JURE SUMMARY

JURE SUMMARY

The plaintiff, seated in England, had contracted with A, seated in Italy, for the commissioning of tug boats on the North Sea. Insolvency proceedings were opened on A's assets. The plaintiff obtained a ship arrest for security, based on its contractual claims against A, on a crane vessel docked in Rotterdam (NL) that was in the possession of the defendant B, a subsidiary of A, also seated in Italy. The arrest was lifted on posting of a bank guarantee. In an action before the Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL), the plaintiff requested the ship arrest for security be converted to an arrest for enforcement so that the bank guarantee could be effected. The defendant disputed the court's jurisdiction. The defendant argued that although the Rechtbank has jurisdiction under maritime law over the arrest for security, it does not have jurisdiction over the question whether the plaintiff may, based on its claims against A, seek enforcement on B's ship. The Brussels Convention should govern that issue. The Rechtbank of Rotterdam (NL) took jurisdiction. After an unsuccessful appeal, the defendant appealed to the Hoge Raad (NL). The Hoge Raad affirms that the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships signed on May 10, 1952 applies to the arrest for security. The Rechtbank of Rotterdam has jurisdiction under Article 7 of the Arrest Convention, as the arrest was carried out in the Netherlands. However, it does not have jurisdiction to hear the underlying maritime claims. To convert the ship arrest for security into an arrest for enforcement, however, the Rechtbank must evaluate the legitimacy of the arrest for security. Accordingly, its jurisdiction extends also to the question whether a maritime claim against someone other than the shipowner justifies enforcement on the arrested vessel. The Brussels Convention, according to Article 57 thereof, leaves the 1952 Arrest Convention untouched. The Hoge Raad denies the appeal.