Summary

Although Estonia is a maritime state, we still do not have much case law regarding the arrest of ships, a common maritime law practice in sea commerce. Judges often hesitate when deciding on the arrest of a ship or even worse, justify refusal to order the arrest of a ship by wrong arguments. The author’s position is that on arresting a ship regard should be given to the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships done in Geneva in 1999, which principles have been incorporated into the Estonian Law of Maritime Property Act. Therefore, the court must decide whether the person submitting an arrest request has a maritime claim and whether such a claim is valid. The rules governing the securing of action prescribed in the Code of Civil Court Procedure only constitute general and supportive rules for the arrest of ships and are applicable as lex generalis. Therefore the fact that the insolvency of a ship owner is not proven cannot serve as a justification for refusal to arrest a ship. The author also examines release of a ship from arrest if sufficient security in a satisfactory form has been provided (§ 78³ (1) of the Estonian Law of Maritime Property Act). In the author’s opinion the depositing of a sum corresponding to the amount of claim indicated in the request for the arrest of a ship does not serve as sufficient security as in such a case the enforcement of the court judgment awarding the claimant’s costs associated with the civil proceedings may be significantly hampered.