the provisions of the CEP concerning registered ships which do not presume an entry in the register for ships apply.”
Making a claim for payment against a registered ship is another imperative norm in the SPL,in which§80 provides for the following:“(1)the making of a claim for payment against the things specified in subsection 79(1)of this Act (read:registered ships-HL)is possible only by way of a compulsory auction: compulsory administration is excluded;(2)compulsory auction with respect to a ship under construction is possible as of registration thereof.A petition may be submitted before registration.”
Application of an enforcement procedure could be directed against the possessor of the ship.In such a case execution also applies to the owner.Upon the seizure of a ship,it is specially stated that this action does not extend to the cargo or freight charges of the ship.
A seizure as well as an arrest of a ship will be effected by a bailiff who shall remove the ship documents from the master and fulfill a respective statement,the standard format of which is established by the Minister of Justice. The description of a ship in such a statement shall correspond to the descrip-tion in the registry of ships.Additionally,the court assigns an administrator to a seized ship for her upkeep.The administrator is subject to judicial control and to the instructions of the court and shall not use the ship.
A compulsory auction of a ship contains some arrangements like notices and announcements which are obligatory and prescribed in detail in the SPL. The notice of a compulsory auction shall be given to:1)the registry of ships with which the ship is registered;2)all known pledgees;3)all known owners of claims secured by a maritime lien;and 4)the shipowner.An announcement of a compulsory auction shall contain express reference to all rights secured by a maritime lien and be carried out according to the requirements of§84(2)of the CEP.This provision stipulates that an announcement shall be published 10 days before the auction in“Ametlikud Teadaanded”(Official Announcements) and a public internet network.If the value of a ship exceeds 6400 euros,an announcement shall be published at least in one newspaper distributed at the location of this compulsory auction.At the request of a claimant or a debtor,the bailiff shall publish announcement in any other publication at their expense.In both,a notice or an announcement of a compulsory auction,the description of the vessel shall correspond to the description of the ship in the register of ships.
The transfer of ownership upon compulsory auction of a registered ship or a ship subject to mandatory registration is effected upon the enforcement of the statement of a compulsory auction,but the ownership of an unregistered ship is transferred upon the transfer of possession of the ship.
An enforcement procedure concerning a ship may be terminated in addition to the cases provided for in the CEP,if it is apparent that a larger amount of money would be received upon dismantling of the ship and its sale in parts than by way of a compulsory auction.
In case of a compulsory auction of a ship the money received shall be distributed according to§91 of the SPL in the following order:
(1)the expenses connected with the forced sale and seizure of the ship and expenses which the State incurs for removal of the ship from the waterways in order to secure safe navigation;
(2)claims secured by a maritime lien;
(3)claims secured by a maritime mortgage;
(4)other claims.
As a result of a compulsory auction of a ship the bailiff shall issue at the request of the purchaser a certificate that the ship is free of maritime liens,mortgages and other encumbrances and on the basis of this certificate all encumbrances shall be deleted in the register of ships provided that all entitled persons are notified of the compulsory auction as required.However,encumbrances to which the purchaser agrees are not deleted.
Ⅳ.Conclusions
Quite obviously much has been achieved in regulating maritime affairs in Estonia so far.Especially,it goes for universally agreed norms and principles related to the arrest of ships,maritime claims and maritime liens etc.Having been a maritime nation for ages,though of a small size,Estonia seeks to use its strategic geographical position for international trade and therefore will adapt smoothly to the internationally accepted rules and regulations for shipping.
Maritime Claims&Liens,Arrest of Vessels and Estonian Perspective
Lindpere Heiki*
This paper examines the international legal framework of the conservatory arrest of vessels and the relevant national laws and practices in the Republic of Estonia.It provides an overview of the related international conventions as well as the developments of maritime law in Estonia.First,the study introduces two conventions on the arrest of ships:the Brussels Convention of 1952 and the Geneva Convention of 1999①Francesco Berlingieri,Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships:A Commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions,5th ed.,London/New York:Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library,2011.and two conventions on maritime liens&mortgages:the Brussels Convention of 1926 and the Geneva Convention of 1993 as well as relevant developments in the national law of Estonia.Second,it analyzes the different nature and qualities of maritime liens,sometimes called privileged claims and respective enforcement procedures.Through this paper some practical problems are discussed in relation to the arrest of vessels and their release in Estonia which of course are of importance for any flag State or person involved in maritime business.
Maritime Claim;Maritime Lien;Arrest;Seizure;Enforcement
*Lindpere Heiki博士,海洋法与海商法教授,爱沙尼亚海事学院校长,电子邮箱:heiki.lindpere@emara.ee。作者曾作为爱沙尼亚代表团负责人,出席了1999年讨论船舶扣押议题的日内瓦会议,并代表爱沙尼亚政府签署了《1999年扣船公约》。作者也是海牙仲裁常设委员会成员和联合国海洋法会议的仲裁人或调解人。
*Lindpere Heiki,Ph.D,professor on the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law,is currently the Rector of the Estonian Maritime Academy.E-mail:heiki.lindpere@emara.ee.He has been Head of the Estonian delegation at the Geneva 1999 Conference on Arrest of Ships and signed the Convention on behalf of the Estonian Government.He is a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,The Hague and Arbitrator or Conciliator under the UNCLOS.
