Lindpere Heiki

海事請求、船舶優(yōu)先權和船舶扣押：愛沙尼亞視角

Lindpere Heiki*

本文旨在考察訴訟前船舶扣押的國際法律框架和愛沙尼亞相關國內立法以及實踐,介紹相關國際公約和愛沙尼亞海商法發(fā)展的概況。第一,本文介紹了關于船舶扣押的兩部國際公約——《1952年統一海船扣押某些規(guī)定的國際公約》和《1999年國際扣船公約》,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年統一船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權某些法律規(guī)定的國際公約》和《1993年船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權國際公約》這兩部有關船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權的國際公約,以及愛沙尼亞相關國內法的發(fā)展情況。第二,本文分析了有時被稱為“有特權的請求”的船舶優(yōu)先權的性質、所包含項目以及執(zhí)行程序。本文也討論了愛沙尼亞法下船舶扣押和釋放被扣押船舶的一些實踐問題,這些問題對于海事業(yè)務中所涉船旗國或個人有重要參考價值。

海事請求 船舶優(yōu)先權 扣押 查封 執(zhí)行

一、引 言

世界海事實踐中形成了海商法中的若干獨特制度,如共同海損、承運人的責任限制、承運人免責、海上財產救助等,這些制度使得海商法成為律師眼中的有趣議題。依據海事請求或船舶優(yōu)先權扣押船舶,②《愛沙尼亞共和國商船航運法》,由愛沙尼亞議會通過,于2002年10月1日生效。See Official Gazette,I,2002,55,345.即屬于這些獨特制度的一種,這種制度使得債權人有可能通過法院扣押船舶以確保其有效請求權獲得可接受的擔保。船舶扣押的復雜規(guī)定,將面對兩種沖突的價值追求:一方面,其旨在保護船舶航行過程的服務提供者的利益——收回欠款;另一方面,保護船舶所有人和經營人的利益——在燃油、其它物料供應及港口費用等欠款尚未付清的情形下確保該船舶的航行不被延誤。因此,船舶所有人為了確保不受干擾地使用他們的主要資產——船舶,作為回報,必須接受這種訴訟前的船舶扣押制度,以確保債權人可以通過提起不履行之訴或英國法下的對物訴訟①Robert Grime,Shipping Law,2nd ed.,London:Sweet&Maxwell,1991,pp.11～20.使海事請求獲得擔保。

“船舶優(yōu)先權”、“海事請求”和“船舶扣押”等概念,也以有趣的方式出現在愛沙尼亞國內法中的相應位置。愛沙尼亞共和國,在1918年2月24日首次宣布獨立之后,又于1991年8月21日再次恢復了其喪失的獨立地位。1991年12月,愛沙尼亞通過了《愛沙尼亞共和國商船航運法典》(以下簡稱《商船法典》),該法典由372條規(guī)定構成,其接受了港口所有人可以命令滯留船舶最長達72小時的規(guī)定,提供給債權人的這三天期限,用以獲得法院批準扣押債務人船舶的命令。該法典中的私法條款,已被2002年的《愛沙尼亞共和國商船航運法》(以下簡稱《商船法》)②所取代,該新法案廢除了港口所有人滯留船舶的權利。當時,例如《愛沙尼亞共和國民事訴訟程序法》(以下簡稱《民訴法》)第139條規(guī)定,船舶扣押制度僅適用于擔保有關救助報酬的海事請求。視船舶為準不動產和將船舶登記主管機關由愛沙尼亞海事管理部門移至省法院和市法院的《愛沙尼亞共和國船舶財產法》(以下簡稱《船舶財產法》),③《愛沙尼亞共和國船舶財產法》,于1998年3月11日由愛沙尼亞議會通過,1998年7月1日生效。See Official Gazette,I,1998,30,409.并未規(guī)定船舶扣押方面的內容,其僅依據《1993年船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權國際公約》(以下簡稱《1993年日內瓦公約》)中的內容規(guī)定了船舶優(yōu)先權的封閉性項目。依據國際法上的國家繼承原則,愛沙尼亞共和國仍是《1926年統一船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權某些法律規(guī)定的國際公約》(以下簡稱《1926年布魯塞爾公約》)④《1926年統一船舶優(yōu)先權和抵押權某些法律規(guī)定的國際公約》,于1936年4月10日在布魯塞爾通過,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.的成員國?！?926年布魯塞爾公約》賦予船舶優(yōu)先權更寬泛的定義,比如包括“依據船長(無論其是否為船舶所有人)為了保全船舶或維持其航行所締結的合同或進行的經營所產生的任何債務”。實際上,愛沙尼亞議會通過的國內法與1928年同意并批準的愛沙尼亞國際承諾并未完全保持一致,乃該國議會有意之舉。愛沙尼亞議會歷時兩年半時間,廢除了《1926年布魯塞爾公約》并消除該公約引發(fā)的爭議。2004年9月5日,愛沙尼亞成為《1993年日內瓦公約》的成員國。①See Official Gazette,Ⅱ,2002,37,176.

1999年討論船舶扣押的日內瓦會議宣布召開時,愛沙尼亞政府決定不加入《1952年統一海船扣押某些規(guī)定的國際公約》(以下簡稱《1952年扣船公約》),②關于中華人民共和國,其并未成為這一個或其他一些布魯塞爾公約的締約國,但香港特別行政區(qū)于1963年3月29日加入《1952年扣船公約》。1997年6月4日,中華人民共和國駐比利時王國大使館致函通知比利時外交部部長,香港特別行政區(qū)從1997年7月1日起將繼續(xù)適用該公約。大使館在信中表示,適用上述公約所產生的國際權利和義務將由中華人民共和國政府承擔。而是成為《1999年國際扣船公約》(以下簡稱《1999年扣船公約》)③該公約自2011年9月14日起生效。的成員國。而事實上,后一公約只是對前一公約文本作了少量更改。依據《1999年扣船公約》修訂的《船舶財產法》,有助于迅速填補愛沙尼亞國內立法中有關船舶扣押規(guī)定的空白。如今,在愛沙尼亞適用《1999年扣船公約》的唯一問題是愛沙尼亞語公約譯本中出現的誤譯,這一點律師們應該引起注意。④例如,日內瓦《1999年扣船公約》第4條第1款規(guī)定,為所涉海事請求提供充分擔保的情形下法官應當(shall)釋放該船舶,而在愛沙尼亞語譯本中,“應當”一詞被“可以(may)”所代替!?法院僅對決定船舶釋放申請所提供的擔保金額是否充分享有決定裁量權,卻無權決定船舶扣押的目的被滿足情形下(即充分擔保被提供)是否釋放船舶。See details in:Lindpere Heiki,Merin?ue ja meriv?lg:nende erinevusest ning laeva arestimisest,Juridica,2008,Vol.1,pp.57～61.而且律師們應該考慮到,任何情形下,《1999年扣船公約》應當和修訂后的《船舶財產法》一起解讀,如有必要,還應該和《民訴法》一起解讀,因為該公約的所有條款并非都包含在上述立法中。

《船舶財產法》第四部分“海事請求和船舶扣押的保全措施”包括三個條款(第781～783條),這是該法修正案中新增的,涵蓋了《1999年扣船公約》中的主要核心條款?！洞柏敭a法》的總則部分規(guī)定,“為保全海事請求或訴訟,已登記和未登記船舶之扣押,依據本法和愛沙尼亞加入的國際公約之規(guī)定?！雹菰瓌t上,依據《愛沙尼亞共和國憲法》第123條規(guī)定,在與憲法之外的其他國內法相沖突時,愛沙尼亞議會依法批準或加入的條約將優(yōu)先適用(“條約必須遵守”原則的適用)。此外,該法782條第1款規(guī)定“船舶的扣押,只能依據本法第781條所列海事請求的范圍。慮及本法的特別規(guī)定,為訴訟保全之目的而扣押船舶的,適用涉及保全措施的民事訴訟規(guī)定。”該條款的第二句使《船舶財產法》成為與《民訴法》相關的“特別法”。而實踐中,《船舶財產法》為習慣優(yōu)先適用《民訴法》(其與《船舶財產法》的制定依據不同)的法官制造了一些問題,有時法官由于未知曉這種(海事請求保全)措施因而拒絕頒發(fā)扣押船舶的命令。此情形使得債權人的出庭律師有時需要反復陳述船舶扣押申請,直至債務人的船舶被扣押為止。

一般情形下,船舶在準備起航的港口或近海轉運碼頭被扣押。但是,《1982年聯合國海洋法公約》(以下簡稱為《聯合國海洋法公約》)第28條“對外國船舶的民事管轄權”的規(guī)定,允許兩種例外:“……(2)沿海國不得為任何民事訴訟的目的而對船舶執(zhí)行或加以逮捕,但涉及該船舶本身在通過沿海國水域的航行中或為該航行的目的而承擔的義務或因而負擔的責任,則不在此限。(3)第2款不妨害沿海國按照其法律為任何民事訴訟的目的而對在領海內停泊或駛離內水后通過領海的外國船舶從事執(zhí)行或加以逮捕的權利?！?/p>

由于愛沙尼亞相關立法缺乏具體的規(guī)定,上述《聯合國海洋法公約》第28條后一種例外情形并不適用于愛沙尼亞。

二、船舶扣押:愛沙尼亞立法和實踐

外國債務人的船舶在愛沙尼亞能否被扣押的問題,于1998年第一次真正受到質疑。該案所涉船舶為M/V“游逆塞爾瓦”輪,懸掛荷屬安的列斯旗,為秘魯公司游逆塞爾瓦環(huán)球航運股份公司所有。1998年11月18日,塔林市法院的法官梅爾·奧達卡斯女士命令扣押了該輪。該輪在某一德國船廠接受修理后抵達了塔林,其欠下了總金額達430萬德國馬克的兩筆債務。實際上該船廠主動放棄了留置權這一擔?！摪杆娓犊詈贤喠⒂?998年8月9日,而該船廠允許M/V“游逆塞爾瓦”輪駛離船廠。

船廠委托了愛沙尼亞律師公會的會員事務律師阿斯科·波哈拉先生申請扣船。阿斯科·波哈拉先生依據《民訴法》第139條第3款和第10款的規(guī)定,成功說服法官頒布了扣押船舶命令。第139條第3款視船舶為債權人的經濟單位,第139條第10款規(guī)定了債權人在債務人出現的地方享有拘留債務人的權利。然而,該案還涉及另一個有趣的法律問題——該輪也同時被依法抵押給某一德國銀行。該案中,愛沙尼亞法對船舶優(yōu)先權的界定本來可能會真正遭到質疑,因為船廠的某部分債權——船長支付的費用——依據《1926年布魯塞爾公約》,可以被看作是有利于船廠的船舶優(yōu)先權。不過有關該法律問題的判決并不是由愛沙尼亞法院做出,當地法院僅僅是接受了兩個德國債權人關于該輪在鹿特丹被強制拍賣的價款分配所達成的協議。

任何沿海國都應該在其相關的國內法中,制定有關扣押停靠在其港口的船舶方面的適當條款。例如,2003年2月,懸掛馬耳他國旗、由貝麗拓貝有限責任公司所有的M/V“麥格拉克”輪,?？吭谒值哪录痈?希臘水手艾佛斯特拉遜·奈·萊昂塔拉斯先生因該輪于1999年拖欠的共計23167美元的工資款,對該輪享有海事請求。值得注意的是,他申請扣押船舶時已喪失了船舶優(yōu)先權,因為依附于船舶的船舶優(yōu)先權因一年期限的經過已經喪失。①他已簽署了一份于1999年5月至10月在M/V“麥格拉克”輪工作的合同。該案表明,該海事請求與在愛沙尼亞申請扣押船舶命令之間的唯一聯系是該輪出現在塔林?？垩捍暗姆ㄔ旱胤ㄟm用于所有在愛沙尼亞被扣押的船舶,而不考慮該船舶船旗或船旗國是否已經加入關于船舶扣押的有關國際公約。請求人總是享有擇地訴訟的權利,因為其有權選擇在最合適的管轄法院申請扣押船舶。

在一等水手拉文先生的協助下,當事人向塔林市法院提起了兩次船舶扣押的申請,因為第一位法官依據錯誤的理由拒絕了首次船舶扣押申請。更具體地說,第一次船舶扣押申請遭到拒絕,是由于法官認為被告的破產情況未能得到證明,而且過去并未有任何規(guī)定阻止當事人提交該扣船申請。顯然,這位法官只知曉《民訴法》的規(guī)定,卻并未注意到:待到船舶未被扣押且已經駛離港口的情形下,請求人提交船舶扣押申請且要求繳納訴訟費的做法就屬于無效行為了。第二天早上,同一扣船申請被提交給另一法官,她立即頒發(fā)了扣押船舶命令。

海事請求,是與船舶運營相關的、向船舶所有人提出的一種請求權,該請求權使得債權人享有申請扣押船舶、或者使船舶所有人及其雇傭人能享受責任限制的權利。

在愛沙尼亞,申請人只能根據海事請求扣押船舶,②第781條的一份海事請求清單中列出21個項目,包括了日內瓦《1999年扣船公約》中的全部項目。并且以作為特別法的《船舶財產法》和包括了部分一般規(guī)范的《民訴法》為依據。扣押債務人的財產,在后一法律中被視作權利保全的措施,其基本要求是請求人須證明若債務人的財產不被扣押將可能導致判決難以執(zhí)行或不能執(zhí)行。可見,愛沙尼亞與許多其他國家的做法不一樣,并未直接將緊迫性問題作為訴訟前船舶扣押制度的一般要求。

《民訴法》第378條第1款規(guī)定了法院處理保全請求時的完整措施項目,該條第2款包含涉及船舶扣押內容的扣押被告財產的規(guī)定。原則上,申請人有必要在船舶?？吭诟劭跁r,而且顯然要在提交申請前(因為提交申請會花費一些時間并且意味著要繳納一筆國家費用)迅速實現船舶扣押。船舶扣押申請?zhí)岢銮翱梢詾檫@種請求提供擔保,這種可能性在第382條第1款已經有預見;但是,該款第2項也規(guī)定,法院頒布扣押船舶命令的情形下,申請人有義務在扣押船舶后一個月這一最長期限之內提起訴訟請求。該法第381條規(guī)定了船舶扣押申請書中所包含內容的詳細項目。

依據《船舶財產法》第782條第2款,為保全海事請求而提交的船舶扣押申請書被法院批準的情形包括:

(1)在海事請求發(fā)生時擁有船舶的人對該請求負有責任,并且在執(zhí)行扣押時仍是該船的所有人;

(2)在海事請求發(fā)生時船舶的光船承租人對該請求負有責任,并且在實施扣押時是該船的光船承租人或所有人;

(3)請求所依據的是在該船舶所設立的受限制的物權;

(4)請求與船舶的所有權或占有有關;

(5)對船舶所有人、光船承租人、船舶管理人或經營人提出的請求,具有船舶優(yōu)先權。

在決定是否扣押船舶時,法官首先應當確認存在有效的海事請求、該索賠針對的被索賠人正確;在該海事請求有效且具有船舶優(yōu)先權的情形下,法官有必要確認被扣押的是否是同一艘船舶(通過船舶國際海事組織編號來辨識)。

《1999年扣船公約》第3條第2款規(guī)定了“姊妹船”可扣押原則。《船舶財產法》第782條第3款也規(guī)定:在海事請求發(fā)生時,對該海事請求負有責任的船舶所有人、光船承租人、定期承租人或航次承租人所擁有的任何其他船舶,也允許扣押,本規(guī)定不適用于有關船舶的所有權或占有的爭議。但是,因同一海事請求有可能被扣押的任何其他船舶,不應被扣押,但下述情形除外:已經提供擔保的性質或數額不充分;或該輪依據下述兩項海事請求被扣押:a)在岸上或水上發(fā)生的人身傷亡,與該船舶的經營有直接聯系;b)救助作業(yè)或任何救助合同,如適用,包括與救助作業(yè)相關的某一船舶或其所運載的貨物構成環(huán)境損害威脅時對船舶實施的救助所發(fā)生的特別賠償。

一些國家,比如法國和南非,從更廣的意義上適用了“姊妹船”可扣押原則,即允許扣押“關聯船”,該船舶與負有債務或發(fā)生海事請求的船舶由同一公司實際擁有。然而,為了避免“姊妹船”被扣押,大量航運實踐,已經形成了每一艘船舶由形式上合法的另一公司單獨擁有、而此公司實際上為受益所有人所擁有的商業(yè)慣例。1983年《南非海事管轄規(guī)則法》創(chuàng)設的“關聯船”及扣押“關聯船的管轄權”這些術語,在海商法和管轄規(guī)則范圍內,屬于獨特法律制度。南非“關聯船”管轄方面的海事實踐,被證明是一項重要的創(chuàng)新,尤其是在配合外國法院或仲裁庭行使旨在獲得擔保的扣押船舶的權力的程序方面。①See Malcolm John David Wallis,The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction,at http://hdl.handle.net/10413/678,20 December 2011.這種例外的船舶扣押制度,顯然違反《1952年扣船公約》第7條第1款體現的原則——該條款通過規(guī)定船舶扣押所在地的法院應當對案件的實體問題享有管轄權,使得申請人有“擇地訴訟”的可能。但是《1999年扣船公約》通過如下規(guī)定解決了上述矛盾:“扣船實施地國家法院或用以使船舶獲釋的擔保提供地國家法院,應具有審理案件實體問題的管轄權,但各當事方有效地約定或已經有效地約定將爭議提交接受管轄權的另一國家法院或付諸仲裁者除外。”這種扣押“關聯船”的創(chuàng)新,是一種單邊舉措,這將促使擁有多艘船舶的所有人不停地更新了解其船舶抵達地所在國家的法律,然而這也可能使部分參與者找到防范措施來更好地隱藏相關船舶的真正實益所有人的身份。愛沙尼亞政府贊同海商法原則和規(guī)范的統一化,而不贊同追求盡管創(chuàng)新卻單邊的立法行動。從這種意義上講,愛沙尼亞將和大多數沿海國家保持一致。

船舶不應當因同一海事請求被再次扣押或多次扣押,但下列情況除外:(a)就同一海事請求已提供的關于該船舶的擔保在性質或金額上不適當,但其擔保的累計金額以不超過船舶的價值為限;(b)已提供擔保的人不能或有可能不能履行某些或全部義務;(c)被扣押的船舶或早先提供的擔保因下述原因之一而被釋放:(i)請求人根據合理的原因提出申請或予以同意或(ii)請求人無法采取合理的措施阻止釋放。

從法律意義上講,提交船舶扣押申請并不難,然而仍需要注意一些限制條件和建議。第一,《民訴法》第389條第2款規(guī)定,如果船舶在愛沙尼亞登記且其價值不高于640歐元,法院不得扣押該船舶,相關請求保全問題另通過其他途徑來解決。奇怪的是,這一限制并不適用于扣押在愛沙尼亞海事管理部門登記光船租賃的船舶的情形,雖然這兩種登記的條件基本相同。第二,筆者建議申請書中不僅需要詳細說明海事請求的金額,而且最好列明訴訟費、文件公證費等所有相關費用,后者是為了方便法官計算釋放被扣押船舶所需支付的擔保金數額。第三,哈留省法院的法官指出,當船舶扣押持續(xù)六個月或更長時間時所引發(fā)的問題,比如請求人忘記申請強制拍賣情形下,法院不得自行強制拍賣。另外,法律也沒有規(guī)定變更申請或請求情形下的時效限制。

《民訴法》第384條第1款規(guī)定,在扣押船舶申請書提交之日后的第二個工作日結束之前,法官必須處理該申請,并頒布批準扣押或拒絕扣押的命令。該申請書中的任何缺陷應當在法院規(guī)定的期限內闡明。

法院的扣押船舶命令通過執(zhí)達吏執(zhí)行,其需要向船長當面宣讀該命令,并查封相關船舶文件。查封船舶聲明的格式,由司法部2001年2月19日頒布的第13號命令(RTL,19.02.2001,22,303)規(guī)定。通過該格式可知,上述聲明中列明的查封,應當由執(zhí)達吏、作為債務人代表的船長、申請人的代表和其他證人簽字。該聲明中的船舶描述應該與其登記文件中的描述一致。

反擔保。法院可以要求申請人按法院要求提供某一種類和某一金額的擔保,以補償扣押可能對被告造成并可能應由請求人負責的任何損失,包括但不限于下述情況可能對該被告造成的損失或損害:(a)扣押錯誤或不公正、(b)要求和提供的擔保過多。

《船舶財產法》并未照搬《1999年扣船公約》第6條第1款,而《民訴法》第383條規(guī)定與該公約內容大致相同。實際上,2005年《民訴法》第141條規(guī)定,申請人承擔提供反擔保的法定義務,法院對是否需要提供反擔保并不享有裁量權。該規(guī)定與《1999年扣船公約》中的法定義務沖突。2009年1月1日生效的《民訴法》修正案(RT I 2008,59,330)已經刪除了上述第141條。然而,該修正案第383條也引入了若干補充規(guī)定:該條第11款規(guī)定了反擔保的限制條件,涉及債權請求的案件中,若法院要求申請人提供反擔保,其金額應不得低于該請求金額的5%或32歐元,也不得高于32000歐元;該條第12款規(guī)定,考慮到申請人的財務狀況和案件的特殊情況,法院可以部分或完全免除申請人的反擔保義務,也可以命令申請人以分期付款的形式支付反擔保。哈留省法院的船舶扣押實踐表明,要求申請人提供所請求金額15%的反擔保,有時候對申請人來說負擔過重。

申請人應該賠償被申請人損失的情形包括:a)船舶扣押申請書已經生效,法院判決不支持當事人提交的海事請求的,或法院程序依據不屬于當事人雙方同意仲裁條款的其他理由終止該扣押的;b)扣押船舶申請書中未列明海事請求的;c)由于訴訟請求未按時提交法院,法院取消船舶扣押命令致使船舶扣押解除的。損失賠償請求之訴,自上述a)至c)項所規(guī)定之日起的兩個月后失效。

被扣押船舶的釋放、替代船舶扣押的其他形式擔保。《1999年扣船公約》第4條和《船舶財產法》第783條均規(guī)定,被扣押的船舶應在以令人滿意的方式提供充分擔保后予以釋放,但船舶因有關船舶所有權和占有的任何爭議、以及船舶共有人之間有關船舶的使用或收益的任何爭議所列的任何海事請求而被扣押的情況除外。在當事人雙方未就擔保充分性和形式達成一致的情形下,法院有權決定擔保的種類和金額,但以不超過被扣押船舶的價值為限。為釋放被扣押船舶而提供擔保的任何請求,不得解釋為(被申請人)對所承擔責任的確認,也不得解釋為(被申請人)對責任限制權利的放棄。

三、船舶優(yōu)先權及其行使

《船舶財產法》第72條至78條和《1993年日內瓦公約》,規(guī)定了船舶優(yōu)先權。然而該公約第13條第2款的規(guī)定(“本公約中的任何規(guī)定均不得對國家所有或經營并且僅充作政府非商業(yè)性服務的任何船舶產生任何權利或對其行使任何權利”),并未照搬進《船舶財產法》中。該法第1條第3款規(guī)定如下:“船舶優(yōu)先權依據本法以及愛沙尼亞加入的國際公約產生和消滅,無論其所擔保的海事請求是針對已登記的(即:視為準不動產)的船舶或未登記的(即:視為動產)船舶?！?/p>

依據《船舶財產法》第72條,船舶優(yōu)先權是為了擔保海事請求的實現而設立于船舶的法定擔保。該權利不需要進行船舶登記。船舶優(yōu)先權依據與船舶使用相關的,向船舶所有人、船舶經營人或船長所提出的海事請求而產生。這些特定海事請求由于有船舶作擔保,因此優(yōu)先于其他海事請求。

船舶優(yōu)先權的特征,可以從三方面闡述。第一,船舶優(yōu)先權的一年存續(xù)期間,總是與船舶相聯系。無論船舶買受人是否知道該船舶上附有船舶優(yōu)先權,該權利隨著船舶所有權的轉讓而轉讓,船舶優(yōu)先權也隨著登記地或船旗的變化而轉讓(《船舶財產法》第73條)。這一特征值得二手船舶的買受人以及船舶債權人注意。船舶優(yōu)先權這一特性,也使得法官更容易作出是否扣押船舶的命令,因為此情形下海事請求的確認只需針對船舶,而不需考慮海事請求發(fā)生時和船舶扣押執(zhí)行時的船舶所有人或光船承租人是否相同。該法第782條第2款第5項也值得注意,就船舶扣押問題而言,船舶優(yōu)先權所列的被請求人范圍比某一具體請求所針對的被請求人更寬。因海事請求提起的船舶扣押申請可以針對船舶所有人或光船承租人,而因船舶優(yōu)先權提起船舶扣押申請情形下還可以針對其他債務人——比如船舶管理人或經營人(任何reeder①依據《商船法》第68條,“reeder”被定義為“使用在自己名下的船舶從事經濟事務并持有海上運輸活動許可證的人”,這一許可證由愛沙尼亞海事局頒發(fā)。)。第二,作為擔保的船舶優(yōu)先權,有可能使法院程序開始后進入強制拍賣被扣押船舶階段。第三,《船舶財產法》第74條第1款規(guī)定的有優(yōu)先順序的具有船舶優(yōu)先權的海事請求,優(yōu)先于包括船舶抵押權在內的其他請求權。

《船舶財產法》第75條規(guī)定,船舶優(yōu)先權自其產生之日起滿一年不行使將消滅,此一年期限,原則上不得間斷,但依法禁止扣押船舶的中止期間除外。涉及船長和船員的工資或其他款項支付的案件,該一年期限自工資或其他款項應當支付之日起算,其他船舶優(yōu)先權自其所擔保的海事請求產生之日起算。

海事請求轉移的,其船舶優(yōu)先權隨之轉移。但具有船舶優(yōu)先權的海事請求人,無權依據保險合同(就保險人向船舶所有人支付的保險賠償金)要求賠償(《船舶財產法》第76條)。

船舶優(yōu)先權的項目及其優(yōu)先順序?！洞柏敭a法》第74條第1款和《1993年日內瓦公約》第4條,適用列舉式方法把船舶優(yōu)先權劃分為五項。該法和該公約均認可依據法律規(guī)定可能產生其他種類的船舶優(yōu)先權,但它們的優(yōu)先順序排在船舶抵押權之后。如今,愛沙尼亞法所規(guī)定的船舶優(yōu)先權,只有上述五項。

具有船舶優(yōu)先權的五項海事請求如下:

(1)船長、高級船員和其他船上在編人員由于在船上任職而應得到工資和其他款項的給付請求,包括遣返費用和應為他們支付的社會保險費;②應該注意的是,《1993年日內瓦公約》第9條第2款第(a)項的愛沙尼亞譯文有誤。很明顯,該公約規(guī)定船舶優(yōu)先權自其產生之日起一年不行使而消滅,起算時間為請求人“從船上離職之時”,而譯文翻譯為自請求人“從船上卸貨之時”之日起算!當然,該譯文非官方譯本?！洞柏敭a法》第75條第2款第(a)項規(guī)定“起算時間自請求人工資結賬”,是正確的。

(2)直接與船舶營運有關的、無論是在陸地或水上發(fā)生的人身傷亡提出的賠償請求;

(3)就船舶的救助報酬提出的給付請求;

(4)就港口、運河和其他水路手續(xù)費和引航費提出的繳付請求;

(5)根據侵權行為提出的索賠請求,其由于船舶營運直接造成的損失所引起,但不包括船舶所載運的貨物、集裝箱和旅客物品的損失。

那么,依據《商船法典》第110條至118條①在2005年適用作為私法的《商船法》之后,由372條構成的《商船法典》中的28條涉及公法的規(guī)定,仍然保留了下來。的規(guī)定,由海事管理部門支出的,與沉沒財產的船舶、沉船、貨物或殘骸的清除有關的墊付費用,是否屬于船舶優(yōu)先權擔保的范圍?海事管理部門被授權的事項有:要求船舶所有人清理上述財產;確定清除的期限、路線和手段(涉及國家海軍或其他軍隊財產的清除期限除外);安排清理或摧毀直接危害航行安全、人身安全和健康或污染海洋環(huán)境的沉船或殘骸等,其費用由船舶所有人承擔。被清除財產的所有人,自實際清除之日起兩年內有權認領該財產,并有義務支付海事管理部門墊付的所有直接和相關費用以及賠償相關損失?！渡檀ǖ洹返?17條的措辭,實際上賦予了海事管理部門對被清除財產的留置權,因為該條文授權海事管理部門出售所涉財產以收回所墊付的費用和相關損失,并將扣除后的剩余款項歸還給所有人。若依據上述程序的出售所得,不足以支付海事管理部門因清除、保管和出售所涉財產所產生的所有墊付費用,則視為財產所有人還拖欠海事管理部門這部分差額費用。財產所有人放棄被清除財產的,并不免除其這一費用給付義務。

有觀點認為,在愛沙尼亞,海事管理部門就上述清除所發(fā)生的費用和損失,向被清除財產的所有人提起的請求,應當視為上述具有第五項海事優(yōu)先權的海事請求。若引用《1993年日內瓦公約》第4條第1款第(e)項的表達,將有助于我們更好地理解:“該索賠是由于船舶營運直接造成的有形滅失或損壞所引起的”。該觀點尚未得到法院的認可。基于《船舶財產法》第91條(該條處理申請強制拍賣船舶的海事請求的優(yōu)先受償順序)的相反觀點認為,該條第1款規(guī)定了優(yōu)先撥付“與船舶強制拍賣和查封相關的費用,以及國家為了航行安全而清除航道中船舶所發(fā)生的費用”,該條第2款單獨列舉了“具有海事優(yōu)先權的請求”,后者與《1993年日內瓦公約》第12條第3款完全一致。

《船舶財產法》第74條第2款規(guī)定了依附于船舶的第二項和第五項船舶優(yōu)先權的排除情形:

(a)運輸石油或其他有毒有害物質的船舶,證明已經依據國際公約或國家法律承擔嚴格責任、強制保險或其他財務保證擔保賠付的,對其造成的油污損害提起的賠償請求;

(b)運輸放射性或者具備放射性與有毒、易爆或有害的混合性質的核燃料或放射性廢物。

具有船舶優(yōu)先權的請求的優(yōu)先順序,規(guī)定在《船舶財產法》第77條至第78條中。第77條規(guī)定了本法第74條第1款中所列的具有船舶優(yōu)先權的請求(五項中的任何一項)應當優(yōu)先于包括船舶抵押權在內的其他請求受償的原則。另外,如果存在依據法律產生其他船舶優(yōu)先權的情形,這些權利的受償順序后于船舶抵押權、先于其他請求權。

《船舶財產法》第78條規(guī)定了具有船舶優(yōu)先權的海事請求各項目之間的優(yōu)先順序,合理地給予了海難求助報酬請求權優(yōu)先性,因為救助人的積極性和成功施救對于其他船舶優(yōu)先權實現的可能性是必要的。因多項海難求助報酬請求各自產生的船舶優(yōu)先權,按照與這些海事請求產生的時間相反的順序受償。這些請求產生的起算時間應當自救助行為終止之日起算。當然,就共同海損分擔向船舶所有人提起的請求,以及因船舶碰撞提起的賠償請求,其與救助報酬相對應的部分,也具有船舶優(yōu)先權。上述其他四項船舶優(yōu)先權,不分先后,同時受償;不足受償的,按照比例受償(它們之間受償順序平等)。

船舶優(yōu)先權的行使?！洞柏敭a法》第74條第1款和《1993年日內瓦公約》第10條所規(guī)定的具有船舶優(yōu)先權的海事請求人,能行使船舶優(yōu)先權。原債權人以及受讓原債權人所轉讓船舶優(yōu)先權的第三人,均被允許行使船舶優(yōu)先權?！洞柏敭a法》第83條規(guī)定了行使程序的適用,船舶優(yōu)先權的行使直接針對的是船舶占有人。某些情形下,其行使也針對船舶所有人。《船舶財產法》第五部分第一章“行使程序”第79條至第93條規(guī)定了“行使程序”,船舶優(yōu)先權和船舶抵押權適用相同的程序,都涉及針對船舶的付款請求。

船舶航行期間產生的海事請求具有的船舶優(yōu)先權,不適用于該航程所賺取的運費。船舶優(yōu)先權也不適用于船上的貨物。《船舶財產法》第84條明確規(guī)定,貨物和運費不屬于船舶扣押的范圍。

《船舶財產法》第2條第2款規(guī)定,船舶的附屬物,適用《愛沙尼亞共和國民法》(以下簡稱《民法》)總則第57條和第58條有關附屬物的規(guī)定(最新修正案RT I 2002,35,216,于2009年7月1日生效)?！睹穹ā返?8條將船舶的文件(包括技術文件)視為其附屬物。《民法》第57條第3款規(guī)定,轉移所有權或針對動產的任何權利時所產生的義務,也及于附屬物。列入船舶財產目錄的物品視為船舶的附屬物。

《船舶財產法》第79條第1款規(guī)定,針對應當強制登記的已登記船舶或海船提起的給付請求,慮及《船舶財產法》的特性,適用2005年《愛沙尼亞共和國執(zhí)行程序法》(以下簡稱《執(zhí)行程序法》,最新修正案自2010年1月1日生效)中對債務人的不動產行使給付請求權的有關規(guī)定。船舶的查封和保管,依據有關動產查封的法律行使,但《執(zhí)行程序法》第64條關于登記船舶的特別說明的情形除外。由于《船舶財產法》第五部分和《執(zhí)行程序法》同時使用了“arrest”(扣押)及“seizure”(查封)這兩個術語(而在愛沙尼亞語中這兩術語由“arestimine”這同一個單詞所涵蓋),可能導致了一些誤解和混亂。

向在其他國家登記的未登記船舶行使給付請求權,依據《執(zhí)行程序法》(《船舶財產法》第79條第2款)中對債務人的動產行使給付請求權的有關規(guī)定。該款下一項規(guī)定“對應當在船舶登記機構登記的船舶行使給付請求權的,適用《執(zhí)行程序法》中不要求在船舶登記簿中有記錄的已登記船舶的有關規(guī)定”。

《船舶財產法》中對已登記船舶行使給付請求權的有關規(guī)定,是另一個強制規(guī)范。本法第80條規(guī)定:“(1)依據本法第79條第1款對物(即登記船舶)的給付請求權之行使,只可能通過強制拍賣的途徑實現,但強制行政情形除外;(2)建造中船舶的強制拍賣,可能發(fā)生在其登記之前,該拍賣請求可以在船舶登記之前提交?！?/p>

上述權利的行使,可以直接向船舶占有人提起,也可以向船舶所有人提起。法律特別規(guī)定,船舶扣押的范圍不應當擴至船舶上的貨物或其所賺取的運費。

船舶扣押和查封,由執(zhí)達吏執(zhí)行,他將從船長手中沒收船舶文件,并按照司法部頒布的標準格式頒發(fā)一份聲明書。聲明書中對船舶的描述,應當與船舶登記機構的描述一致。法院會指定一位管理人負責保養(yǎng)被扣押的船舶。該管理人受到司法權利的控制,聽從法院的命令。而且該管理人不得使用被扣押船舶。

船舶的強制拍賣,包括《船舶財產法》中所規(guī)定的諸如通知和公告義務等安排。強制拍賣的通知應當向以下相關方發(fā)出:1)船舶登記機構;2)所有已知的享有擔保性權利的人;3)所有已知的具有船舶優(yōu)先權的海事請求人;4)船舶所有人。強制拍賣公告應當包括所有船舶優(yōu)先權權利的明確信息,并依據《執(zhí)行程序法》第84條第2款的要求發(fā)布。該條規(guī)定,在船舶拍賣之前,拍賣公告應當在“官方公告”和公開網絡上提前十天發(fā)布。如果船舶價值超過6400歐元,拍賣公告還應當在拍賣所在地發(fā)行的至少一份報紙上公布。在權利請求人或債務人的請求下,執(zhí)達吏應當在其他公開出版物上發(fā)布拍賣公告,此費用由請求人承擔。強制拍賣通知和公告中的船舶描述應當與船舶登記中的描述一致。

強制拍賣的已登記船舶或應當強制登記的船舶的所有權轉移,自其強制拍賣聲明書生效時轉移,而未登記船舶的所有權轉移,自船舶占有轉移時轉移。

除《執(zhí)行程序法》所規(guī)定的情形之外,若該船舶被拆除并按部分出售時所得價款明顯高于強制拍賣所得價款,關于該船舶行使的程序也有可能終止。

船舶強制拍賣情形下,所得價款應當依據《船舶財產法》第91條所列的如下順序分配:

(1)與船舶強制出售、扣押相關的費用,國家為確保航行安全從航道中移除該船舶而產生的費用;

(2)具有船舶優(yōu)先權的請求;

(3)具有船舶抵押權的請求;

(4)其他請求。

由于船舶的強制拍賣,在船舶購買人的要求下,執(zhí)達吏應簽發(fā)一份證明該船舶上沒有船舶優(yōu)先權、抵押權和其他留置權的證書。在依據法律要求向上述所有權利人都發(fā)出強制拍賣通知的情形下,依據該證書,該船舶登記上的所有權利應當消滅。經船舶購買人同意保留的權利不消滅。

四、結 論

至今,愛沙尼亞在海事立法方面已取得突出進展。尤其在船舶扣押、海事請求和船舶優(yōu)先權等方面,愛沙尼亞適用了公認的規(guī)范和原則。愛沙尼亞這個海運歷史悠久的濱海小國,正試圖利用其戰(zhàn)略性的地理位置發(fā)展國際貿易,因此會順利適應航運領域中國際公認的規(guī)則和法規(guī)。

(中譯:趙麗娟 所在單位:上海交通大學)

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,Merin?ue ja meriv?lg: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,海洋法與海商法教授,愛沙尼亞海事學院校長,電子郵箱:heiki.lindpere@emara.ee。作者曾作為愛沙尼亞代表團負責人,出席了1999年討論船舶扣押議題的日內瓦會議,并代表愛沙尼亞政府簽署了《1999年扣船公約》。作者也是海牙仲裁常設委員會成員和聯合國海洋法會議的仲裁人或調解人。

*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.