Lindpere Heiki

海事請(qǐng)求、船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和船舶扣押：愛(ài)沙尼亞視角

Lindpere Heiki*

本文旨在考察訴訟前船舶扣押的國(guó)際法律框架和愛(ài)沙尼亞相關(guān)國(guó)內(nèi)立法以及實(shí)踐,介紹相關(guān)國(guó)際公約和愛(ài)沙尼亞海商法發(fā)展的概況。第一,本文介紹了關(guān)于船舶扣押的兩部國(guó)際公約——《1952年統(tǒng)一海船扣押某些規(guī)定的國(guó)際公約》和《1999年國(guó)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(tǒng)一船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)某些法律規(guī)定的國(guó)際公約》和《1993年船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)國(guó)際公約》這兩部有關(guān)船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)的國(guó)際公約,以及愛(ài)沙尼亞相關(guān)國(guó)內(nèi)法的發(fā)展情況。第二,本文分析了有時(shí)被稱為“有特權(quán)的請(qǐng)求”的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的性質(zhì)、所包含項(xiàng)目以及執(zhí)行程序。本文也討論了愛(ài)沙尼亞法下船舶扣押和釋放被扣押船舶的一些實(shí)踐問(wèn)題,這些問(wèn)題對(duì)于海事業(yè)務(wù)中所涉船旗國(guó)或個(gè)人有重要參考價(jià)值。

海事請(qǐng)求 船舶優(yōu)先權(quán) 扣押 查封 執(zhí)行

一、引 言

世界海事實(shí)踐中形成了海商法中的若干獨(dú)特制度,如共同海損、承運(yùn)人的責(zé)任限制、承運(yùn)人免責(zé)、海上財(cái)產(chǎn)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(jù)海事請(qǐng)求或船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)扣押船舶,②《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)商船航運(yùn)法》,由愛(ài)沙尼亞議會(huì)通過(guò),于2002年10月1日生效。See Official Gazette,I,2002,55,345.即屬于這些獨(dú)特制度的一種,這種制度使得債權(quán)人有可能通過(guò)法院扣押船舶以確保其有效請(qǐng)求權(quán)獲得可接受的擔(dān)保。船舶扣押的復(fù)雜規(guī)定,將面對(duì)兩種沖突的價(jià)值追求:一方面,其旨在保護(hù)船舶航行過(guò)程的服務(wù)提供者的利益——收回欠款;另一方面,保護(hù)船舶所有人和經(jīng)營(yíng)人的利益——在燃油、其它物料供應(yīng)及港口費(fèi)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(chǎn)——船舶,作為回報(bào),必須接受這種訴訟前的船舶扣押制度,以確保債權(quán)人可以通過(guò)提起不履行之訴或英國(guó)法下的對(duì)物訴訟①Robert Grime,Shipping Law,2nd ed.,London:Sweet&Maxwell,1991,pp.11～20.使海事請(qǐng)求獲得擔(dān)保。

“船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)”、“海事請(qǐng)求”和“船舶扣押”等概念,也以有趣的方式出現(xiàn)在愛(ài)沙尼亞國(guó)內(nèi)法中的相應(yīng)位置。愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó),在1918年2月24日首次宣布獨(dú)立之后,又于1991年8月21日再次恢復(fù)了其喪失的獨(dú)立地位。1991年12月,愛(ài)沙尼亞通過(guò)了《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)商船航運(yùn)法典》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《商船法典》),該法典由372條規(guī)定構(gòu)成,其接受了港口所有人可以命令滯留船舶最長(zhǎng)達(dá)72小時(shí)的規(guī)定,提供給債權(quán)人的這三天期限,用以獲得法院批準(zhǔn)扣押債務(wù)人船舶的命令。該法典中的私法條款,已被2002年的《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)商船航運(yùn)法》(以下簡(jiǎn)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(quán)利。當(dāng)時(shí),例如《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)民事訴訟程序法》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《民訴法》)第139條規(guī)定,船舶扣押制度僅適用于擔(dān)保有關(guān)救助報(bào)酬的海事請(qǐng)求。視船舶為準(zhǔn)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)和將船舶登記主管機(jī)關(guān)由愛(ài)沙尼亞海事管理部門移至省法院和市法院的《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》),③《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》,于1998年3月11日由愛(ài)沙尼亞議會(huì)通過(guò),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(nèi)容,其僅依據(jù)《1993年船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)國(guó)際公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》)中的內(nèi)容規(guī)定了船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的封閉性項(xiàng)目。依據(jù)國(guó)際法上的國(guó)家繼承原則,愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)仍是《1926年統(tǒng)一船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)某些法律規(guī)定的國(guó)際公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《1926年布魯塞爾公約》)④《1926年統(tǒng)一船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)和抵押權(quán)某些法律規(guī)定的國(guó)際公約》,于1936年4月10日在布魯塞爾通過(guò),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(guó)?！?926年布魯塞爾公約》賦予船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)更寬泛的定義,比如包括“依據(jù)船長(zhǎng)(無(wú)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(jié)的合同或進(jìn)行的經(jīng)營(yíng)所產(chǎn)生的任何債務(wù)”。實(shí)際上,愛(ài)沙尼亞議會(huì)通過(guò)的國(guó)內(nèi)法與1928年同意并批準(zhǔn)的愛(ài)沙尼亞國(guó)際承諾并未完全保持一致,乃該國(guó)議會(huì)有意之舉。愛(ài)沙尼亞議會(huì)歷時(shí)兩年半時(shí)間,廢除了《1926年布魯塞爾公約》并消除該公約引發(fā)的爭(zhēng)議。2004年9月5日,愛(ài)沙尼亞成為《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》的成員國(guó)。①See Official Gazette,Ⅱ,2002,37,176.

1999年討論船舶扣押的日內(nèi)瓦會(huì)議宣布召開(kāi)時(shí),愛(ài)沙尼亞政府決定不加入《1952年統(tǒng)一海船扣押某些規(guī)定的國(guó)際公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《1952年扣船公約》),②關(guān)于中華人民共和國(guó),其并未成為這一個(gè)或其他一些布魯塞爾公約的締約國(guó),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(guó)駐比利時(shí)王國(guó)大使館致函通知比利時(shí)外交部部長(zhǎng),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(chǎn)生的國(guó)際權(quán)利和義務(wù)將由中華人民共和國(guó)政府承擔(dān)。而是成為《1999年國(guó)際扣船公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)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(guó)。而事實(shí)上,后一公約只是對(duì)前一公約文本作了少量更改。依據(jù)《1999年扣船公約》修訂的《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》,有助于迅速填補(bǔ)愛(ài)沙尼亞國(guó)內(nèi)立法中有關(guān)船舶扣押規(guī)定的空白。如今,在愛(ài)沙尼亞適用《1999年扣船公約》的唯一問(wèn)題是愛(ài)沙尼亞語(yǔ)公約譯本中出現(xiàn)的誤譯,這一點(diǎn)律師們應(yīng)該引起注意。④例如,日內(nèi)瓦《1999年扣船公約》第4條第1款規(guī)定,為所涉海事請(qǐng)求提供充分擔(dān)保的情形下法官應(yīng)當(dāng)(shall)釋放該船舶,而在愛(ài)沙尼亞語(yǔ)譯本中,“應(yīng)當(dāng)”一詞被“可以(may)”所代替!?法院僅對(duì)決定船舶釋放申請(qǐng)所提供的擔(dān)保金額是否充分享有決定裁量權(quán),卻無(wú)權(quán)決定船舶扣押的目的被滿足情形下(即充分擔(dān)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(yīng)該考慮到,任何情形下,《1999年扣船公約》應(yīng)當(dāng)和修訂后的《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》一起解讀,如有必要,還應(yīng)該和《民訴法》一起解讀,因?yàn)樵摴s的所有條款并非都包含在上述立法中。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第四部分“海事請(qǐng)求和船舶扣押的保全措施”包括三個(gè)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。《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》的總則部分規(guī)定,“為保全海事請(qǐng)求或訴訟,已登記和未登記船舶之扣押,依據(jù)本法和愛(ài)沙尼亞加入的國(guó)際公約之規(guī)定?！雹菰瓌t上,依據(jù)《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)憲法》第123條規(guī)定,在與憲法之外的其他國(guó)內(nèi)法相沖突時(shí),愛(ài)沙尼亞議會(huì)依法批準(zhǔn)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(jù)本法第781條所列海事請(qǐng)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?！痹摋l款的第二句使《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》成為與《民訴法》相關(guān)的“特別法”。而實(shí)踐中,《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》為習(xí)慣優(yōu)先適用《民訴法》(其與《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》的制定依據(jù)不同)的法官制造了一些問(wèn)題,有時(shí)法官由于未知曉這種(海事請(qǐng)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(quán)人的出庭律師有時(shí)需要反復(fù)陳述船舶扣押申請(qǐng),直至債務(wù)人的船舶被扣押為止。

一般情形下,船舶在準(zhǔn)備起航的港口或近海轉(zhuǎn)運(yùn)碼頭被扣押。但是,《1982年聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱為《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》)第28條“對(duì)外國(guó)船舶的民事管轄權(quán)”的規(guī)定,允許兩種例外:“……(2)沿海國(guó)不得為任何民事訴訟的目的而對(duì)船舶執(zhí)行或加以逮捕,但涉及該船舶本身在通過(guò)沿海國(guó)水域的航行中或?yàn)樵摵叫械哪康亩袚?dān)的義務(wù)或因而負(fù)擔(dān)的責(zé)任,則不在此限。(3)第2款不妨害沿海國(guó)按照其法律為任何民事訴訟的目的而對(duì)在領(lǐng)海內(nèi)停泊或駛離內(nèi)水后通過(guò)領(lǐng)海的外國(guó)船舶從事執(zhí)行或加以逮捕的權(quán)利?！?/p>

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

二、船舶扣押:愛(ài)沙尼亞立法和實(shí)踐

外國(guó)債務(wù)人的船舶在愛(ài)沙尼亞能否被扣押的問(wèn)題,于1998年第一次真正受到質(zhì)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(yùn)股份公司所有。1998年11月18日,塔林市法院的法官梅爾·奧達(dá)卡斯女士命令扣押了該輪。該輪在某一德國(guó)船廠接受修理后抵達(dá)了塔林,其欠下了總金額達(dá)430萬(wàn)德國(guó)馬克的兩筆債務(wù)。實(shí)際上該船廠主動(dòng)放棄了留置權(quán)這一擔(dān)?！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(ài)沙尼亞律師公會(huì)的會(huì)員事務(wù)律師阿斯科·波哈拉先生申請(qǐng)扣船。阿斯科·波哈拉先生依據(jù)《民訴法》第139條第3款和第10款的規(guī)定,成功說(shuō)服法官頒布了扣押船舶命令。第139條第3款視船舶為債權(quán)人的經(jīng)濟(jì)單位,第139條第10款規(guī)定了債權(quán)人在債務(wù)人出現(xiàn)的地方享有拘留債務(wù)人的權(quán)利。然而,該案還涉及另一個(gè)有趣的法律問(wèn)題——該輪也同時(shí)被依法抵押給某一德國(guó)銀行。該案中,愛(ài)沙尼亞法對(duì)船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的界定本來(lái)可能會(huì)真正遭到質(zhì)疑,因?yàn)榇瑥S的某部分債權(quán)——船長(zhǎng)支付的費(fèi)用——依據(jù)《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(quán)。不過(guò)有關(guān)該法律問(wèn)題的判決并不是由愛(ài)沙尼亞法院做出,當(dāng)?shù)胤ㄔ簝H僅是接受了兩個(gè)德國(guó)債權(quán)人關(guān)于該輪在鹿特丹被強(qiáng)制拍賣的價(jià)款分配所達(dá)成的協(xié)議。

任何沿海國(guó)都應(yīng)該在其相關(guān)的國(guó)內(nèi)法中,制定有關(guān)扣押?？吭谄涓劭诘拇胺矫娴倪m當(dāng)條款。例如,2003年2月,懸掛馬耳他國(guó)旗、由貝麗拓貝有限責(zé)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(jì)23167美元的工資款,對(duì)該輪享有海事請(qǐng)求。值得注意的是,他申請(qǐng)扣押船舶時(shí)已喪失了船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),因?yàn)橐栏接诖暗拇皟?yōu)先權(quán)因一年期限的經(jīng)過(guò)已經(jīng)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(qǐng)求與在愛(ài)沙尼亞申請(qǐng)扣押船舶命令之間的唯一聯(lián)系是該輪出現(xiàn)在塔林?？垩捍暗姆ㄔ旱胤ㄟm用于所有在愛(ài)沙尼亞被扣押的船舶,而不考慮該船舶船旗或船旗國(guó)是否已經(jīng)加入關(guān)于船舶扣押的有關(guān)國(guó)際公約。請(qǐng)求人總是享有擇地訴訟的權(quán)利,因?yàn)槠溆袡?quán)選擇在最合適的管轄法院申請(qǐng)扣押船舶。

在一等水手拉文先生的協(xié)助下,當(dāng)事人向塔林市法院提起了兩次船舶扣押的申請(qǐng),因?yàn)榈谝晃环ü僖罁?jù)錯(cuò)誤的理由拒絕了首次船舶扣押申請(qǐng)。更具體地說(shuō),第一次船舶扣押申請(qǐng)?jiān)獾骄芙^,是由于法官認(rèn)為被告的破產(chǎn)情況未能得到證明,而且過(guò)去并未有任何規(guī)定阻止當(dāng)事人提交該扣船申請(qǐng)。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(jīng)駛離港口的情形下,請(qǐng)求人提交船舶扣押申請(qǐng)且要求繳納訴訟費(fèi)的做法就屬于無(wú)效行為了。第二天早上,同一扣船申請(qǐng)被提交給另一法官,她立即頒發(fā)了扣押船舶命令。

海事請(qǐng)求,是與船舶運(yùn)營(yíng)相關(guān)的、向船舶所有人提出的一種請(qǐng)求權(quán),該請(qǐng)求權(quán)使得債權(quán)人享有申請(qǐng)扣押船舶、或者使船舶所有人及其雇傭人能享受責(zé)任限制的權(quán)利。

在愛(ài)沙尼亞,申請(qǐng)人只能根據(jù)海事請(qǐng)求扣押船舶,②第781條的一份海事請(qǐng)求清單中列出21個(gè)項(xiàng)目,包括了日內(nèi)瓦《1999年扣船公約》中的全部項(xiàng)目。并且以作為特別法的《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》和包括了部分一般規(guī)范的《民訴法》為依據(jù)?？垩簜鶆?wù)人的財(cái)產(chǎn),在后一法律中被視作權(quán)利保全的措施,其基本要求是請(qǐng)求人須證明若債務(wù)人的財(cái)產(chǎn)不被扣押將可能導(dǎo)致判決難以執(zhí)行或不能執(zhí)行。可見(jiàn),愛(ài)沙尼亞與許多其他國(guó)家的做法不一樣,并未直接將緊迫性問(wèn)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(qǐng)求時(shí)的完整措施項(xiàng)目,該條第2款包含涉及船舶扣押內(nèi)容的扣押被告財(cái)產(chǎn)的規(guī)定。原則上,申請(qǐng)人有必要在船舶?？吭诟劭跁r(shí),而且顯然要在提交申請(qǐng)前(因?yàn)樘峤簧暾?qǐng)會(huì)花費(fèi)一些時(shí)間并且意味著要繳納一筆國(guó)家費(fèi)用)迅速實(shí)現(xiàn)船舶扣押。船舶扣押申請(qǐng)?zhí)岢銮翱梢詾檫@種請(qǐng)求提供擔(dān)保,這種可能性在第382條第1款已經(jīng)有預(yù)見(jiàn);但是,該款第2項(xiàng)也規(guī)定,法院頒布扣押船舶命令的情形下,申請(qǐng)人有義務(wù)在扣押船舶后一個(gè)月這一最長(zhǎng)期限之內(nèi)提起訴訟請(qǐng)求。該法第381條規(guī)定了船舶扣押申請(qǐng)書中所包含內(nèi)容的詳細(xì)項(xiàng)目。

依據(jù)《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第782條第2款,為保全海事請(qǐng)求而提交的船舶扣押申請(qǐng)書被法院批準(zhǔn)的情形包括:

(1)在海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí)擁有船舶的人對(duì)該請(qǐng)求負(fù)有責(zé)任,并且在執(zhí)行扣押時(shí)仍是該船的所有人;

(2)在海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí)船舶的光船承租人對(duì)該請(qǐng)求負(fù)有責(zé)任,并且在實(shí)施扣押時(shí)是該船的光船承租人或所有人;

(3)請(qǐng)求所依據(jù)的是在該船舶所設(shè)立的受限制的物權(quán);

(4)請(qǐng)求與船舶的所有權(quán)或占有有關(guān);

(5)對(duì)船舶所有人、光船承租人、船舶管理人或經(jīng)營(yíng)人提出的請(qǐng)求,具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)。

在決定是否扣押船舶時(shí),法官首先應(yīng)當(dāng)確認(rèn)存在有效的海事請(qǐng)求、該索賠針對(duì)的被索賠人正確;在該海事請(qǐng)求有效且具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的情形下,法官有必要確認(rèn)被扣押的是否是同一艘船舶(通過(guò)船舶國(guó)際海事組織編號(hào)來(lái)辨識(shí))。

《1999年扣船公約》第3條第2款規(guī)定了“姊妹船”可扣押原則?！洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)法》第782條第3款也規(guī)定:在海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí),對(duì)該海事請(qǐng)求負(fù)有責(zé)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(guān)船舶的所有權(quán)或占有的爭(zhēng)議。但是,因同一海事請(qǐng)求有可能被扣押的任何其他船舶,不應(yīng)被扣押,但下述情形除外:已經(jīng)提供擔(dān)保的性質(zhì)或數(shù)額不充分;或該輪依據(jù)下述兩項(xiàng)海事請(qǐng)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(jīng)營(yíng)有直接聯(lián)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(guān)的某一船舶或其所運(yùn)載的貨物構(gòu)成環(huán)境損害威脅時(shí)對(duì)船舶實(shí)施的救助所發(fā)生的特別賠償。

一些國(guó)家,比如法國(guó)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(guān)聯(lián)船”,該船舶與負(fù)有債務(wù)或發(fā)生海事請(qǐng)求的船舶由同一公司實(shí)際擁有。然而,為了避免“姊妹船”被扣押,大量航運(yùn)實(shí)踐,已經(jīng)形成了每一艘船舶由形式上合法的另一公司單獨(dú)擁有、而此公司實(shí)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(shè)的“關(guān)聯(lián)船”及扣押“關(guān)聯(lián)船的管轄權(quán)”這些術(shù)語(yǔ),在海商法和管轄規(guī)則范圍內(nèi),屬于獨(dú)特法律制度。南非“關(guān)聯(lián)船”管轄方面的海事實(shí)踐,被證明是一項(xiàng)重要的創(chuàng)新,尤其是在配合外國(guó)法院或仲裁庭行使旨在獲得擔(dān)保的扣押船舶的權(quán)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(xiàn)的原則——該條款通過(guò)規(guī)定船舶扣押所在地的法院應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)案件的實(shí)體問(wèn)題享有管轄權(quán),使得申請(qǐng)人有“擇地訴訟”的可能。但是《1999年扣船公約》通過(guò)如下規(guī)定解決了上述矛盾:“扣船實(shí)施地國(guó)家法院或用以使船舶獲釋的擔(dān)保提供地國(guó)家法院,應(yīng)具有審理案件實(shí)體問(wèn)題的管轄權(quán),但各當(dāng)事方有效地約定或已經(jīng)有效地約定將爭(zhēng)議提交接受管轄權(quán)的另一國(guó)家法院或付諸仲裁者除外?！边@種扣押“關(guān)聯(lián)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(dá)地所在國(guó)家的法律,然而這也可能使部分參與者找到防范措施來(lái)更好地隱藏相關(guān)船舶的真正實(shí)益所有人的身份。愛(ài)沙尼亞政府贊同海商法原則和規(guī)范的統(tǒng)一化,而不贊同追求盡管創(chuàng)新卻單邊的立法行動(dòng)。從這種意義上講,愛(ài)沙尼亞將和大多數(shù)沿海國(guó)家保持一致。

船舶不應(yīng)當(dāng)因同一海事請(qǐng)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(qǐng)求已提供的關(guān)于該船舶的擔(dān)保在性質(zhì)或金額上不適當(dāng),但其擔(dān)保的累計(jì)金額以不超過(guò)船舶的價(jià)值為限;(b)已提供擔(dān)保的人不能或有可能不能履行某些或全部義務(wù);(c)被扣押的船舶或早先提供的擔(dān)保因下述原因之一而被釋放:(i)請(qǐng)求人根據(jù)合理的原因提出申請(qǐng)或予以同意或(ii)請(qǐng)求人無(wú)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(qǐng)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(ài)沙尼亞登記且其價(jià)值不高于640歐元,法院不得扣押該船舶,相關(guān)請(qǐng)求保全問(wèn)題另通過(guò)其他途徑來(lái)解決。奇怪的是,這一限制并不適用于扣押在愛(ài)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(qǐng)書中不僅需要詳細(xì)說(shuō)明海事請(qǐng)求的金額,而且最好列明訴訟費(fèi)、文件公證費(fèi)等所有相關(guān)費(fèi)用,后者是為了方便法官計(jì)算釋放被扣押船舶所需支付的擔(dān)保金數(shù)額。第三,哈留省法院的法官指出,當(dāng)船舶扣押持續(xù)六個(gè)月或更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間時(shí)所引發(fā)的問(wèn)題,比如請(qǐng)求人忘記申請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制拍賣情形下,法院不得自行強(qiáng)制拍賣。另外,法律也沒(méi)有規(guī)定變更申請(qǐng)或請(qǐng)求情形下的時(shí)效限制。

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

法院的扣押船舶命令通過(guò)執(zhí)達(dá)吏執(zhí)行,其需要向船長(zhǎng)當(dāng)面宣讀該命令,并查封相關(guān)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(hào)命令(RTL,19.02.2001,22,303)規(guī)定。通過(guò)該格式可知,上述聲明中列明的查封,應(yīng)當(dāng)由執(zhí)達(dá)吏、作為債務(wù)人代表的船長(zhǎng)、申請(qǐng)人的代表和其他證人簽字。該聲明中的船舶描述應(yīng)該與其登記文件中的描述一致。

反擔(dān)保。法院可以要求申請(qǐng)人按法院要求提供某一種類和某一金額的擔(dān)保,以補(bǔ)償扣押可能對(duì)被告造成并可能應(yīng)由請(qǐng)求人負(fù)責(zé)的任何損失,包括但不限于下述情況可能對(duì)該被告造成的損失或損害:(a)扣押錯(cuò)誤或不公正、(b)要求和提供的擔(dān)保過(guò)多。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)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(nèi)容大致相同。實(shí)際上,2005年《民訴法》第141條規(guī)定,申請(qǐng)人承擔(dān)提供反擔(dān)保的法定義務(wù),法院對(duì)是否需要提供反擔(dān)保并不享有裁量權(quán)。該規(guī)定與《1999年扣船公約》中的法定義務(wù)沖突。2009年1月1日生效的《民訴法》修正案(RT I 2008,59,330)已經(jīng)刪除了上述第141條。然而,該修正案第383條也引入了若干補(bǔ)充規(guī)定:該條第11款規(guī)定了反擔(dān)保的限制條件,涉及債權(quán)請(qǐng)求的案件中,若法院要求申請(qǐng)人提供反擔(dān)保,其金額應(yīng)不得低于該請(qǐng)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(qǐng)人的財(cái)務(wù)狀況和案件的特殊情況,法院可以部分或完全免除申請(qǐng)人的反擔(dān)保義務(wù),也可以命令申請(qǐng)人以分期付款的形式支付反擔(dān)保。哈留省法院的船舶扣押實(shí)踐表明,要求申請(qǐng)人提供所請(qǐng)求金額15%的反擔(dān)保,有時(shí)候?qū)ι暾?qǐng)人來(lái)說(shuō)負(fù)擔(dān)過(guò)重。

申請(qǐng)人應(yīng)該賠償被申請(qǐng)人損失的情形包括:a)船舶扣押申請(qǐng)書已經(jīng)生效,法院判決不支持當(dāng)事人提交的海事請(qǐng)求的,或法院程序依據(jù)不屬于當(dāng)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(qǐng)書中未列明海事請(qǐng)求的;c)由于訴訟請(qǐng)求未按時(shí)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(qǐng)求之訴,自上述a)至c)項(xiàng)所規(guī)定之日起的兩個(gè)月后失效。

被扣押船舶的釋放、替代船舶扣押的其他形式擔(dān)保?！?999年扣船公約》第4條和《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第783條均規(guī)定,被扣押的船舶應(yīng)在以令人滿意的方式提供充分擔(dān)保后予以釋放,但船舶因有關(guān)船舶所有權(quán)和占有的任何爭(zhēng)議、以及船舶共有人之間有關(guān)船舶的使用或收益的任何爭(zhēng)議所列的任何海事請(qǐng)求而被扣押的情況除外。在當(dāng)事人雙方未就擔(dān)保充分性和形式達(dá)成一致的情形下,法院有權(quán)決定擔(dān)保的種類和金額,但以不超過(guò)被扣押船舶的價(jià)值為限。為釋放被扣押船舶而提供擔(dān)保的任何請(qǐng)求,不得解釋為(被申請(qǐng)人)對(duì)所承擔(dān)責(zé)任的確認(rèn),也不得解釋為(被申請(qǐng)人)對(duì)責(zé)任限制權(quán)利的放棄。

三、船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)及其行使

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第72條至78條和《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》,規(guī)定了船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)。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(duì)國(guó)家所有或經(jīng)營(yíng)并且僅充作政府非商業(yè)性服務(wù)的任何船舶產(chǎn)生任何權(quán)利或?qū)ζ湫惺谷魏螜?quán)利”),并未照搬進(jìn)《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》中。該法第1條第3款規(guī)定如下:“船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)依據(jù)本法以及愛(ài)沙尼亞加入的國(guó)際公約產(chǎn)生和消滅,無(wú)論其所擔(dān)保的海事請(qǐng)求是針對(duì)已登記的(即:視為準(zhǔn)不動(dòng)產(chǎn))的船舶或未登記的(即:視為動(dòng)產(chǎn))船舶。”

依據(jù)《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第72條,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)是為了擔(dān)保海事請(qǐng)求的實(shí)現(xiàn)而設(shè)立于船舶的法定擔(dān)保。該權(quán)利不需要進(jìn)行船舶登記。船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)依據(jù)與船舶使用相關(guān)的,向船舶所有人、船舶經(jīng)營(yíng)人或船長(zhǎng)所提出的海事請(qǐng)求而產(chǎn)生。這些特定海事請(qǐng)求由于有船舶作擔(dān)保,因此優(yōu)先于其他海事請(qǐng)求。

船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的特征,可以從三方面闡述。第一,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的一年存續(xù)期間,總是與船舶相聯(lián)系。無(wú)論船舶買受人是否知道該船舶上附有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),該權(quán)利隨著船舶所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)讓而轉(zhuǎn)讓,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)也隨著登記地或船旗的變化而轉(zhuǎn)讓(《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第73條)。這一特征值得二手船舶的買受人以及船舶債權(quán)人注意。船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)這一特性,也使得法官更容易作出是否扣押船舶的命令,因?yàn)榇饲樾蜗潞Ｊ抡?qǐng)求的確認(rèn)只需針對(duì)船舶,而不需考慮海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí)和船舶扣押執(zhí)行時(shí)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(xiàng)也值得注意,就船舶扣押?jiǎn)栴}而言,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)所列的被請(qǐng)求人范圍比某一具體請(qǐng)求所針對(duì)的被請(qǐng)求人更寬。因海事請(qǐng)求提起的船舶扣押申請(qǐng)可以針對(duì)船舶所有人或光船承租人,而因船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)提起船舶扣押申請(qǐng)情形下還可以針對(duì)其他債務(wù)人——比如船舶管理人或經(jīng)營(yíng)人(任何reeder①依據(jù)《商船法》第68條,“reeder”被定義為“使用在自己名下的船舶從事經(jīng)濟(jì)事務(wù)并持有海上運(yùn)輸活動(dòng)許可證的人”,這一許可證由愛(ài)沙尼亞海事局頒發(fā)。)。第二,作為擔(dān)保的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),有可能使法院程序開(kāi)始后進(jìn)入強(qiáng)制拍賣被扣押船舶階段。第三,《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)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(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求,優(yōu)先于包括船舶抵押權(quán)在內(nèi)的其他請(qǐng)求權(quán)。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第75條規(guī)定,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)自其產(chǎn)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(zhǎng)和船員的工資或其他款項(xiàng)支付的案件,該一年期限自工資或其他款項(xiàng)應(yīng)當(dāng)支付之日起算,其他船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)自其所擔(dān)保的海事請(qǐng)求產(chǎn)生之日起算。

海事請(qǐng)求轉(zhuǎn)移的,其船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)隨之轉(zhuǎn)移。但具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求人,無(wú)權(quán)依據(jù)保險(xiǎn)合同(就保險(xiǎn)人向船舶所有人支付的保險(xiǎn)賠償金)要求賠償(《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第76條)。

船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的項(xiàng)目及其優(yōu)先順序。《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第74條第1款和《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》第4條,適用列舉式方法把船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)劃分為五項(xiàng)。該法和該公約均認(rèn)可依據(jù)法律規(guī)定可能產(chǎn)生其他種類的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),但它們的優(yōu)先順序排在船舶抵押權(quán)之后。如今,愛(ài)沙尼亞法所規(guī)定的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),只有上述五項(xiàng)。

具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的五項(xiàng)海事請(qǐng)求如下:

(1)船長(zhǎng)、高級(jí)船員和其他船上在編人員由于在船上任職而應(yīng)得到工資和其他款項(xiàng)的給付請(qǐng)求,包括遣返費(fèi)用和應(yīng)為他們支付的社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)費(fèi);②應(yīng)該注意的是,《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》第9條第2款第(a)項(xiàng)的愛(ài)沙尼亞譯文有誤。很明顯,該公約規(guī)定船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)自其產(chǎn)生之日起一年不行使而消滅,起算時(shí)間為請(qǐng)求人“從船上離職之時(shí)”,而譯文翻譯為自請(qǐng)求人“從船上卸貨之時(shí)”之日起算!當(dāng)然,該譯文非官方譯本?！洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)法》第75條第2款第(a)項(xiàng)規(guī)定“起算時(shí)間自請(qǐng)求人工資結(jié)賬”,是正確的。

(2)直接與船舶營(yíng)運(yùn)有關(guān)的、無(wú)論是在陸地或水上發(fā)生的人身傷亡提出的賠償請(qǐng)求;

(3)就船舶的救助報(bào)酬提出的給付請(qǐng)求;

(4)就港口、運(yùn)河和其他水路手續(xù)費(fèi)和引航費(fèi)提出的繳付請(qǐng)求;

(5)根據(jù)侵權(quán)行為提出的索賠請(qǐng)求,其由于船舶營(yíng)運(yùn)直接造成的損失所引起,但不包括船舶所載運(yùn)的貨物、集裝箱和旅客物品的損失。

那么,依據(jù)《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(gòu)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(lái)。的規(guī)定,由海事管理部門支出的,與沉沒(méi)財(cái)產(chǎn)的船舶、沉船、貨物或殘骸的清除有關(guān)的墊付費(fèi)用,是否屬于船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)擔(dān)保的范圍?海事管理部門被授權(quán)的事項(xiàng)有:要求船舶所有人清理上述財(cái)產(chǎn);確定清除的期限、路線和手段(涉及國(guó)家海軍或其他軍隊(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)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(fèi)用由船舶所有人承擔(dān)。被清除財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有人,自實(shí)際清除之日起兩年內(nèi)有權(quán)認(rèn)領(lǐng)該財(cái)產(chǎn),并有義務(wù)支付海事管理部門墊付的所有直接和相關(guān)費(fèi)用以及賠償相關(guān)損失?！渡檀ǖ洹返?17條的措辭,實(shí)際上賦予了海事管理部門對(duì)被清除財(cái)產(chǎn)的留置權(quán),因?yàn)樵摋l文授權(quán)海事管理部門出售所涉財(cái)產(chǎn)以收回所墊付的費(fèi)用和相關(guān)損失,并將扣除后的剩余款項(xiàng)歸還給所有人。若依據(jù)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(cái)產(chǎn)所產(chǎn)生的所有墊付費(fèi)用,則視為財(cái)產(chǎn)所有人還拖欠海事管理部門這部分差額費(fèi)用。財(cái)產(chǎn)所有人放棄被清除財(cái)產(chǎn)的,并不免除其這一費(fèi)用給付義務(wù)。

有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,在愛(ài)沙尼亞,海事管理部門就上述清除所發(fā)生的費(fèi)用和損失,向被清除財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有人提起的請(qǐng)求,應(yīng)當(dāng)視為上述具有第五項(xiàng)海事優(yōu)先權(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求。若引用《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》第4條第1款第(e)項(xiàng)的表達(dá),將有助于我們更好地理解:“該索賠是由于船舶營(yíng)運(yùn)直接造成的有形滅失或損壞所引起的”。該觀點(diǎn)尚未得到法院的認(rèn)可?；凇洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)法》第91條(該條處理申請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制拍賣船舶的海事請(qǐng)求的優(yōu)先受償順序)的相反觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,該條第1款規(guī)定了優(yōu)先撥付“與船舶強(qiáng)制拍賣和查封相關(guān)的費(fèi)用,以及國(guó)家為了航行安全而清除航道中船舶所發(fā)生的費(fèi)用”,該條第2款單獨(dú)列舉了“具有海事優(yōu)先權(quán)的請(qǐng)求”,后者與《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》第12條第3款完全一致。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第74條第2款規(guī)定了依附于船舶的第二項(xiàng)和第五項(xiàng)船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的排除情形:

(a)運(yùn)輸石油或其他有毒有害物質(zhì)的船舶,證明已經(jīng)依據(jù)國(guó)際公約或國(guó)家法律承擔(dān)嚴(yán)格責(zé)任、強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)或其他財(cái)務(wù)保證擔(dān)保賠付的,對(duì)其造成的油污損害提起的賠償請(qǐng)求;

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

具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的請(qǐng)求的優(yōu)先順序,規(guī)定在《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)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(quán)的請(qǐng)求(五項(xiàng)中的任何一項(xiàng))應(yīng)當(dāng)優(yōu)先于包括船舶抵押權(quán)在內(nèi)的其他請(qǐng)求受償?shù)脑瓌t。另外,如果存在依據(jù)法律產(chǎn)生其他船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的情形,這些權(quán)利的受償順序后于船舶抵押權(quán)、先于其他請(qǐng)求權(quán)。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第78條規(guī)定了具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求各項(xiàng)目之間的優(yōu)先順序,合理地給予了海難求助報(bào)酬請(qǐng)求權(quán)優(yōu)先性,因?yàn)榫戎说姆e極性和成功施救對(duì)于其他船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)的可能性是必要的。因多項(xiàng)海難求助報(bào)酬請(qǐng)求各自產(chǎn)生的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),按照與這些海事請(qǐng)求產(chǎn)生的時(shí)間相反的順序受償。這些請(qǐng)求產(chǎn)生的起算時(shí)間應(yīng)當(dāng)自救助行為終止之日起算。當(dāng)然,就共同海損分擔(dān)向船舶所有人提起的請(qǐng)求,以及因船舶碰撞提起的賠償請(qǐng)求,其與救助報(bào)酬相對(duì)應(yīng)的部分,也具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)。上述其他四項(xiàng)船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),不分先后,同時(shí)受償;不足受償?shù)?按照比例受償(它們之間受償順序平等)。

船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的行使?！洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)法》第74條第1款和《1993年日內(nèi)瓦公約》第10條所規(guī)定的具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求人,能行使船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)。原債權(quán)人以及受讓原債權(quán)人所轉(zhuǎn)讓船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的第三人,均被允許行使船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)?！洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)法》第83條規(guī)定了行使程序的適用,船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的行使直接針對(duì)的是船舶占有人。某些情形下,其行使也針對(duì)船舶所有人?！洞柏?cái)產(chǎn)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(quán)和船舶抵押權(quán)適用相同的程序,都涉及針對(duì)船舶的付款請(qǐng)求。

船舶航行期間產(chǎn)生的海事請(qǐng)求具有的船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),不適用于該航程所賺取的運(yùn)費(fèi)。船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)也不適用于船上的貨物。《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第84條明確規(guī)定,貨物和運(yùn)費(fèi)不屬于船舶扣押的范圍。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第2條第2款規(guī)定,船舶的附屬物,適用《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)民法》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《民法》)總則第57條和第58條有關(guān)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(shù)文件)視為其附屬物?！睹穹ā返?7條第3款規(guī)定,轉(zhuǎn)移所有權(quán)或針對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)的任何權(quán)利時(shí)所產(chǎn)生的義務(wù),也及于附屬物。列入船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)目錄的物品視為船舶的附屬物。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第79條第1款規(guī)定,針對(duì)應(yīng)當(dāng)強(qiáng)制登記的已登記船舶或海船提起的給付請(qǐng)求,慮及《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》的特性,適用2005年《愛(ài)沙尼亞共和國(guó)執(zhí)行程序法》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《執(zhí)行程序法》,最新修正案自2010年1月1日生效)中對(duì)債務(wù)人的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)行使給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)的有關(guān)規(guī)定。船舶的查封和保管,依據(jù)有關(guān)動(dòng)產(chǎn)查封的法律行使,但《執(zhí)行程序法》第64條關(guān)于登記船舶的特別說(shuō)明的情形除外。由于《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第五部分和《執(zhí)行程序法》同時(shí)使用了“arrest”(扣押)及“seizure”(查封)這兩個(gè)術(shù)語(yǔ)(而在愛(ài)沙尼亞語(yǔ)中這兩術(shù)語(yǔ)由“arestimine”這同一個(gè)單詞所涵蓋),可能導(dǎo)致了一些誤解和混亂。

向在其他國(guó)家登記的未登記船舶行使給付請(qǐng)求權(quán),依據(jù)《執(zhí)行程序法》(《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第79條第2款)中對(duì)債務(wù)人的動(dòng)產(chǎn)行使給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)的有關(guān)規(guī)定。該款下一項(xiàng)規(guī)定“對(duì)應(yīng)當(dāng)在船舶登記機(jī)構(gòu)登記的船舶行使給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)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(guān)規(guī)定”。

《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》中對(duì)已登記船舶行使給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)的有關(guān)規(guī)定,是另一個(gè)強(qiáng)制規(guī)范。本法第80條規(guī)定:“(1)依據(jù)本法第79條第1款對(duì)物(即登記船舶)的給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)之行使,只可能通過(guò)強(qiáng)制拍賣的途徑實(shí)現(xiàn),但強(qiáng)制行政情形除外;(2)建造中船舶的強(qiáng)制拍賣,可能發(fā)生在其登記之前,該拍賣請(qǐng)求可以在船舶登記之前提交?！?/p>

上述權(quán)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(yīng)當(dāng)擴(kuò)至船舶上的貨物或其所賺取的運(yùn)費(fèi)。

船舶扣押和查封,由執(zhí)達(dá)吏執(zhí)行,他將從船長(zhǎng)手中沒(méi)收船舶文件,并按照司法部頒布的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)格式頒發(fā)一份聲明書。聲明書中對(duì)船舶的描述,應(yīng)當(dāng)與船舶登記機(jī)構(gòu)的描述一致。法院會(huì)指定一位管理人負(fù)責(zé)保養(yǎng)被扣押的船舶。該管理人受到司法權(quán)利的控制,聽(tīng)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(qiáng)制拍賣,包括《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》中所規(guī)定的諸如通知和公告義務(wù)等安排。強(qiáng)制拍賣的通知應(yīng)當(dāng)向以下相關(guān)方發(fā)出:1)船舶登記機(jī)構(gòu);2)所有已知的享有擔(dān)保性權(quán)利的人;3)所有已知的具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的海事請(qǐng)求人;4)船舶所有人。強(qiáng)制拍賣公告應(yīng)當(dāng)包括所有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)權(quán)利的明確信息,并依據(jù)《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(yīng)當(dāng)在“官方公告”和公開(kāi)網(wǎng)絡(luò)上提前十天發(fā)布。如果船舶價(jià)值超過(guò)6400歐元,拍賣公告還應(yīng)當(dāng)在拍賣所在地發(fā)行的至少一份報(bào)紙上公布。在權(quán)利請(qǐng)求人或債務(wù)人的請(qǐng)求下,執(zhí)達(dá)吏應(yīng)當(dāng)在其他公開(kāi)出版物上發(fā)布拍賣公告,此費(fèi)用由請(qǐng)求人承擔(dān)。強(qiáng)制拍賣通知和公告中的船舶描述應(yīng)當(dāng)與船舶登記中的描述一致。

強(qiáng)制拍賣的已登記船舶或應(yīng)當(dāng)強(qiáng)制登記的船舶的所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移,自其強(qiáng)制拍賣聲明書生效時(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移,而未登記船舶的所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移,自船舶占有轉(zhuǎn)移時(shí)轉(zhuǎn)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(shí)所得價(jià)款明顯高于強(qiáng)制拍賣所得價(jià)款,關(guān)于該船舶行使的程序也有可能終止。

船舶強(qiáng)制拍賣情形下,所得價(jià)款應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)《船舶財(cái)產(chǎn)法》第91條所列的如下順序分配:

(1)與船舶強(qiáng)制出售、扣押相關(guān)的費(fèi)用,國(guó)家為確保航行安全從航道中移除該船舶而產(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用;

(2)具有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)的請(qǐng)求;

(3)具有船舶抵押權(quán)的請(qǐng)求;

(4)其他請(qǐng)求。

由于船舶的強(qiáng)制拍賣,在船舶購(gòu)買人的要求下,執(zhí)達(dá)吏應(yīng)簽發(fā)一份證明該船舶上沒(méi)有船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)、抵押權(quán)和其他留置權(quán)的證書。在依據(jù)法律要求向上述所有權(quán)利人都發(fā)出強(qiáng)制拍賣通知的情形下,依據(jù)該證書,該船舶登記上的所有權(quán)利應(yīng)當(dāng)消滅。經(jīng)船舶購(gòu)買人同意保留的權(quán)利不消滅。

四、結(jié) 論

至今,愛(ài)沙尼亞在海事立法方面已取得突出進(jìn)展。尤其在船舶扣押、海事請(qǐng)求和船舶優(yōu)先權(quán)等方面,愛(ài)沙尼亞適用了公認(rèn)的規(guī)范和原則。愛(ài)沙尼亞這個(gè)海運(yùn)歷史悠久的濱海小國(guó),正試圖利用其戰(zhàn)略性的地理位置發(fā)展國(guó)際貿(mào)易,因此會(huì)順利適應(yīng)航運(yùn)領(lǐng)域中國(guó)際公認(rèn)的規(guī)則和法規(guī)。

(中譯:趙麗娟 所在單位:上海交通大學(xué))

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(ài)沙尼亞海事學(xué)院校長(zhǎng),電子郵箱:heiki.lindpere@emara.ee。作者曾作為愛(ài)沙尼亞代表團(tuán)負(fù)責(zé)人,出席了1999年討論船舶扣押議題的日內(nèi)瓦會(huì)議,并代表愛(ài)沙尼亞政府簽署了《1999年扣船公約》。作者也是海牙仲裁常設(shè)委員會(huì)成員和聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法會(huì)議的仲裁人或調(diào)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.