Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships by Berlingieri, Francesco -- Read -- Imperial Library of Trantor

Log In

Or create an account ->

Imperial Library

Home
About
News
Upload
Forum

Help

Login/SignUp

Index

Cover

BERLINGIERI ONARREST OF SHIPS Lloyd's Shipping Law Library

Title Copyright Foreword Acknowledgments Glossary Introduction Contents Table of Authors Table of Cases Table of Legislation Table of Conventions Table of CMI Conferences Table of Conventions—Travaux Préparatoires 1 HISTORY OF THE CONVENTIONS History of the 1952 Arrest Convention 1. The CMI Conference of 1930 in Antwerp 2. The preparatory work for a draft Convention on arrest of ships 3. The CMI Conferences of 1933 in Oslo and of 1937 in Paris 4. The CMI Conferences of 1947 in Antwerp, of 1949 in Amsterdam and of 1951 in Naples 5. The Brussels Diplomatic Conference. 2-10 May 1952 History of the 1999 Arrest Convention 6. The work of the CMI 7. The work of the Joint International Group of Experts on Maritime Liens and Mortgages and Related Subjects (JIGE) 8. The Geneva Diplomatic Conference. 1-12 March 1999 and the subsequent events 2 THE WAY TO UNIFORMITY OF MARITIME LAW IN RESPECT OF ARREST OF SHIPS 1. Introduction 2. Methods of implementation The 1952 Arrest Convention 3. The reservations made by States parties to the 1952 Arrest Convention 4. The implementation of the 1952 Arrest Convention by Contracting States (a) States that have given force of law to the Convention Algeria Belgium Benin Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad Croatia Egypt France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain (b) States that have implemented the 1952 Convention by incorporating in whole or in part its provisions into their national law China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions The 1999 Arrest Convention 5. Implementation of the 1999 Convention (a) Action required by States parties to the 1952 Convention (b) Action required by all States, whether parties to the 1952 Convention or not 6. The reservations permitted by the 1999 Convention 3 THE MARITIME CLAIMS 1. The Chapeau of the Article 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the chapeau (ii) The corresponding chapeau in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention in their national laws Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the chapeau and its history (ii) The corresponding chapeau in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention in their national laws Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela 2. The individual maritime claims Damage caused by a ship 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Loss of life 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Salvage 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Ireland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Pollution damage 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Wreck removal 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Use or hire of a ship 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Carriage of goods (and passengers) 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Loss or damage to goods and baggage 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela General average 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Bottomry 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean Jurisdictions Towage 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Pilotage 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Slovenia Venezuela Supplies 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Construction and repair 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Port and similar dues 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Wages 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Disbursements 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Insurance premiums 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Commissions, brokerage and agency fees 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Croatia Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Disputes as to ownership 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Disputes between co-owners 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Mortgage or hypothèque 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the convention into their national laws China - Hong Kong Denmark Finland Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis: of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela Sale of the ship 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the claim (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Russian Federation Slovenia Venezuela 4 DEFINITIONS OF ARREST, PERSON, CLAIMANT AND COURT 1. Definition of arrest 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the definition (ii) The notion of arrest in the law of certain Contracting States Denmark France Italy Nigeria Norway Sweden United Kingdom 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the definition (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru China Latvia Venezuela 2. Definition of person 1952 Convention 1999 Convention 3. Definition of claimant 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the definition (ii) The relevant rules in the law of certain Contracting States Belgium Benin Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of the definition (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela 4. Definition of court 1999 Convention 5 CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF WHICH A SHIP MAY BE ARRESTED 1. Arrest in respect of maritime claims 1952 Convention Introduction (a) Claims secured by a maritime lien that are not mentioned in article 1(1) of the 1952 Arrest Convention (i) Claims arising under an international convention (ii) Claims arising under a national law (iii) Claims in respect of which an action in rem is permissible Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden Nigeria United Kingdom Caribbean Jurisdictions (b) The European Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 (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 1999 Convention Introduction (i) National laws of States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Tchad Latvia Venezuela 6 ARREST OR DETENTION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 1952 Convention 1. Introduction 2. International conventions and agreements (a) MOU (b) The IMO Procedures for Port State Control (c) UNCLOS (d) EU Directives (e) SOLAS (f) ISPS Code (g) International Code of Safety for High Speed Craft (HSC Code) (h) International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships (i) MARPOL (j) CLC 1992 3. National laws Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention 4. Ships detained or prevented from sailing by public authorities 5. Ships under arrest adversely affecting the use of the port installations 7 ARREST OF THE SHIP IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE CLAIM IS ASSERTED 1. Introduction 2. Appurtenances not owned by the owner of the ship — their treatment in the various countries Algeria Benin Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Italy Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions General comments 3. Relation between the claim and a particular ship 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of the first part of article 3(1) 1999 Convention (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela 4. Relation between the person liable and the ship (a) Claims against the owner of the ship 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1) (ii) The interpretation of the rule in certain Contracting States Algeria Belgium Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Claims for which a ship may be arrested in consideration of the character of the claim Claims secured by a maritime lien or other charge on a ship All other claims Scotland Northern Ireland Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(a) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela (b) Claims against the demise charterer of the ship and other persons liable in respect of a maritime claim. 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(4) (ii) The interpretation of the rule in certain Contracting States Belgium Benin Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(b) and (3) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela (c) Claims based upon a mortgage, "hypothèque" or charge on the ship 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(q) 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(c) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela (d) Claims relating to the ownership or possession of the ship 1952 Convention Analysis of article 1(1)(o) and (p) 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(d) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela (e) Claims secured by a maritime lien 1952 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1) 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(1)(e) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru China Latvia Venezuela 8 ARREST OF "SISTER" SHIPS 1952 Convention 1. Introduction 2. When ships must be deemed to be in the same ownership (i) Analysis of article 3(2) (ii) The interpretation of the rale in certain Contracting States 259 Algeria Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad Denmark Ireland Nigeria United Kingdom 1999 Convention 3. The sister ship rule under the 1999 Convention (i) Analysis of article 3(2) (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Venezuela 9 ARREST OF ASSOCIATED SHIPS 1952 Convention 1. Is piercing the corporate veil prohibited by the Convention? 2. A review of national laws and jurisprudence Algeria Belgium China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean Jurisdictions South Africa and United States 3. Conclusions 4. State-owned ships 1999 Convention 5. The UK proposal on associated ships—Consequences of its rejection 10 WHEN ARREST OF "SISTER" SHIPS IS NOT PERMITTED 1. The maritime claims in respect of which the prohibition applies 1952 Convention Analysis of the exceptions to the right of arrest of "sister" ships 1999 Convention Analysis of the exceptions to the right of arrest of "sister" ships Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Latvia Venezuela 11 ARREST OF SHIPS OWNED BY THE CHARTERER IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS OF THE OWNER OF THE CHARTERED SHIP 1. Analysis of the jurisprudence 2. Some considerations on this problem 12 RIGHT OF REARREST AND MULTIPLE ARREST 1952 Convention 1. The travaux préparatories 2. The structure of the provision (a) The prohibition (b) The remedy (c) The exceptions 3. Corresponding provisions in the law of certain States that have incorporated the Convention into their national laws Denmark Nigeria Nigeria Russian Federation Sweden Sweden 1999 Convention 4. An analysis of the specific exceptions (a) Rearrest (i) Inadequacy of the nature or amount of the security already obtained (ii) Inability of the person who has given the security to fulfil his obligations (iii) Release of the arrested ship or of the security previously given (b) Multiple arrest 5. Corresponding rules in the States that have introduced the provisions of the Convention into their national law Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru China Latvia Venezuela 13 JURISDICTION FOR THE ARREST 1952 Convention 1. Introduction 2. Analysis of the relevant issues (a) Judicial authority (b) Authority having jurisdiction (c) Jurisdiction before the arrival of the ship (d) Jurisdiction after the ship has sailed (e) Arrest pursuant to an order of a foreign court (f) Choice of the judicial authority of the State in the jurisdiction of which the arrest is made (g) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has no jurisdiction on the merits (h) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has jurisdiction on the merits but the ship is not within its jurisdiction (i) Jurisdiction for arrest when a decision on the merits has already been obtained (j) Exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to the 1952 Convention on Penal Jurisdiction and to UNCLOS (k) Lis pendens—Related actions 1999 Convention 3. A review of the same issues (a) Judicial authority (b) Authority having jurisdiction (c) Jurisdiction before the arrival of the ship (d) Arrest pursuant to an order of a foreign court (e) Choice of the judicial authority of the State in the jurisdiction of which the arrest is made (f) Jurisdiction for arrest when the court has no jurisdiction for the merits (g) Jurisdiction for arrest when a decision on the merits has already been obtained (h) Lis pendens—Related actions 14 RELEASE OF THE SHIP FROM ARREST 1952 Convention 1. Introduction 2. 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 Belgium China – Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions (c) Failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time limit fixed by the court (i) General comments (ii) Which court must fix the time? (iii) When the time limit must be fixed (iv) Agreement on the jurisdiction of a particular court or on arbitration (v) Implementation of Article 7(2), (3) and (4) by Contracting States Belgium China – Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions (d) Constitution of the limitation fund (i) Provisions under the 1957 Limitation Convention (ii) Provisions under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC Convention) (iii) Provisions under the CLC 1992 (iv) Provisions under the 1996 HNS Convention (e) Judicial sale (f) Bankruptcy 1999 Convention 3. Release of the ship from arrest (a) Introduction (b) Release after the provision of security (i) Amount of the security (ii) Form of the security (iii) Subsequent reduction, modification or cancellation of the security (c) Release from subsequent arrest (d) Failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time fixed by the court 4. Release of the security (a) Introduction (b) Provision of security in a State Party (c) Provision of security in a non-State Party and in a State Party 15 WHEN THE RELEASE OF A SHIP UNDER ARREST IS NOT PERMITTED 1952 Convention 1. The reasons for the exception 2. Trading of a ship under arrest (i) Analysis of the provision (ii) National laws in respect of the trading of ships under arrest Benin Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention 3. Reinstatement of the existing rule (i) General comments (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tchad China Venezuela 16 LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL ARREST 1952 Convention 1. The history of the rule 2. A review of national rules in some of the Contracting States Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad Belgium China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Haiti Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 3. Security for damages—a review of the national rules in some of the Contracting States (i) General comments (ii) Analysis of the position in the above countries Belgium China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Italy Morocco Netherlands, The Nigeria Norway Portugal Spain Sweden 1999 Convention 4. Analysis of the rule in the light of its history (i) General comments (ii) National laws of the States that have adopted the provisions of the 1999 Convention Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Tchad China Latvia Venezuela 17 PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE ARREST 1952 Convention 1. Conditions for obtaining the authority 2. Enforcement of the arrest 3. A review of the national rules in some of the Contracting States Belgium Benin Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, Tchad China - Hong Kong Croatia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Morocco Netherlands, The Norway Poland Portugal Russian Federation Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions 1999 Convention 4. Conditions for obtaining the authority 5. Enforcement of the arrest 18 JURISDICTION ON THE MERITS AND RELATED MATTERS 1952 Convention 1. The travaux préparatories 2. The structure of Article 7 3. Jurisdiction on the merits 4. A review of the rules in the United Kingdom and some other common law countries United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions China - Hong Kong Ireland Nigeria 5. A review of the individual links enumerated in Article 7(1) (a) Habitual residence or principal place of business of the claimant (b) Claims arising in the country in which the arrest is made (c) Claims concerning the voyage of the ship during which the arrest is made (d) Claims arising out of a collision or in circumstances covered by article 13 of the 1910 Collision Convention (e) Salvage claims (f) Claims upon a mortgage or hypothecation of the ship 6. Possible conflicts of the links enumerated in paragraph 1 with other Conventions and with EC Regulation 44/2001 (a) EC Jurisdiction Convention and Lugano Convention (b) CLC 1992 (c) Hamburg Rules (d) Athens Convention 2002 (e) EC Regulation 44/2001 7. The time within which the claimant must bring proceedings on the merits 8. When the action may be deemed to have been brought 9. The recognition by the State in which the arrest is effected of a foreign judgment or arbitral award on the merits 10. Consequences of the failure to bring action on the merits within the time prescribed 1999 Convention 11. The history of the provision 12. Jurisdiction on the merits 13. Conflict with other Conventions and with the EC Regulation 44/2001 (a) EC Jurisdiction Convention and Lugano Convention (b) CLC 1992 (c) Hamburg Rules (d) Athens Convention 2002 (e) EC Regulation 44/2001 14. The time within which the claimant must brine proceedings on the merits 15. Consequences of the failure to bring proceedings on the merits within the time prescribed 19 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS 1999 Convention 1. The history of the provision 20 SCOPE OF APPLICATION 1952 Convention 1. Introduction 2. The notion of ship (a) Waters in which the ship is sailing or intended to sail (b) Size and characteristics of the ship (i) Propulsion (ii) Tonnage (iii) Structure (iv) Whether the ship or craft must be manned (v) Registration (vi) Physical conditions of the ship (c) Intended use 3. The notion of flag 4. Application to ships flying the flag of Contracting States 5. Application to ships flying the flag of non-Contracting States 6. Review of the attitude adopted in certain Contracting States (i) States that have incorporated the provisions of the Convention in their national laws in which the Admiralty jurisdiction is recognised United Kingdom Caribbean jurisdictions China – Hong Kong Nigeria (ii) States that have incorporated the provisions of the Convention in their national laws in which the notion of a specific Admiralty jurisdiction does not exist Denmark Finland Norway Sweden (iii) States that have given the force of law to the provisions of the Convention Belgium Croatia Egypt France Germany Greece Italy Morocco Netherlands, The Slovenia Spain 7. Exclusions from the application 8. Limits to the application 9. Subordination of the Convention to national rules 1999 Convention 10. Ships to which the Convention is applicable 11. Exclusions from the application 12. Subordination of the Convention to national rules or to other Conventions (a) Ships owned by a person subject to bankruptcy or similar proceedings (b) Ships in respect of which the limitation of liability is invoked APPENDICES I. Text of the 1952 Convention—International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, 1952 English Text French Text

II. Text of the 1999 Convention—International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999 English Text French Text Spanish Text III. Table of Comparison between the 1952 and the 1999 Conventions—A Comparison with the 1999 Convention English Text IV. Synopsis of the Responses to the Questionnaires on the Implementation of the 1952 Arrest Convention Questionnaire I Questionnaire II V. Responses to the Questionnaire for States not Mentioned in the Fourth Edition VI. Report of the United Nations/International Maritime Organization Diplomatic Conference on Arrest of Ships VII. The Travaux Preparatories of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships

Index

← Prev
Back
Next →

← Prev
Back
Next →

Chief Librarian: Las Zenow <zenow@riseup.net>
Fork the source code from gitlab.

This is a mirror of the Tor onion service:
http://kx5thpx2olielkihfyo4jgjqfb7zx7wxr3sd4xzt26ochei4m6f7tayd.onion