СТА - ведущая юридическая компания в Дубае с офисами по всему мируhttps://www.stalawfirm.com/ru.htmlSTA Law Firm - Блоги - Shipping and Maritime LawruCopyright 2024 STA Law Firm All Rights Reserved<![CDATA[The New Maritime Law of the UAE]]> The New Maritime Law of the UAE

The maritime industry has long been a cornerstone of global trade, and nowhere is this more evident than in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As a nation with a rich maritime heritage and a strategic location at the crossroads of international shipping routes, the UAE has continuously invested in bolstering its maritime sector. The recent release of Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023, known as the New Maritime Law, represents a significant milestone in the evolution of the UAE's maritime industry. In this article, we will explore the key provisions of the New Maritime Law and examine how they are poised to shape the future of maritime operations in the UAE.

Vessel Registration

The registration of a vessel is delineated in various provisions of the New Maritime Law. Article 7 defines a vessel as a tangible movable subject to the rules applicable to tangible movables, unless ownership by possession is involved. Notably, Article 13(b) of the New Maritime Law represents a significant development, allowing foreign individuals or companies domiciled in the UAE, or those having a business center, to register vessels in their names.

In contrast to the capped foreign ownership set at 49% under the Repealed Maritime Law, this provision establishes a more inclusive and accessible framework, potentially broadening investment opportunities within the maritime sector. Details regarding implementation procedures and other pertinent matters related to the New Maritime Law are anticipated to be disclosed in due course. Meanwhile, Article 368(2) stipulates that existing resolutions and regulations under the Repealed Maritime Law will remain applicable, provided they do not conflict with the New Maritime Law, until new executive regulations are promulgated.

Charterers of vessels registered abroad are allowed, under Article 18 of the New Maritime Law, to apply for the registration of their vessels in the UAE and fly the UAE flag, provided they fulfill the registration criteria specified in Article 13. Notably, vessels without equipment must have a charterparty duration of no less than six months for registration approval. Intriguingly, Article 19 grants owners of vessels registered under the UAE flag permission to apply for flying the flag of another country if the vessel is to be chartered without equipment. Specific application procedures for this provision are yet to be determined.

Age restrictions for vessel registration under the Repealed Maritime Law were nonexistent; however, Article 13(1)(c) of the New Maritime Law mandates that vessels be no older than 20 years from the completion date of their shipbuilding contract, with passenger ships allowed registration if they are not more than 10 years old. Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 7, the UAE Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure is mandated to establish a "vessel register" for registering vessels, encompassing various types, classifications, activities, and operational areas, in line with forthcoming executive regulations. This registry represents another positive stride toward encouraging vessel owners to register their vessels in the UAE.

Moreover, Article 9(3) of the New Maritime Law permits the registration of shipbuilding contracts for vessels under construction, with registration procedures to be completed by the shipbuilder, as stipulated in the law. Additionally, Article 9(1) necessitates the Ministry's approval of vessel specifications for registration in a specialized register named the "Register of Ships Under Construction."

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

In addition to streamlining vessel registration procedures, the New Maritime Law introduces a dedicated framework for resolving maritime disputes. Article 4 of the law aligns with UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, facilitating the ratification of settlements or mediations of maritime disputes. This provision reflects the UAE's commitment to international best practices in dispute resolution and aims to provide stakeholders with clarity and certainty in navigating complex legal issues.

Ship Arrest Procedures

A creditor, encompassing suppliers, lenders, or contractors, possesses the authority to detain a vessel by court order if the filed claim qualifies as a "maritime debt" under the New Maritime Law. These debts must be linked to maritime activities or transactions such as ship chartering, shipbuilding or repair contracts, cargo transportation, and ship navigation. Such transactions typically result in a debt or obligation between the ship owner and the creditor, enabling the creditor to seek vessel detention through an arrest application.

The ship arrest provisions outlined in the New Maritime Law closely mirror those of the Repealed Maritime Law. Article 54(1) permits the creditor to seek the arrest of the specific vessel associated with the debt or any other vessel owned by the same debtor at the time of the arrest order application. However, Article 54(2) prohibits the arrest of sister vessels in scenarios involving disputes over vessel ownership, disputes between joint owners regarding operation and distribution of proceeds, vessel mortgages or securities, or disputes arising from vessel sale contracts.

Regarding charterer debts, Article 55 allows the creditor to apply for vessel arrest during the charterparty period if the charterer bears sole liability for the maritime debt related to the vessel and holds navigation management rights. This provision extends to cases where the maritime debt is attributed to a debtor other than the vessel's owner. Unlike the Repealed Maritime Law, which mandates filing the substantive claim within 8 days of the arrest order date, Article 59 of the New Maritime Law requires claimants to file within 5 working days. The substantive claim hearing must be scheduled within 15 days from the court minutes' enforcement date of the arrest order for judgment on vessel arrest and sale confirmation. The judgment can be appealed within 15 days, and the Court of Appeal is mandated to issue its judgment within a week without referral to the case management office. This procedural change accelerates the dispute resolution process in maritime disputes, offering litigants a means to bypass lengthy court procedures. Notably, Article 4 of the New Maritime Law incorporates provisions of UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration concerning the ratification of settlement or mediation minutes in maritime disputes, marking a significant aspect of dispute resolution facilitation.

Under the Repealed Maritime Law, ship owners and their vessels lacked protection when creditors filed claims for ship arrests. However, Article 56 of the New Maritime Law addresses this gap by mandating creditors to provide a financial guarantee covering the safety and security needs of the affected vessel and its crew throughout the arrest period before the Court grants an arrest order. This requirement aims to alleviate concerns of defaulting ship owners or charterers regarding their abandoned seafarers during legal proceedings. Notably, Article 56 specifies that the financial guarantee amount is deemed a judicial expense, with costs related to the crew and vessel during the arrest period prioritized and settled ahead of any creditor claims from the execution proceeds.

Regarding security measures for releasing arrested vessels, the New Maritime Law streamlines procedures in line with international standards by recognizing a letter of undertaking (LOU) as a valid security measure to lift a ship arrest, unlike the cumbersome requirements under the Repealed Maritime Law. Article 57(2) stipulates that UAE Courts shall accept LOUs or other securities for vessel release. LOUs, typically issued by Protection and Indemnity Clubs (P&I Clubs), serve as globally recognized instruments to secure maritime claims, ensuring that the mutual insurance association will honor the financial guarantee up to the specified amount in the LOU if a valid claim arises. Furthermore, Article 57(3) defers to the Executive Regulations of the law to delineate rules for accepting LOUs issued by P&I Clubs or acceptable financial institutions. It's important to note that the New Maritime Law specifies that LOUs are not acceptable in disputes over vessel ownership, possession, or disputes between joint owners regarding operation and proceeds distribution, in which case the vessel remains under arrest until a final judgment is rendered in the substantive claim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the enactment of the New Maritime Law represents a significant step forward for the UAE's maritime industry. By addressing key areas such as vessel registration, dispute resolution, and ship arrest procedures, the law sets the stage for a more robust and efficient maritime sector. As the UAE continues to solidify its position as a global maritime hub, adherence to the provisions outlined in the law will be crucial for fostering growth and sustainability in the sector. With its comprehensive approach to addressing various aspects of maritime operations and legal frameworks, the New Maritime Law positions the UAE for continued success in the global maritime arena. As stakeholders navigate the evolving landscape, the New Maritime Law stands as a beacon of progress and innovation in the UAE's maritime industry.

 

]]>
Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[An In-depth Exploration of Shipping Law in United Kingdom]]> An In-depth Exploration of Shipping Law in United Kingdom

Shipping law in the United Kingdom is a multifaceted legal domain that governs the activities, operations, and transactions related to maritime trade and navigation. This comprehensive legal framework ensures the safety of vessels, protection of the marine environment, and the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved in shipping. From historic admiralty laws to modern international conventions, the UK's shipping legal landscape is both rich and dynamic.

Admiralty Law

Admiralty law, with its roots deeply embedded in maritime history, forms the foundation of the UK's shipping legal system. Dating back centuries, admiralty courts have been adjudicating cases related to collisions at sea, salvage operations, and maritime liens. These courts play a crucial role in maintaining order and justice in maritime affairs, contributing to the development of principles that guide modern shipping law.

The Merchant Shipping Act

Central to the UK's shipping regulatory framework is the Merchant Shipping Act, a key piece of legislation that addresses various aspects of maritime activities. This Act governs ship registration, safety standards, and employment conditions within the maritime sector. It sets out clear guidelines for the construction, equipment, operation, and manning of ships, ensuring a secure and efficient maritime environment.

International Conventions and Safety Standards

The UK, as a global maritime player, actively participates in international conventions to enhance maritime safety. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is paramount, establishing minimum safety standards for the construction and operation of ships. Compliance with SOLAS and other conventions demonstrates the UK's commitment to global maritime safety, fostering cooperation among nations for the benefit of the entire shipping community.

Maritime Labour Standards

The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) sets forth comprehensive standards for working and living conditions for seafarers. As a signatory to the MLC, the UK ensures that seafarers enjoy decent working conditions, fair employment practices, and access to essential amenities. This commitment not only upholds human rights but also contributes to a more stable and reliable maritime workforce.

Environmental Protection and Pollution Prevention

In alignment with international efforts, the UK implements stringent measures to prevent marine pollution. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) serves as a cornerstone, addressing various types of pollution from ships. The UK's commitment to environmental protection includes regulations on waste disposal, oil spills, and emissions, reflecting a dedication to sustainable and responsible maritime practices.

Maritime Security

In response to evolving security threats, the UK has embraced the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code). This regulatory framework ensures the implementation of security measures on ships and at port facilities, contributing to the overall safety and resilience of the maritime sector against potential terrorist activities.

Carriage of Goods by Sea

The UK's legal provisions for the carriage of goods by sea are essential in facilitating international trade. Conventions such as the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules establish the rights and obligations of parties involved in transporting goods by sea, providing a transparent and predictable legal framework for maritime commerce.

Marine Insurance

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 remains a cornerstone of marine insurance law in the UK. While rooted in tradition, ongoing developments in the sector demand a modernized approach. The Act provides a framework for resolving disputes, offering clarity on issues related to coverage, claims, and liabilities in the complex world of marine insurance.

Arrest of Vessels

The arrest of vessels is a potent legal tool in maritime claims. The UK follows established procedures for vessel arrests, allowing claimants to secure their interests by detaining a vessel until their claims are satisfied. This mechanism adds a layer of security and ensures that obligations are met in the intricate web of maritime transactions.

Ship Registration

The UK Ship Register, renowned globally, plays a crucial role in establishing a ship's identity and nationality. Ship registration provides evidence of ownership, facilitates international trade, and enables vessels to obtain necessary insurance. The UK's commitment to maintaining a reputable ship registry underscores its position as a key player in the global maritime industry.

Post-Brexit Dynamics

In the post-Brexit era, the UK's shipping law has undergone adjustments to align with new trade agreements and regulations. As the nation forges its path outside the European Union, the maritime sector continues to evolve, presenting both challenges and opportunities for stakeholders in the UK shipping industry.

In conclusion, the multifaceted nature of shipping law in the United Kingdom reflects the complexities and challenges inherent in the maritime industry. From historic admiralty laws to contemporary international conventions, the legal framework governing shipping in the UK is dynamic, ensuring the safety of navigation, protection of the environment, and fair treatment of all stakeholders involved in maritime activities. As the global maritime landscape evolves, the UK remains a key player, adapting its legal structures to meet the demands of a rapidly changing industry.

 

]]>
Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[New Maritime law: Oman]]> New Maritime law: Oman

The Sultanate of Oman is not a signatory to the 1924 Hague Rules corresponding to Bills of lading nor the 1974 Athens convention in relation to the carriage of travelers, we presently see a modern local codification of identical insurances. In the numerous maritime regions where Oman has ratified the fundamental IMO Conventions, we see the expansion of local color without bringing down the flag State and Port State commitments for each situation.

On March 30th, 2023, Sultani Decree No. 19/2023 was issued proclaiming Oman's new Maritime Law. The Announcement annuls the Maritime Law enacted by the Law Regulating Maritime Navigation in Territorial Waters promulgated by Sultani Decree No. 98/1981 and Sultani Decree No. 35/1981 as well as some other related regulations and guidelines that conflict with its provisions. The primary aim of the new Maritime Law is to manage Oman's maritime industry, focus on navigation, sailor, and maritime environmental safety, and promote its development.

The recently enacted Decree presents a complete framework for investigating maritime mishaps and debris management, along with provisions for penalties and fines in case of violations. It likewise manages maritime tourism, which was not covered by the previous law. Moreover, the Decree incorporates updates to different legislative aspects and it covers ship registration, maritime liens, and requirements, ship agents, freight agents, and representatives.

It's critical to take note that the Minister of the Ministry of Transport, Communications, and Information Technology ("MTCIT") will give important guidelines and regulations to execute the Declaration according to Article (2) of the Decree. In the interim, current regulations and decisions will remain effective except if they go against the provisions of the Decree.

The new law, containing 387 articles in 9 sections, covers different aspects of the maritime sector.

Section one framework definitions and general provisions for implementing the law, including Oman's ratified international maritime treaties, and lays out the MTCIT responsibility according to the maritime sector.

Section two is concerned with the ship and includes various perspectives, like the circumstances for acquiring or losing Omani nationality, the commitment for Omani vessels to display the flag of Oman, and regulations relating to supervision, investigation, possession, management, sales, approvals, shipbuilding, licenses, registration, and ship's rights. This segment likewise spreads out the conventions that the MTICIT should adhere to while investigating a ship and governs the methodology for registering and deregistering an Omani ship.

Section three focused on property rights a ship could have, including maritime liens and mortgages. It likewise features the types of legal attachments that can be forced on ships.

Section four defined the duties and responsibilities of those associated with maritime transport, including employment contracts for the experts and seafarers and its terms and conditions and reason for termination.

Section five outlined the roles and responsibilities of ship agents and brokers.

Section Six governs ship contracting and introduces new types of carriage, including maritime tourist transport.

Section Seven provides the structure for examining and managing marine mishaps and debris and the methodology to be followed.

Section Eight regulates marine insurance, claims settlement, and timelines related to claims emerging from the insurance policy.

Section Nine prescribes punishments and fines for violating the law, including the authority of the Minister of MTCIT to determine administrative penalties.

Conclusively, the maritime sector in the Sultanate of Oman was introduced to a critical development, through the issuance of the Royal Decree No. 19/2023 by His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tariq. The Decree proclaims a new Maritime Law for Oman, with the aim of developing Oman's maritime sector, along with focusing on the significance of navigational safety, seafarer protection and environmental preservation. Besides, the Law energizes the improvement of shipbuilding and commercial maritime operations.

Prominent elements of the Law envelop updated regulations for maritime personnel, including maritime work contracts, vessel registration under the Omani flag, maritime mishaps and penalties, maritime liens and enforcement, while likewise including provisions for ship agents, freight agents, forwarders, and brokers.

 

]]>
Sat, 23 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[Limitation of Liability in Maritime Matters]]> Limitation of Liability in Maritime Matters

The existence of vessels trade generally includes them in mishaps that result in claims. Personal injury, property damage (such as harm to vessels and beacons on the seashore and coast setups), shipment damage, and other claims may be made. In a broad sense, any nation's limitation law will be implemented by its courts in the best interest of both foreign and domestic shipping companies. However, from the perspective of ship owners, the main flaw of limitation law has been the lack of international recognition of limitation deliberations. As a result, a shipping company whose ships operate in global trade may find oneself sued in multiple countries because of a single tragedy and required to place up limitation funds in each. Shipping companies may suffer significant losses because of mishaps, and they may go insolvent because of large claims. International treaties, like the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC 76), and regulations surrounding the carriage of the goods, such as the Hague-Visby Rules, permit for such constraints. The Hague-Visby Rules impose time limits on claims for freight injury or damage.

Collision liability

Under maritime law, liability for collision damage is predicated on the fault principle: a colliding container would not be held liable for losses to that other ship or improvements in existing such as a bridge, wharf, or jetty unless the collision is caused by the clashing boat or carelessness or wilful action on the part of its voyagers. However, it is not always essential to define mistake by credible evidence; there is an insinuation of mistake when a moving boat meets a stationary object or another cargo ship that is appropriately moored or moored, and the moving vessel bears the burden of proving freedom from fault. Throughout countries have ratified the International Treaty for the Unity of Some of those Law About Vessel Accidents, agreed to sign in Brussels in 1910, the rule of "comparative negligence" governs: if each of two colliding vessels is at fault, the total damages are divided among their shareholders or companies in terms of the relative degrees of responsibility. In nations that have not ratified the Treaty, such as The Us, the law says that if both ships are at fault, the total harm is shared evenly, irrespective of the degree courses of mistake.

Even after various international and regional conventions were held, the laws governing for limitation of liability are not the same for all the nations. Some of the middle eastern countries are significant examples of this, like the UAE.

UAE

The UAE From Article 138-142 or maritime code allows liability based on fatality, loss of property arising from the steering or maintenance of the vessel, cargo handling or seagoing vessels, carriage, of passengers concerning the mass or quantity of the cargo on the vessel. Putting aside the fact that assertions for the expulsion, ruination, or delivering benign of a ship's shipment aren't mentioned, no arguments are stipulated as being subject to liability, as provided in Article 3 of LLMC 76. Even though some Translations of the articles as mentioned above could give an impression that limitation is a must and ruled by the quantities provided for in Article 141, UAE courts have held that the limitation regulations of Articles 138 to 142 of the Maritime Code are subjective rather than mandatory. Article 138 would have to be integrated explicitly into the carriage contract for that to be a must. The definition of occurrences, such as collisions, creates some uncertainty, allowing plaintiffs to argue that the limitations regulations do not apply. For example, the UAE Maritime Code broadly defines "collision" as contact between vessels and ships but expressly excludes objects moored to a fixed anchor. As a result, the UAE courts have ruled that connection between vessels and objects such as oil platforms does not constitute a collision. Even though the UAE has endorsed the LLMC 76, shipping companies are not allowed to open limitation funds. It is a violation of a fundamental provision of LLMC 76. UAE courts have seemed hesitant to enforce limitation and are recognized to place a substantial burden on the person seeking limitation. The UAE has an article 276 that offers carrier liability for cargo claims, roughly comparable to the Hague-Visby Rules. The very first clause of the article restricts liability for loss of or damage to AED 10,000 (approximately USD 2,720) for every "bundle or component," or AED 30 (about USD 8) per kilogram of the gross value of goods, whichever one is greater. Article 276, Clause 3, prohibits the provider from restricting his responsibility to the shipping company if the shipping company has declared the essence and value of goods in the bill of lading previous to loading.

Courts in the Mideast acknowledge limitation in some form or another. Those who do have seemed to be usually hesitant to start enforcing limitation because it does not would seem to be thought to be a claimant. Although judgments have upheld limitation regulations in applicable carriage contracts in some cases, the principle of the court decision is not accompanied in any of the Middle Eastern jurisdictions.

 

]]>
Sun, 05 Dec 2021 12:41:00 GMT
<![CDATA[Economic and Fraud Provisions in Middle East]]> Economic and Fraud Provisions in the Middle East

"There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

- Milton Friedman

Economic fraud is a term that has been repeated over the years, so much so that the consequences it bears do not have any precedence or impact on the ones that hear it. For many companies and capitalist machinery, this term essentially triggers them to explore options to hide their fraudulent tracks and continue operating in the same manner. To have governments help them cover the tracks in certain jurisdictions ultimately defeats the purpose of the assignment.

Despite the incongruent activities of individuals, companies, and governments from the expected norm of justice in many jurisdictions, other countries are tenacious to implement a regulatory framework that will eradicate such fraudulent activities in the market. This article will discuss the economic and fraud provisions established in the Middle East, their effectiveness, and the scope of reach it possesses about financial crime.

What are the Economic and Fraud provisions in the Middle East?

If one area of the economy has seen a steady increase in the past years, it would be the economic fraud prevalent in society. Regardless of the number of provisions that jurisdictions and international organizations establish to combat financial fraud, none of them seems sufficient. The parties involved in economic fraud and other fraudulent practices are constantly evolving to cover their tracks efficiently.

Infamous scandals like Bernie Madoff and the Ponzi scheme leave one in absolute awe as it remains unclear, what is the culprit: the crime or the criminal? Many innocent parties, including employees and clients, were adversely affected by the ill-doings of these financial schemes. After the outburst of many scandals and its impact on many innocent individuals, jurisdictions are trying to fasten their pace to stay a step ahead of wrongdoers and hopefully eliminate the potential threats in the market.

The introduction of new anti-economic fraud regulations has paved the way for potential investors to feel a sense of security over their investments within the market, along with the ability of the regulations to enforce justice. Over time, people have understood that the formation and establishment of an anti-fraud legal framework are not sufficient to ensure peace and harmony in the market, an iron fist must be imposed on fraudulent parties and companies to deter them from doing such activities in the future and serving it as a lesson for other participants in the market who bear similar intentions.

The types of economic fraud can be quite varied and are spread across different industries and the scope of nature. These could include housing benefit fraud, tenancy fraud, council tax fraud, blue badge fraud, social care fraud, business rates fraud, insurance fraud, bribery, and money laundering. These are just a top layer of economic crimes prevalent in an ocean of fraudulent activities in the market. The crimes that are more coherent to the wrongdoings in the market include not declaring the business location, stating that a property is not in use while it is, dishonestly requesting for an exemption to pay for charges that are owed, or any unauthorized movement of money to make ill-gains.

Often, economic crime is caused not by companies but by customers towards companies. The highest reported crime boost in the Middle East is through customer fraud and procurement fraud, which have proved to be the most disruptive fraud within an economic crime. In a survey conducted on a global platform, the number of customer frauds was comparatively more in the Middle Eastern region.

In an ongoing effort to combat fraud together, many companies in the Middle East began investing in more stringent controls and implementation of the rules to avoid economic crime, while many others conducted a thorough examination into reasons after the occurrence of a crime in the company. Another issue that stands alongside customer fraud about its prominence is procurement fraud. This fraud entails the practice of favoring associates with vendor and supplier contracts.

All these efforts are measures taken to mitigate the risks involved and ensure that proper prevention is taken by instilling the right technology and talent to deviate from any fraudulent prone routes.

However, it is not easy to ensure that accountability will be maintained and transparent feedback is provided. Another limitation of this procedure is that advanced technologies to combat financial crime can be costly, which would further deplete if the company possesses insufficient resources to acquire and install the platform and is not equipped with properly trained employees to manage the technology. The lack of proper expertise to handle the in-place technology could attract various cyber threats, which allows a wrongdoer from any part of the world to infiltrate the company's system.

With this in mind, companies must equip themselves from the arsenal of defenses to protect themself and the financial and reputational facets of the company. The extent of damage that infiltration of the company's system can cause to the operations is quite unfathomable. It would be better for companies to leave their vault of secrets wide open than installing an IT platform that is managed poorly. The necessity of combating such insecurities is proliferating and must be countered at the earliest. One would like to believe that the efforts of the legal jurisdictions in the Middle East to battle economic crime are practical and promptly applied. However, many of the jurisdictions still fail to provide a proper implementation of the provisions established against economic crime.

The readiness of companies in the Middle East to confront the indecisive nature of economic crime and report any issues as they arise is still moving at a stagnant rate. The stark increase in cyberattacks and its potential threats is not a mystery to the companies in these regions. Nevertheless, they decide against preparing themselves in defense of such risks and attacks. The firms in the region and the governmental organizations must understand the types of threats that could arise in the economy and the nature of such economic crimes. Although this would seem like an insignificant step, this particular action could help achieve a more profound revelation of the gaps and vulnerabilities of the economy and its protective framework.

Many would argue that the relationship of the Middle East with economic crime and fraud dates back ages. All the glitz and glamour and the boom of economies are incongruent with the fraudulent activities occurring within the firms and regions. A region's legal systems cannot enforce the regulatory frameworks established to fight against economic crime if the country's government does not implement the rulings.

To know more about Economic and Fraud Provisions in the Middle East in Singapore Click here 

 

]]>
Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:28:00 GMT
<![CDATA[COVID-19 on Shipping and Maritime Industry]]> Impact of COVID-19 on the Shipping and Maritime Industry

The outbreak of the infectious disease named as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the newly discovered coronavirus has caused chaos and panic all over the world causing the ceasing of all normal daily activities like going to work, a walk outside or in some countries even stepping a foot outside the house. One of the activities that has also been majorly impacted due to the spread of this disease is the shipping and maritime industry. This epidemic has caused the shipping and maritime industry to face the worst circumstances as the workforce in these sectors has been shut down for the safety and prevention of the escalation of COVID-19. This setback has also been caused due to the standstill of all kinds of cargos via water or air during this quarantine period (period of isolation) as the transportation of such cargos in ships or through the air can be possibly carrying with it the virus from one port to another. This widespread pandemic has launched a major brunt for the shipping and maritime industry not only from the ports of China (where the virus is said to originate) but also the ports globally. All the trade chains, including the major import and export trade, is in the face with a downfall. During this adverse time and the urgency of the situation, a ban has also been imposed by various countries on the entry of containers and vessels that are being operated from other ports, especially those that are transported from China. Such impeded operations have hampered with the logistics and operations of these industries. During this adverse time, many workers and staff are being trapped onboard the vessels due to either being in quarantine or for other prescribed safety issues. The ports are also running at a low capacity, and the storage facilities have been highly overcrowded. The maritime transport and shipping industry is plastered with major challenges during these challenging times. Some of these issues faced by the maritime and shipping industry have been outlined below: -

I. Port closures

Ports have been closed due to quarantine periods in effect and in order to ensure the well-being of workers and various conditions have been imposed, for instance, the ban of marine vessels into certain countries which has demanded such vessels to be on the water and not have a destination port to go to. The entry of vessels by certain countries has been restricted or prohibited, thus, causing chaos amongst the marine transportation facilities globally.

II. Less demand for cargos

The competent health authorities of every country are avoiding the risk of spreading of COVID-19, which has led to the decline in import and export of products and goods between countries. All such goods that were previously carried conveniently on a ship or any other marine vehicle have to follow a set standard of rules and procedure which has limited the demand for such cargos. The delay in such transportation due to added complications of quarantine periods have led to the further decline of demand for such cargos. Perishable goods are not being able to be transported due to the waiting period of 14 days or the waiting period prescribed by the competent authorities in every country.

III. Disputes between owners and charters

Charters hire the vessels from the owners of the vessels and various kinds of disputes are arising between the owners and charters of such vessels due to loss of time and money. The disputes are arising pertaining to the hire period of such vessels where the charter had been granted such a vessel for a limited period of time; however, such time period being negated due to force majeure.

IV. Disputes in lay time settlement

The owners grant the vessels to charters for a definite time period for fixed costs. The overriding of such time period leads to additional costs that have to be paid for surpassing the set time period. COVID-19 has imposed major difficulties on the settlement of such time period as the vessels are prohibited from entering certain ports forcing them to be on territorial waters for an extended period of time forcing them to be a party to pay additional costs that are under the light of dispute. Due to force majeure, such costs are not being paid, therefore, causing losses to parties.

V. Discussion on clauses

Every owner of a ship or a vessel is to add an infectious disease clause within its directives and guidelines which is causing a dispute between the owners of the vessels and charters hiring such vessels. Both parties would want to add such clauses advantageous to their own situation or clauses that ensure maximum safety which is leading to disagreements on which clauses to be inserted.

VI. Bankruptcy

Many small companies engaged in the maritime and shipping industry have gone bankrupt due to less demand and the inability to handle the finances of the company during this period of less demand of cargos and shipping. This has majorly impacted the small running businesses and even resulted in the shutting down of various companies engaged in this industry.

Federal Transport Authority in Play

The Federal Transport Authority (FTA) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has issued circulars with instructions that mandate various precautionary measures in light of the outbreak of COVID-19 in the maritime and shipping industry. Such instructions dictate the measures and methods to be adopted for containers and vessels that enter through the various waterways and airways in the UAE. Such instructions have been issued to contain the negative effects of this contagious disease and aims to keep the safety of transportation staff and users as the top priority. Such directives include the reduction of the number of staff engaged in such transportation, apply the preventive distancing policy in the public transport means, implement regular plans for disinfecting means of transport and facilities as determined by the competent authorities from time to time, ensure a backup for human resources in case the current staff falls as a victim to the virus so that the continuity of such operations is maintained, organize and establish communication channels within every organization to facilitate the reporting of any symptoms in order to tackle it swiftly in accordance with the procedures of the respective country. Moreover, instructions that have been issued to educate the staff and workers about the crucial and necessary precautions and measures to be taken with regards to their operations in the work environment. All the vital equipment required for the disinfection is also to be delivered and installed and all such disinfection supplies to be distributed amongst the workforce and staff. The transportation facilities would also be disinfected on a timely basis and reduce the staff by launching modern technologies to do the possible work. Priorities are given to seafarers with resident visa who are stuck board the ship vessels, the crew that is longer medically fit to carry out work onboard the ship and crew or seafarers that require urgent medical attention. Some of the other instructions that have been issued by the FTA include the following:

  • All the dry docks, ship repair and maintenance workshops are to prevent and ban entry to any ship or marine vessel for any repair, maintenance or repair workshop except under the quarantine rules for the crew of the ship or marine vehicle. Such quarantine period defines that a ship repair or maintenance workshop can be held only after the passage of 14 days from the date of such ship or marine vehicle being located in the last designated port or after the passage of 14 days from the date of the last interaction of the crew of the ship with any person outside the ship or vessel.
  • The captain of the ship or the marine vehicle is to inform the competent health authorities in case of any detection of symptoms of COVID-19, and all such information is to be delivered in time in order to avoid penalties.
  • The FTA has also stopped the entry of foreign yachts and coordinated with relevant authorities to prevent the issuance of sailing permits.
  • All commercial, marine recreational activity and personal pleasure boats have also been suspended during the nation sterilization period with the exception of mountainous areas and islanders that are to use these means only in accordance with the set requirements.
  • The work of wooden ships has also been suspended by the FTA, where all such work of wooden ships is banned from entering the waters of UAE and allow only such ships that are loaded with food and fish.
  • The wooden ships are to remain in the territorial waters for a maximum period of 7 days in order to prevent mixing with seafarers. All wooden ships that are devoid of prior commercial contracts and are coming for direct shopping from the local market have also been forbidden.
  • All such guidelines have been issued by the FTA in order to ensure the implementation of such instructions and the failure of which would lead to applicability of heavy fines on the violators of such instructions. All such instructions are regulated in coordination with the competent authorities and are to be carried out in order to prevent the further spread and outbreak of this infectious disease and in order to ensure the security and safety of the workers engaged in such transportation facilities. Appropriate health scanning and clearance from ports is required before permitting any vessel inside the port of UAE. With the pandemic of COVID-19, the maritime and shipping activity has reduced significantly, and the way to recovery is showing signs of slackening. However, the hopes for recovery exist, and with added precautions and measures being taken, one can positively hope for the restoration of maritime and shipping activities inadequate swing boosting the economy.

    ]]>
    Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:29:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Warranties in Marine Insurance USA]]> Warranties in Marine Insurance: USA

    It was in the 18th Century that, Lord Mansfield attempted to separate the concept by mentioning that warranties are a part of a policy that is written; however, the representations are created out of a written agreement and can be answered either equally or substantially. Whereas warranties are to comply strictly.

    Warranty, in general terms, is a statutory warranty or a warranty where an assured undertakes to perform or not perform a certain thing or satisfy a particular requirement. In this process, the assured negates or affirms the existence of a particular state of facts. This explanation will be inclusive of the following:

  • As far as the present or past facts – affirmative warranties
  • As to conduct that is future – continuing or promissory warranties
  • A condition which has been fulfilled
  • Marine insurance law in the United States of America provides that, a promissory warranty is an essential obligation of the assured, which he should perform to have the option to appreciate the security of the agreement. One reason for such guarantees is to make sure that the insured risk is not enhanced during the term of the insurance. This may clarify the way that the insurer will be released from the obligation under the protection contract if there should be an occurrence of minor rupture.

    Warranties are both implied, an instance being the ever-present guarantee of fitness for sailing, i.e. seaworthiness, and explicitly expressed in the insurance agreement. Express warranties might be viewed as unfair or out of line to the assured, since the policy is liable to the freedom of contract and such warranties may in principle concern any commitment of the guaranteed. Truth be told, a guarantee should not be material to the hazard, which is explicitly given in the Marine Insurance Act, 1906.

    This is particularly disputable considering the way that the assured should precisely agree to the warranty, and breach brings about the loss of protection cover, irrespective of the blame on the part of the assured. It is held that the guaranteed must conform to any commitment forced by a warranty, regardless of whether it appears to give preposterous impacts.

    The law of warranties in connection to Marine Insurance from the start seems, by all accounts, to be incredibly valuable to insurers and, some may state, uncalled for to assure. The black letter law puts forth that infringement of a warranty qualifies the insurance provider for keeping away from the obligation under the insurance policy even if the breach of warranty had nothing doing with the deficit and paying little heed to whether the guarantee was material to the hazard.

    This was frequently the outcome in a considerable lot of the more established cases. Be that as it may, the recent cases demonstrate an alternate tendency. In cutting-edge marine insurance cases, it is more probable, the insurer as opposed to the insured who will complain about the injustice, all things considered.

    This is particularly disputable considering the way that the guaranteed should precisely agree to the guarantee, and break brings about the loss of protection spread, paying little mind to blame on the part of the guaranteed. It has even been held that the guaranteed must conform to any commitment forced by a guarantee, regardless of whether it appears to give preposterous impacts.

    Warranty is as defined in Section 32(1) of the Federal Marine Insurance Act as pursues: ..." warranty" signifies "a promissory warranty by which the insured

    • undertakes that some particular thing will or will not be done or that some condition will be fulfilled; or
    • affirms or negates the existence of particular facts."

    A warranty must be actually agreed to whether it is substantial to the hazard or not. If not consented to, and the breach is not deferred by the underwriter, the underwriter is released from obligation as of the date of the breach, yet without bias to any risk brought about under the approach before the breach.

    A mere intention to breach a warranty, without really doing as such, is not a break of the warranty. Likewise, strict execution of the warranty is not abstained from by an unavoidable need forestalling or preventing it.

    The types of implied warrantied which are recognised in marine insurance is as under:

  • the warranty of the seaworthiness of the vessel
  • the legality of the marine adventure
  • warranty against any deviation during the voyage
  • Implied Warranties:

    The warranty of unbiasedness is not generally an implied guarantee as it applies just when there is an express warranty of impartiality as for insurable property. It just characterizes and delimits the express warranty of lack of bias. The implied warranty of seaworthiness and legality are, in any case, genuine implied warranties in that their presence is accepted and they will frame some portion of any agreement of marine insurance except if conflicting with an express warranty.

    Seaworthiness:

    The implied warranty of seaworthiness is associated with full impact just to voyage policies. The warranty is that the ship will be stable and seaworthy when the voyage commences for the specific voyage that is insured. A seaworthy ship is one which is sensibly and reasonably fit in all regards to experience the standard dangers of the adventure insured. In a time policy, there is no warranty of seaworthiness however where, with the privity of the guaranteed, the ship is sent to the ocean in an unseaworthy manner, the guarantor is not at risk for any misfortune inferable from unseaworthiness.

    Consequently, in a voyage policy, the insurer needs to demonstrate just a single thing; that the ship was unseaworthy at the initiation of the voyage. In a time policy, then again, the insurer needs to establish three things; that the ship was unseaworthy, that the unseaworthiness caused the misfortune, and that the assured was conscious of the unseaworthy condition of the ship.

    Despite the fact that this warranty is significant in issues including hull insurance, the issue is to a great extent irrelevant regarding cargo insurance. Cargo policies generally contain a "seaworthiness admitted" provision by which the freight guarantors concede the fitness for the sailing of the vessel wherein the merchandise is conveyed, along these lines nullifying the impact of the inferred guarantee as to cargo insurance.

    • Escombia Treating Company vs Aetna Casualty and Surety Company:

    In this case, the insurer made an attempt for avoiding the policy by claiming that the owner of the cargo and the vessel's voyage charterer was obliged under the duty of disclosing despite the clause of "seaworthiness admitted" in the policy. The insured argued that this clause would not be applicable when the insured had a substantial knowledge of unseaworthiness and its ability for controlling the voyage's conduct.

    Illegality:

    The guarantee of lawfulness is one which is regularly explicitly incorporated into insurance policies just as suggested. In the event there is an express warranty of legality it will have priority over the implied warranty to the degree the two are conflicting.

    • New Zealand Supreme Court Harbour Inn Seafoods vs Switzerland:

    In this case, the fishing vessel drifted upon a reef. The insurer declined the coverage based on the clause where it provided that the vessel was supposed to be operated in compliance with the rules and regulations as well as other laws which are applicable.

    The court, in this case, put forth that the practice of "laying to" was, in fact, a breach of the regulations dealing with collision and therefore a breach of the implied warranty of legality.

    • James Yachts Ltd vs Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co:

    In this case, the main issue that came up to the courts was that the boat manufacturer had stored his boats in his yard, which is contrary to the by-laws of the Municipality. A fire outbreak destroyed the vessels and the equipment that were stored. The court went ahead and agreed with the insurer that the insured acted in breach of the implied warranty of legality and hence he was discharged from liability.

    Utmost Good Faith:

    A marine insurance policy approach is "uberrimae fidei" the very pinnacle of good confidence and might be stayed away from by the harmed party where the other party neglects to practice the utmost good faith required.

    The Marine Insurance Act of 1906, Section 17, expresses the standard as pursues as, an agreement of marine protection is an agreement dependent on the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith is not seen by either party, the agreement might be kept away from by the other party. The burden of proof is upon underwriters when they raise the safeguard of concealment or non-disclosure. The principles as for what must be revealed by the guaranteed are gone ahead in Section 18 of the Marine Insurance Act of 1906.

    Express Warranties:

    • Navigation/Trading Warranty
    • Private Pleasure
    • Towing Warranties

    Latest advancements in the law in connection to warranties in policies of marine insurance demonstrate that there has been a legal revision of, if not complete revocation of the Marine Insurance Acts. It is just in exceptionally uncommon conditions that a court will discover a policy to contain a genuine warranty. These conditions will basically be constrained circumstances where the guarantee is material to the hazard, and the breach has a direction on the loss.

    Methodology for an insurer to proclaim a breach ofthe warranty in the way that a breach of warranty might be deferred or banished by estoppel, underwriters ought to consider starting an activity for rescission and additionally for definitive judgment looking to dodge the policy. A fundamental component of starting such an activity incorporates the offering, as well as the return of, premium. It ought to be noticed that, under New York law, a state of inclusion, for example, "insurable interest" or "duration of the risk" may not be postponed.

    Just safeguards to, or avoidances from, coverage might be postponed. In spite of the fact that activities by the underwriter might be regarded to make waiver or estoppel issues, express arrangements of the "sue and labour proviso" may accommodate certain activities to continue on a "without prejudice" premise. Obviously, any examinations, activities or guidelines by the backup plan concerning the load and any expressed positions in regards to the declination of coverage ought to be joined by an express "without prejudice" explanation saving rights under the policy or something else.

    Conclusion:

    Marine freight insurance has advanced from restrictive inclusion terms dependent on "named dangers", to wide inclusion terms dependent on "all hazard." The "length of hazard" has constantly extended from "send stacking to ship release," at that point from "Warehouse to Warehouse" and now, well past.

    Custom clauses are seamlessly drafted by dealers to grow inclusion. From 45 the brokers' point of view, guarantees are by and large disfavored. From the underwriters' viewpoint, in any case, warranties remain a viable instrument for controlling risk exposure.

    The role of marine insurance has been to a great extent perceived in both residential just as global exchange and business. Generally, there has been an unfaltering increment in the sorts of instruments using various advancements. The amazing pace at which the route innovation has been changing in the ongoing years, there is a requirement for exhaustive modification of marine protection law.

    Late advancements in the laws identifying with warranties in marine insurance show that there has been a legal alteration of various Marine Insurance Acts. On these lines, it is normal that the IRDA alongside the concerned service ought to incorporate the progressions concerning the evolving innovations.         

     

    ]]>
    Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:30:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Final Law of Sea V.1]]> LAW OF SEA

     "It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top."

    -Hunter S. Thompson

    As in the movie Life of Pi, where the adventures of the sea help the little boy reach his destination. Similarly, the vast ocean quests of the sea provide a pool of resources and opportunities. We are well aware of the fact that oceans hold 97% of the world's water supply and provide a sea of opportunities to corporations that facilitate growth in the world economy. They have always been perceived as an open free space; like a vast frontier.

    Dating back to the 17thcentury, when many countries formalized this viewpoint through the Freedom of the Seas doctrine. The doctrine limited any countries rights to the ocean to a narrow distance, around 4.8 kilometers, surrounding its coastline and declared the rest of the seas to be free to all countries and said that it belonged to no one. This concept had characterized views that the ocean was a vast resource and that all countries could use them however they required.

    There was an immense increase in the use of the high seas, which had challenged this dogma by the start of the 20th century. The ocean's resources were used for all kinds of economic uses, and the countries wished to increase their claims over their resources off the shore. Many activities were being relied on the high seas for their success. Concern started to grow over the impact of the use of the resources and as expected, tension increased between the nations over the rights to the resources.

    Therefore, there was a lot of devastation that took place due to the over-exploitation of water resources by all the countries. From the devastation that took place, the law of the sea was born. The Law of the Sea is the International Law body that governs the principles and rules by which nations, interact in maritime matters, which could include the navigational rights as well as coastal waters jurisdiction. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea or "UNCLOS" is generally said to be the codifier of international law of the sea.

    International Conventions

    Creating an effective governance and regulatory regime for the oceans continues to be a challenge for the international community. The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea defines the rights and responsibilities of nations concerning their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.

    While the Secretary-General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational part in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter being established by the UN Convention).

    Sea Beds- Seabeds are basically defined as the bottom of the Ocean. They may also be referred as Ocean Floor or Sea Floor. In these Sea Beds, a lot of minerals can be found that could be rare and may have immense value. If these minerals are found to be utilized to extreme measures, the minerals may eradicate for good. Therefore, the Conference has spoken about how one has to draft laws related to the seabed to make sure there is no overutilization of the minerals found in the seabed.

     [UNCLOS I, UNCLOS II, UNCLOS III]: The law of the sea developed from the struggle between coastal states, who wish to enlarge their control over marine areas adjacent to their coastlines. By the end of the 18th century, it was understood that states had sovereignty over their territorial sea. The maximum breadth of the territorial sea was generally considered to be three miles - the distance that a shore-based cannon could reach and that a coastal state could therefore control.

    It was posted the Second World War, that the international community requested that the United Nations International law Commission consider codifying the existing laws relating to the oceans. The commission began working towards this in 1949 and prepared four draft conventions, which were adopted at the first UN Conference on the Law of the Sea:

    UNCLOS I

    The First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I)lasted from 24 February until 29 April 1958. During this time, UNCLOS I adopted four conventions, which are commonly known as the 1958 Geneva Conventions:

  • The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of 1958 which is an international treaty which entered into force on 10 September 1964. The convention was ratified by 52 states.
  • The Convention on the Continental Shelf which was an international treaty created to codify the rules of international law relating to continental shelves. The treaty, after entering into force on 10th June 1964, established the rights of a sovereign state on the continental shelf which surrounds the sea, if there be any.
  • The Convention on the High Seas: is an international treaty which codifies the rules of international law relating to the high seas, otherwise known as international waters. The treaty was signed 29 April 1958 and entered into force on 30 September 1962 and as of 2013, the treaty had been ratified by 63 states. The treaty is divided into 37 Articles that help understand the definition as well as the threshold of High Seas.
  •  The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas: which is an agreement that was made solely to resolve the matter through international cooperation, the problems regarding the preservation of living resources of the high seas, considering that because of the development of modern technology several resources are endangered due to overexploitation.
  • UNCLOS II

    The Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II) lasted from 17 March until 26 April 1960. UNCLOS II failed to have any international agreements. During this time, the main topics that came into picture were the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery limits. The conference once again failed to fix a uniform breadth for the territories or establish consensus on sovereign fishing rights. Hence after 6 weeks, this Conference was called off.

    UNCLOS III

    The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) lasted from 1973 to 1982. UNCLOS III addressed the issued bought up at the previous conferences. Over 160 nations participated in the 9- year convention, which finally came into force on 14 November 1994, 21 years post the first meeting of UNCLOS III and one year after ratification by the sixtieth state. One of the most significant features of the convention is the definition of maritime zones – the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the specific economic zone, the continental shelf, the high sea, the international sea-bed area and archipelagic waters. The convention has set out specific clauses for the passage of ships, protection of marine environment, freedom of scientific research and exploitation of resources.        

    Territorial Waters

    The coastal state is free to set laws up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. It may also regulate use, of any resource found in this area. This coastal area is known as Territorial Waters.Shipping vessels may pass through any territorial waters as they are given the right to innocent passage."Innocent passage" is defined as passing through waters in a continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice and spying are not considered "innocent", and underwater vehicles such as submarines are required to make sure that they are seen on the surface and to show a flag acknowledging their presence. Nations can although suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial waters if doing so is essential for the protection of the territory.

    Contiguous Zone

    Ahead of the 12-nautical-mile limit, there are a further 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline limit, which is known as the contiguous zone, in which a state may continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration, and pollution. This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.

    Exclusive Economic Zone

    The coastal lines that extend 200 nautical from the baseline are known as Exclusive Economic Zone. Within this area, the nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In other words, the term may include the territorial sea as well as the continental shelf. Foreign countries have the freedom of navigation and may fly over this area, provided they adhere to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

    Continental Shelf

    A Continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margins outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. The continental shelf of a state can exceed up to 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed more than 350 nautical miles from the baseline. Coastal states also have the authority to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states have been giving an exclusive authority over the living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, however, not on the creatures residing in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

    Parties to the Convention

    The UNCLOS has been ratified by 168 parties, which includes 167 states (164 United Nations member states plus the UN Observer state Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands and Niue) and the European Union. An additional 14 UN member states have signed, but they have not ratified the convention.

    Subsequently, Part XI of the UNCLOS was signed in 1994, amending the original Convention. The agreement has been ratified by almost 150 countries (all of which are parties to the Convention), which includes 149 states (146 United Nation member states plus the UN Observer state Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands and Niue) and the European Union. An additional three UN member states have signed, but not ratified the agreement.             Even though the USA had helped design the convention and is considered a pioneer in making UNCLOS what it is today, they are not a part of the UNCLOS. In 1994, when the Convention has begun, it had signed the Agreement on Implementation but it did not sign the convention since the United States did not agree with Part XI of the Convention.

    The country was indecisive since President Ronald Reagan claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone but later had extended from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles. The members of United Nations had gone on record to say that the President alone does not have the right to change the distance of Maritime boundaries on his own. The decisions can be only revised after the members of Congress cast a vote deciding something as huge as changing the Maritime boundaries for the country.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, UNCLOS has been the best kind of protection that the World has been able to offer to the nations worldwide. We have definitely progressed from the open access regime of the 17thcentury to the partial closing down of UNCLOS III, and now we are able to help the world and make it a better place through arbitration or court filled cases where any country has overstepped their jurisdiction regarding high seas. Whether UNCLOS provides an adequate answer to the challenge of protecting the high seas, I believe the answer is both yes and no. It provides the necessary state obligations and it is certain that no other international convention can create the broad responsibility for the protection of the high seas as well as provide judicial help for justice. However, what is absent are the fine details which could be provided by a new implementing agreement as well as the power that the Developed states hold over the Developing and Under-developed states.

    ]]>
    Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:27:20 GMT
    <![CDATA[CISG Part II]]> AN OVERVIEW OF THE UN CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS

    FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

    Part II (Provision)

     

    CISG in Action

    With the original signatures of representatives from 62 countries,[i]CISG Convention entered into force in 1998-where, despite its number of signatories, it was only ratified by ten nations. Its original intent was to serve as a type of global statutory code for the sale and purchasing of goods in the international context. The Convention was attempting, initially, to eradicate and replace the laws of sale that are domestic within each government with regards to general international transactions.

    The Convention amounted to include 101 Articles in the text. All major areas and issues of trade have been, supposedly, covered in order to avoid misinterpretations of the text-including the issue of having a party possibly misinterpreting the text. The formation and the performance following sales contracts have also been covered by the Convention. The text include many parts and sub-parts that, overall, are devoted to entirely different areas, including (but not limited to) the requirements for an effective acceptance of an offer, or what constitutes a fundamental breach, or the remedies that follow a breach of a contract.

    Primarily, the goal was to unify international sales law.[ii]This was to overall enhance and improve security and certainty in international transactions while facilitating the growth and spread of international trade, adjusting for the different bargaining powers that exist amongst commercial actors.

    Is the Convention successful in attaining its goals? The answer to this question is uncertain. Its asserted uniqueness has often been referred to as an indication of its current or potential success.[iii]The Commentary to the Convention is, however, too positive to measure exactly the effectiveness of its provisions. There are many signs and past cases of the Convention failing to properly govern over states in trade, as opposed to other international trade agreements, such as the World Trade Organization.       

    Evaluation

    In order to assess the effectiveness of the dispute prevention and settlement provisions of the CISG Convention, it is important to compare them to that of other international agreements between states. While the CISG Convention is sufficient enough to prevent and resolve disputes, perhaps it is not as successful as other agreements may be.

    Prevention and Settlement Mechanisms within the CISG Convention

    It is perhaps due to the generality of the existing provisions that the CISG Convention often succeeds in preventing disputes occurring between the parties. The Articles are formulated in a way to accommodate the needs of both the "seller" state and the "buyer" state entering a transaction. Before any dispute arises, states have the ability to observe the other state's behavior and act in this regard. For example, as Article 72(1) states:

    'If prior to the date for performance of the contract it is clear that one of the parties will commit a fundamental breach of contract, the other party may declare the contract avoided.'

    In order to prevent conflict between states, parties to a contract have the option to revoke their obligations in the event of another state's behavior indicating an upcoming breach of contract. This flexibility permits states to avoid conflict in this regard.

    Still, it is understood that disputes may still arise, especially in the case of interpreting the obligations of the parties to the Convention. For example, in the Explanatory note of the CISG Convention, Part One includes a section regarding the "interpretation of the Convention":

    '13. […] Disputes will arise as to [the Convention's] meaning and application. When this occurs, all parties, including domestic courts and arbitral tribunals, are admonished to observe its international character and to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade. In particular, when a question concerning a matter governed by this Convention is not expressly settled in it, the question is to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which the Convention is based. Only in the absence of such principles should the matter be settled in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.'[iv]

    The text of this section specifically details the necessary behavior of states in the case of conflict. Considerations of the law are to be applied only if there is no consensus between the parties on the interpretation of the Convention. However, it is important to note that this also applies to courts who are employed to resolve a dispute. The Convention sets forth international uniform substantive rules to be adopted by the signatory states and, in the event of a dispute, the Court must first establish whether those rules apply to the dispute before utilizing the rules of international law.[v]

    Prevention and Settlement Mechanisms Outside of the CISG Convention

    How do the aforementioned mechanisms of dispute prevention and resolution compare to other agreements of free international trade? Of course, the most famous organization aimed at easing the process of trade is the World Trade Organization (the WTO), which is the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT). With a total of 162-member states, the probability of disputes arising within the WTO is great. Therefore, to avoid the interference with problems, the Organization arranged for there to exist a separate body solely aimed at resolving potential disputes. The Dispute Settle Body (the DSB)-which is provided for in the Understanding on Rule and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the Understanding)-is set and established with the intention to administer the rules and procedures of the Understanding in different scenarios.

    While the original aim of DSB to settle conflicts, there still exists provisions that are allowed to be enabled for the purpose of preventing the disputes before they even occur. The WTO, through the DSB, regularly affirms that each party is undertaking their obligations as per the Convention and the specific transaction they have entered:

    'One of the main characteristics of the previous GATT and now of the WTO is the constant follow-up of the implementation of obligations and the monitoring of compliance with them. The underlying belief is that unless there is a monitoring of compliance with international commitments, those commitments will be worthless.'[vi]

    As per the above, it is understood that if the interactions between two or more parties are not supervised, the dispute will erupt due to lack of liability. There over, to prevent this, regular check-ups are to be implemented.

    If a dispute is brewing or has just begun, the DSB can still manage to calm it down before it grows worse. In this stage, consultation is recommended:

    '[…]. The DSU provides rules and procedures for consultations and the settlement of disputes between Members concerning their rights and obligations under WTO agreements.'[vii]

    By putting the concerned parties of a dispute in consultation, the DSB facilitates for a healthy debate to happen and the needs of both parties will be communicated and negotiated in a civil manner. This procedure of a dispute settlement catches the seed of the problem before it grows. If the dispute is already past this stage, then there are two stages left as recommended by the DSB: "(ii) adjudication by panels and, if either party appeals a panel ruling, by the Appellate Body; and (iii) adoption of panel/appellate report(s) and implementation of the ruing which also includes the possibility of countermeasures in the event of failure by the losing party to implement the ruling."[viii]

    Unlike those party to the CISG Convention, parties of the WTO are ensured by the WTO's presence in any transaction. The idea of constant supervision relieves parties who are unsure or insecure about relations with a specific country. Because the WTO has the ability to employ the DSB body to regulate the occurrence of disputes, it is even more so successful than the CISG Convention. The Convention, on the other hand, relies first and mostly on good faith being exercised by the Member States. But without the constant supervision that the WTO offers, parties are more likely to fall into disputes. With drastic cases, the Convention only allows for Courts to interfere. The next article on this topic will explore all the practical aspects and all the cases in relation to CISG Convention.


    [i] John O Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nationals Conventions 54 (2d ed. 1991).

    [ii] C.M. Bianca & M.J. Bonell, Commentary on the International Sales Law: The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention

    [iii] Michael P. van Alstine, Consensus, Dissensus, and Contractual Obligation Through the Prism of Uniform International Sales Law, 37 VA. J. Int'l L. 1, 3, 6-9 (1996)

    [iv] CISG Convention, Section II, Part one, C.

    [v] UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2012 Edition, Part One, Ch I, p. 4

    [vi] MODULE VIII: Dispute Prevention and Settlement, WTO – B.

    [vii] Ibid, C.

    [viii] Ibid, D.

     

    ]]>
    Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:38:36 GMT
    <![CDATA[Limitation Funds in UAE]]> Limitation Funds in UAE

    As with most of the world's trading countries, the United Arab Emirates (UAE)has embraced international conventions in its national laws which, in certain conditions, allow carriers such as shipowners to confine their liability for claims made against them. Archaeologically, the reason for letting shipowners limit their liability was for policy purposes, to be specific, to encourage the international trade by sea. The value of claims emerging from maritime occurrences, for instance, the loss of freight, could exceed the cost of the vessel and ruin a shipowner. International conventions obliging the limitation of liability, therefore, aims at looking for a balance between sufficiently paying a claimant for its loss and allowing owners to limit their potential liability to a sum that can safeguard the interest at a reasonable cost.

    In the UAE, Articles 138-142of the Federal Law Number 26 of 1981 of UAE Maritime Code entitles an owner, charterer or worker to restrain the liability given the size of the vessel.

    This article is meticulously in light of the 1957 International Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability of the Owners of Seagoing Ships (the 1957 convention). This agreement, be that as it may, was superseded in 1976 by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims (the 1976 Convention).

    It was, by and large, acknowledged that the 1957 convention required updating and the 1976conferencewas acquainted with widening the types of cases subject to limitation, increment the points of confinement of liability and reexamine the test for conduct barring a litigant from its prerogative to restriction. Under the 1976 convention, the privilege to limit liability expires only when an applicant can demonstrate willful intent or recklessness concerning the individual looking to constrain (Article 4 of the 1976 convention).

    The privilege to restrict liability under the 1976 convention, as far as anyone is concerned, was under efficient inspection in England just once since 1976.  In this case, the master (who was likewise the proprietor) of an angling vessel purposely and frequently crossed caught up with transportation paths before different ships in the English Channel. In explicit contravention of the movement division scheme keeping in mind the end goal to be the first to touch base at lucrative angling grounds. Amid one of those intersections, there was a collision. The master knew the hazards he was taking that is, the danger of an impact, however, all things considered purposely took them. It is evident that the expectation of the 1976 tradition, to be specific that it will break the privilege of limiting extraordinary conditions.

    Ships, by nature of their exchange, are involved in events that lead to claims. These claims may be for personal injury, damage to property such as other ships or fixed and floating objects such as drifting items, or cargo damage, to name a few. A shipowner may be exposed to extensive loss, even to the extent of insolvency, as a result of claims. In acknowledgment of the essential and necessary role played by ships in endorsing world trade, shipowners are permitted to restrict their risk for applications in individual countries, subject to certain conditions. Such constraint is allowed by international conventions such as the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC 76).

    Since 1957, as the values of consignments, containers, docks installations and the like vastly augmented, and claims arising from marine deaths similarly escalated, many claimants felt that the limits enforce by 1957 Convention were irrationally low. So, in cases where the limitation of liability was likely to be intricate, expensive and time-consuming lawsuits often resulted to "break the fund." Also, since 1957 as some of other Conventions have come into effect which has dealt with liability in specific fields, for instance, the Civil Liability Convention on oil pollution. Conventions such as these introduced monetary limits for their particular category of responsibility much superior to the overall limits administer in the 1957 Convention. To avoid, either in general or in specific circumstances, the Convention limits annul by the much lower worldwide limits of the 1957 Convention, modifications are always necessary. In addition to mollifying the desire of probable claimants for higher limits, the change was needed to make more confident prerogative to limit liability. The product of this need for modification is the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the 1976 Convention).

    Would vicarious liability apply in case of ship employees' responsibility?

    There can be numerous parties as defendants in a suit for negligent behavior. The palpable defendant is the party that committed the act leading to the damage – usually an employee of a group or company. The superintendent or administrator who serves as the superior of the employee is also often named. And generally, the employer of the employee (usually the "deep pocket") is often designated based on the legal maxim of Respondeat superior (also called vicarious liability.)

    In the case Kadylak v. Royal Caribbean, the claimant got several wounds while motorcycling with a passenger on the seashore with an employee of the ship, during the spare time and for the personal pleasure of the employee. The court noticed that the employee was not on duty and was not wearing a ship uniform or name tag; it granted immediate judgment ruling that the employee was not acting within the extent of employment and that Royal Caribbean was not vicariously liable.

    What is Limitation of Funds?

    The term Limitation of Funds indicates a guarantee or deposit made by a shipowner to meet any damage claim and the shipowner has to calculate it on the irresponsible ship's weight or some tons. Limitation of Funds is a legislative amount to fix the constitutional limit of liability of shipowners for the negligence of their captains, officers or the operators. World nations have entered into an international agreement between the countries concerning the limitation fund. Many states permit a shipowner facing a pertinent negligence claim to deposit an amount with the court, on a non-bias basis until a decision has been affected, an economic value limited and calculated concerning the density of the ship.  Archeologically, the purpose of allowing shipowners to limit their liability was for policy purposes, specifically, to boost international trade by sea. The deposit constitutes sole source of the monetary limit of the shipowner's liability. In what follows will be a comprehension of how it is possible for a shipowner to set up a limitation fund in the UAE.

    What is meant by collision as per UAE courts?

    The Maritime Code of UAE defines "collision" as contact amongst vessels and ships, however notably exempts floating objects moored to a fixed anchor. As such, communication of boats with objects such as oil platforms has been held by the UAE courts not to be collisions.

    What is the Dubai World Tribunal (DWT)?

    The Dubai World Tribunal (DWT)was at first instituted in 2009 as a specialist court as an outcome of the international economic crisis to discharge the local judge's caseload. Also, in a situation where the Government of Dubai was under extreme monetary pressure and concerned that this might affect the solidarity of the government-owned Dubai World group of companies.

    Naturally, therefore, Decree (57) of 2009("the decree"), which offered life to the DWT, concentrated principally on building up and arrangement of bankruptcy guidelines and systems in light of those effectively pertinent in the Dubai International Financial Centre ("the DIFC"). These thus depended on US and UK law and hence quite different from those who would otherwise have applied in the UAE.  Unlike the DIFC, be that as it may, the DWT was instructed to apply UAE law to the disputes beforehand.  The decree (as subsequently modified) also provided that the DWT was to have legal authority over "all claims and demands by and against the Dubai World or any of its subsidiaries companies" to the segregation of the local "onshore" courts.

    As the Government of Dubai sought to reform its business interests, the DWT saw a noteworthy assignment in its early years, most remarkably resolving disputes relating to the real estate company, Nakheel, a former Dubai World subsidiary.  In any case, as the world financial outlook improved and the restructuring advanced, the tribunal's workload diminished to such a degree that in 2017 there were only two cases began before the DWT and the decision was that there had been deliberations about disbanding it. 

    The Court's decision in one of those two 2017 cases may be that as it may, lead to renewed interest in the DWT, mainly from the maritime sector. In a verdict, Claim No DWT 0001-2017, the DWT acknowledged the shipowner's quarrel that it had power to and should make an order permitting the constitution of a limitation fund by the 1976 Convention which the UAE had executed by Federal Decree Number (118) of 1997.

    The judgment would seem to prepare the DWT's exclusive jurisdiction to be invoked in maritime disputes that left UAE. For instance, if a shipping container (the largest of which may now carry not far short of 20,000 vessels) involves itself in an event in the Singapore seas. The very fact that there was a separate shipment of cargo on board belonging to a Dubai World company would legitimize the commencement of a limitation action before the DWT, regardless of whether that entity brought no case. It is because as a significant aspect of this decision, DWT found the meaning of Article 11 of the 1976 Convention. Further, UAE law follows the English Court of Appeal decision in The Western Regent and does not require any substantive case to be against the shipowner in the jurisdiction before the commencement of limitation proceedings.

    There is clear, unreliable evidence that the "onshore" courts in the UAE have been unwilling to allow limitation legal order or allow limitation funds to be constituted even in prominent cases. The DWT referred to this issue in its judgment but dismissed it as insignificant on the basis that no proof to support the proposition was in reference before it.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ]]>
    Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Логистическая Зона Бахрейна]]> Сердце Залива  - Бахрейн

    «Стартап – это компания, которая не знает, что она продает, кто ее клиенты и как зарабатывать деньги».

    Центральное расположение в регионе Персидского Залива, стабильный экономический климат, атмосфера, благоприятная для бизнеса, современные технологии и исключительные возможности для бизнеса – достаточные аргументы для убеждения инвестора вложиться в стартап. Бахрейн привлекает иностранных инвесторов в течение последних двух десятилетий и прекрасно понимает их потребности. Благодаря устойчивому росту в экономике Ближнего Востока множество компаний готовы инвестировать в растущую многомилионную экономику. В то время, когда другие страны борются за инвестиции, Бахрейн будет правильным выбором для ведения прибыльного бизнеса.

    Учитывая экономическую характеристику, Бахрейн широко известен как самый свободный экономический рынок на всем Ближнем Востоке, который опережает страны G7, такие как Япония, Франция, Индия, Китай и Германия. Главной целью страны является сохранение статуса самого свободного рынка в Персидском Заливе любым путем. Правительство Бахрейна играет решающую роль в обеспечении роста производительности частного сектора за счет найма квалифицированной рабочей силы. По сравнению с другими странами Персидского Залива Бахрейн был первым в диверсификации своей экономики от нефти, тем самым поддерживая ее стабильность. Это был правильный шаг в достижении звания наиболее благоприятной бизнес-среды.

    На международном уровне Бахрейн хорошо известен благодаря своим двусторонним торгово-экономическим соглашениям с более чем 45 странами, в числе которых Индия, Франция, Германия, Китай, Сингапур и Великобритания. Одно из самых выгодных соглашений было заключено с США, в соответствии с ним компании могут взимать на 35% больше за свои товары и услуги, чем в Бахрейне и могут пользоваться беспошлинной торговлей на рынке США. Трейдинговым компаниям открыт весь рынок Ближнего Востока с дополнительными возможностями экспорта по всему миру в качестве вишенки на торте.

    Текущие реформы обещают успех в развитии бизнес сферы в Бахрейне, а также на международном уровне. Ниже приводятся несколько примечательных моментов в экономике Бахрейна, способных привлечь иностранных инвесторов для инвестиций в свободную зону Бахрейна:

  • Самые низкие налоги в Персидском Заливе, без корпоративного, личного или подоходного налога;
  • Сто процентное иностранное владение;
  •  Свободный от ограничений капитал, прибыль, дивиденды;
  • 16 место в рейтинге самых свободных экономик мира;
  • Первая страна, имеющая соглашение о свободной торговле с США.
  • Путь к Доходам

    Свободные зоны Бахрейна признаны лучшими в мире, так как они, как известно, являются оптимальной деловой средой  для международных компаний для ведения внутреннего и внешнего бизнеса. Бахрейн во многом является одной большой фризоной, так как он i) освобожден от налогов ii) позволяет стопроцентное иностранное владение в некоторых отраслях iii) имеет минимальные таможенные пошлины. Это ключевая привлекательность для международных компаний, стремящихся установить присутствие в регионе и ожидающих высокого уровня экономического роста. Бахрейн имеет три основные зоны свободной торговли (FTZ). К ним относятся Логистическая Зона Бахрейна (BLZ), Международный Инвестиционный Парк Бахрейна (BIIP) и Зона Аэропорта Бахрейна (BIA). В отличие от других стран Ближнего Востока Бахрейн не требует наличия местного жителя Бахрейна в качестве акционера для торговой и коммерческой деятельности.

    Логистическая Зона Бахрейна идеально расположена рядом с портом Халифа бин Салман, который предлагает современные склады, в 13 километрах от международного аэропорта Бахрейна и всего в 40 километрах от Аль-Хоббар в Саудовской Аравии. BLZ предлагает условия сравнительно более дешевые, чем другие свободные зоны в Северном Заливе. Основные преимущества выбора BLZ над другими фризонами:

  • 100% иностранное владение;
  • Многообразие доступа наземным, морским и воздушным транспортом;
  • Большой выбор земельных участков, начиная от 4000 m²;
  •  Развитая инфраструктура с достаточной дорожной сетью и специализированными въездами на участки, предназначенными для грузового транспорта;
  • Круглосуточные таможенные услуги;
  • Услуги менеджеров, помогающих в создании и операционной деятельности компании в Логистической Зоне Бахрейна;
  • Основные услуги, включающие управление объектами и отходами;
  • Услуги от А до Я.
  • Логистическая Зона Бахрейна (BLZ) является первой областью логистики в регионе, которая эффективно отвечает требованиям аренды жилья. Являясь первым логистическим хабом на Ближнем Востоке, BLZ специализируется на добавленной стоимости и реэкспортной логистической деятельности. Товары могут быть импортированы или экспортированы, имея нулевой налог и нулевые таможенные пошлины. BLZ регулируется Управлением Портов и Морских Дел при  Министерстве Транспорта и Телекоммуникаций. Она предлагает региональным и международным компаниям платформу для развития и использования всех преимуществ выгодного расположения Бахрейна для обслуживания рынка Северного Залива и быстрого доступа к рынкам стран Залива. BLZ приглашает компании, занимающиеся сборкой компонентов, маркировкой, упаковкой и повторной упаковкой, смешиванием, взвешиванием и распределением, комплектацией и паллетизацией, а также тестированием и ремонтом, кроме того приглашает ретейлеров и дистрибьюторов. Благодаря своему расположению вблизи порта, BLZ будет играть неотъемлемую роль в поддержке основной инициативы по развитию Бахрейна как перегрузочного пункта для региона.

    BLZ предлагает индивидуальные услуги для удовлетворения операционных потребностей бизнеса. Помимо услуг по упаковке, переупаковке, логистике, экспорту и реэскпорту, опытные менеджеры BLZ предлагают индивидуальный персонализированный сервис для предоставления комплексных решений. По согласованию с соответствующими государственными и юридическими организациями, они могут обеспечивать лицензирование, регистрацию, выдачу виз и другие процедуры для обеспечения деятельности в свободных зонах Бахрейна.

    Что Готовит Будущее

    BLZ предоставляет выбор участков для лизинга, начинающихся с 4000 квадратных метров. Независимо от размера участка или его использования, все они оснащены всеми коммунальными услугами, присутствует служба безопасности и другие службы управления. Руководство BLZ планирует увеличить размер свободной зоны на 150 процентов, что составляет 475000 м2, что позволит привлечь 600 миллионов долларов США прямых инвестиций.

    Компании, зарегистрированные в свободной зоне, уже начали предварительное бронирование, как например, CEVA logistics из Нидерландов, которая зарезервировала склад площадью  10,000 m2. Danzas AEI Intercontinental, который является рабочим подразделением DHL Global Forwarding в Бахрейне, также подтвердил намерение открытия нескольких административных центров логистики в BLZ. Открытие BLZ как центра развития бизнеса на Ближнем Востоке, укрепит положение Королевства как важного промежуточного торгового пункта, одновременно создавая предприятия на более, чем 280 миллионов долларов США. Существующие проекты дальнейшего расширения территории на 150 процентов дополнительно прибавят 600 миллионов долларов. Свободная зона привлечет более 50 близлежащих локальных и международных инвесторов, создавая около 2400 рабочих мест в логистической зоне. После окончания строительства BLZ предложит своим арендаторам распределительный центр, торговые и офисные помещения до 475,000 квадратных метров.

    Награды и Признание

    BLZ  продвигается на рынке как первый мультифункциональный логистический центр на Ближнем Востоке, специализирующийся на реэкспорте и действиях по приросту стоимости. BLZ была выбрана в номинации «Экстраординарное достижение года» в прошлогодней премии Системы Поставок и Транспорта (SCATA), в сотрудничестве с Hala Supply Chain Services (HSCS), Gulf Agency Company (GAC), Gulftainer и Департаментом Экономического Развития Дубая (DED). 

    Бахрейн занимает вторую позицию на Ближнем Востоке в Индексе Материально-Технического Обеспечения Всемирного Банка и стремится стать точкой соприкосновения для соседних локальных или международных организаций, расширяя их деятельность внутри страны. Благодаря улучшению кредитно-денежной политике Бахрейна, страна имеет лучшие логистические офисы на Ближнем Востоке. Эта зона имеет выход к значительным морским, наземным и воздушным ресурсам. Это помогает устранить препятствия, которые не позволяют инвесторам добраться до рынков Ближнего Востока, кроме того, значительно сохраняется время на перевозку грузов в Кувейт, Ирак, Иран и другие регионы северного залива.

    Необходимо отметить, что инвестор может создать три типа компаний: предприятие свободной экономической зоны (FZE), компанию свободной экономической зоны (FZC) и филиал иностранной или местной компании. Ниже приведены документы, необходимые для открытия вышеуказанных компаний. 

    Название документа

    FZE

    FZC

    Филиал

    Заявление

    Бизнес план 

    Письмо о намерении 

    Финансовый отчет аудита (за последние 3 года) 

     

    Сведения о компании 

     

    Выписка из банка за последние 6 месяцев

     

     

    Рекомендательное письмо из банка 

     

     

    Копии паспортов акционеров 

     

     

    Доверенность, образец подписи,  копия паспорта и резюме менеджера

    Свидетельство об отсутствии возражений от спонсора

    Регистрационный сертификат от от основной компании 

     

    Меморандум о намерении и Учредительный договор основной компании 

     

    Решение Правления основной компании

     

    Письмо о назначении, доверенность, образец подписи и копия паспорта законного представителя 

    Доверенность, образец подписи и копия паспорта директора 

     

     

    ]]>
    Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:15:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Требование демерреджа для невозвращенных контейнеров]]> CLAIMING DEMURRAGE FOR UNRETURNED CONTAINERS

    A Case Study

    Time and tide wait for none. The earliest acknowledged record of this proverb is by St. Marher in 1225; however, the actual origin of this saying cannot be certainly determined. St. Marher had stated that 'te tide and te time þat tu iboren were, schal beon iblescet'. Although the essence of this proverb is about the value of time, we have observed that it has substantial nexus with the concept of shipping and maritime activities.

    A few centuries ago, there were no flights to transport goods in a day's time. Ergo, large containers that consume substantial space, finances, and physical effort to were employed to carry and store the consignment. For instance, person A had sent a container from the United States to Dubai. However, A's associates, who were assigned to take delivery of the goods in Dubai had failed to do so. Unlike rejecting your everyday online purchases at the time of its delivery, it is pretty strenuous to send back a container that weighs over a couple of tons back to another corner of the world. Carrying cargo by sea also permits merchants to consign a larger quantity of goods with reduced freight charges and, undeniably, no retailer prefers to pay more. The aviation industry is a relatively novel compared to the shipping and maritime industry. The origin of containerization of goods dates back to the early eighteenth century used for the purpose of railways trade. However, with the surge in international trade, the need for container shipping increased, and several governments further developed the containerization system for efficient trading of supply cargos. Since then the industry has grown tremendously to the extent that each day thousands of containers arrive at seaports from various countries around the world. Globalization further supplemented to this phenomenon and succored liner shipping to emerge as one of the crucial elements of international trade and commerce. Everyone can now avail these shipping services, and therefore it resembles, in principle, a public transportation service carried out with the help of containers of various capacities.

    The nature of transaction for the supply of the container to a merchant is similar to the contract for a supply of vessel to a voyage charterer under a charter party. Accordingly, the parties may incur an extra charge for the usage of the container beyond the agreed time.

    The merchants are granted a schedule in their contract, under container demurrage clause, to unload the container and any additional usage of time beyond the given time is considered chargeable. Therefore, container demurrage is often charged by the shipping lines for not returning the containers in a reasonable period or in the agreed time.

    The demurrage is liquidated damages in western as well as common law jurisdictions. However, under UAE law, demurrage is chargeable for a fixed period beyond the agreed time and additional terms as provided under Article 231 of the Federal Law Number 26 of 1981 on Maritime Commercial Law (the Maritime Law). Over and above the stated period, demurrage is comprehended to be applied as per the customs under Article 8 (2) of the Maritime Law and therefore, considered as liquidated damages.

    Since the demurrage provisions and specifically container demurrage remains untested under UAE laws there remains a possibility for application of established international customs. Given the same, it becomes pertinent to be acquainted with the updates on international regime over the issue.

    In the case of MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA V Cottonex Anstalt 2016[i]{C}{C}, the court of appeal in agreement with Justice Leggatt's judgment under MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Cottonex Anstalt 2015{C}{C}[ii], decided whether the obligation of the merchant to re-deliver the containers continues indefinitely and also defined the scope of their liability to pay demurrage. Further, the courts also looked into the issue of non-breaching party's exercise of the option to keep the contract active and the nature of their duty to mitigate the losses.

    Facts of the Case

    MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, one of the largest carriers of shipping containers in the world was the claimant in the case mentioned above whereas Cottonex Anstalt, a cotton merchant was the defendant. In 2011, MSC contracted with the respondent, to carry raw cotton in its containers to Bangladesh. The carrier company (MSC) took 35 containers of raw cotton to Bangladesh as per five (5) bills of lading, and Cottonex was the shipper. The Shipper had agreed on the sale of such cotton to the Bangladeshi receiver company. By the time the goods arrived at the port of Chittagong, the world market for raw cotton had collapsed, and consequentially the market prices for the cotton plunged. Thus, the Bangladeshi receiver i.e. consignee of a shipment of containerized cotton refused to collect the goods and failed to take delivery at the port of discharge in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

    Consignee's bank issued a letter of credit and despite the consignee's attempt to prevent payment, the bank paid to the Cottonex. Consequently, the ownership of the goods transferred to the recipient and Cottonex was rendered incapable of unloading the goods and returned the containers to MSC. Meanwhile, the Bangladeshi customs authority disallowed anyone from emptying the containers without a court order while there was an ongoing dispute between consignee and its bank.

    Under the bill of ladings, Cottenex was obliged to return the containers within fourteen (14) days from the date of discharge. MSC sought to recover the demurrage for unreturned containers from Cottonex as per the agreed bill of ladings and began charging them demurrage after 14 days of free-time even though Cottonex had lost title over the goods and was incapable of collecting it. Therefore, Cottonex refused to pay demurrage as being devoid of claim over goods and being paid through the letter of credit, thereby having no authority to deal with cotton or container and Cottonex no longer remained a legal holder of the bills of lading. The claim of demurrage from MSC left Cottonex potentially liable for open-ended liability until the matter was under trial.  Till the time the issue reached trial proceedings, the containers remained uncollected on the port of Chittagong for almost three (3) and half years after they arrived and the total claim amount for demurrage was more than US Dollars one million which was ten times more the replacement value of the containers.

    MSC also offered Cottonex to buy the container in 2012 but the offer was refused. The case was filed by MSC in London in 2011 to recover the demurrage which runs till the time the container is returned amounting to US Dollars 1 million and kept counting.

    Court of First Instance

    The main issues raised during the trial were liquidated damages and duty to mitigate, repudiatory breach of contract and duty to act in good faith.

    Cottonex advanced the following arguments in defense against the demurrage claims:

           i.          MSC should have taken steps to mitigate the losses by unpacking and returning the containers or by buying the replacement containers.

          ii.          Cottonex conveyed their unwillingness and incapability to re-deliver the container to MSC. Hence, Cottonex had repudiated the contract and following that MSC had no "legitimate interest" in affirming the contract.

    In February 2015, Justice Leggatt held that MSC ceased to have a legitimate interest in keeping the agreement alive in expectation of future performance as Cottonex made it clear that they are neither able to nor willing to redeliver containers without excessive delay. However, there was no obligation on the MSC to mitigate losses as the demurrage provisions are considered liquidated damages clause which excludes the duty to mitigate. According to Leggatt J, MSC did not have unfettered right to avoid a repudiatory breach and claim the liquidated damages for indefinite period making the liquidated damages an unenforceable penalty. Further, there was no evidence of financial loss to MSC, and if such detention of container prevented the MSC from performing future contractual obligations, MSC would have purchased the replacement containers.

    After reviewing some case laws, the court came to the conclusion that following Cottonex's repudiation of contract MSC only had a right to affirm the contract and claim demurrage if it had a legitimate interest in it. However, in given circumstances, MSC, the Carrier, had no legitimate interest in keeping the contracts of carriage alive after that date to continue claiming demurrage for an unlimited period as such act is wholly unreasonable. Finally, the court acknowledged, but did not create any precedent regarding the increasing need for good faith in contractual dealings and for the purpose of which it stated that it should not be exercised "arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably."

    Court of Appeal

    Aggrieved by the judgment, MSC appealed before the Court of Appeal (CA) and persisted with the same argument as put before the court of the first instance. MSC again argued that the Cottonex was duty bound under contractual obligations to return the containers and such commitment continues indefinitely, and so continues the demurrage. The CA disagreed with MSC's argument and in consonance with Justice Leggatt's opinion on the issue of continuing liability for an indefinite period. However, the CA did not agree with Leggatt J's rationale as to when the accruing demurrage had come to an end.

    Repudiatory Breach

    The CA held that failing to return the container amounts to a breach of contract but such breach was not immediately repudiatory. Leggatt J stated that not returning the container amounts to a repudiatory breach only when the delay renders the performance of the other obligations under the contract of carriage fundamentally distinct from those which the parties had initially undertaken. Another instance of a repudiatory breach was when the delay was continuing as long as it can be comprehended by a reasonable person in the position of the parties that the delay is likely to last that long. As per Leggatt J such period was when MSC had no title to the goods or possession of the bill of ladings. However, CA disagreed with the view and adjudicated that such incident happened in 2012 when MSC offered Cottonex to buy such containers and the offer was declined which is the clearest indication that the purpose has been frustrated.

    Consequences of Repudiatory breach

    Justice Moore-Bick L. agreed on the issue of no legitimate interest to carry on with an affirmation of the breached contract and adjudicated that there was no option of affirming the contract once the performance sought becomes impossible and the adventure frustrated as if the shipper or whosoever responsible has destroyed the containers. Therefore, the innocent party has no right to affirm the contract as the operation of law will automatically discharge the contract.

    Conclusion

    This case certainly has vast implications for container trade and shipping lines. The shipping lines need to consider re-drafting their contracts as the demurrage cannot be kept open-ended as provided in the judgment which would have significant value in the UAE or case of contracts being governed by English law. STA's team of shipping lawyers in Dubai will be happy to assist you through the process of re-drafting and to advise on implications of unreturned containers in UAE and under English law.


    [i] MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v. Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789

    [ii] MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2015] EWHC 283 (Comm)

     

    ]]>
    Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:00:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Mr. DEBT’s hello to Mr. DAMAGE: Case Analysis on Freight Industry]]> Mr. DEBT's hello to Mr. DAMAGE: Case Analysis on Freight Industry

    Suppose an individual has borrowed a specific sum of money against an asset of a reciprocal value as security. However, the debtor fails to fulfill his obligation; and subsequently, the creditor exercises his lien and disposes of the former's asset to retrieve the due amount. Unfortunately, the sale proceeds of the debtor's assets were not sufficient to cover his claim. Ergo, a substantial question arises as to whether the creditor would continue to have a claim against the debtor? Better yet, could one opine that the creditor would have a valid claim if the underlying issue was outstanding freight charges and not a loan and the security sold was the cargo? Let's read further to find out.

    The graceful commercial effect of globalization paved the way for various industries that were primarily intended to facilitate the process of international trade. By then, sea cargo was already a major player in the logistics supply chain employing thousands of container ships over most of the earth's waters. However, the convoluted technicalities of the industry raised substantial ambiguity in the legal relationship between the parties in a charter party agreement. Further, the complexity of the legality surrounding the industry along with the multiplicity of jurisdictions involved in a maritime dispute has led to numerous circumstances which questioned the fundamental principles of maritime jurisprudence. One such situation arose in 2016 when the Commercial Court in Singapore had to identify the characteristics of freight in the infamous case of D'Amico Shipping Italia SPA v Endofa DMCC and Another. The primary argument before the court was if outstanding freight charges in a charter-party would amount to damages or unpaid debt. This case felt the paparazzi chills due to the undeniable universal concept that awards damages to the ship owners when the other party of a charter party agreement does not pay freight charges, or demurrage. The industry was unfamiliar with this technique due to the general perception that the concept of debt would arise only when a party undertakes a monetary loan for a security of similar value. However, this case established a nexus between outstanding freight and unpaid debt by comprehending the underlying asset in both the circumstances viz. cargo and security, respectively.

    Once Upon a Time…

    The story unfolded when Endofa DMCC (the Charterer) chartered a voyage to transport a cargo of crude oil (the Cargo). The Cargo was being shipped by a third-party shipper from Ghana to Germany through a vessel owned by D'Amico Shipping Italia SPA (the Ship Owner) vide a charter party agreement (the Agreement) between the parties. The Agreement consisted of a before breaking bulk clause and provided the Ship Owner with a lien over the Cargo until all freight and demurrage charges were paid off by the Charterer and the third-party shipper. Further, the before breaking bulk clause granted the former with a right to withhold the Cargo until the time of payment of all due amounts by the other parties.

    However, things went south due to the failure of the Charterer to meet its obligations and pay the freight charges after the vessel reached its destination in Germany. The Charterer and the third-party shipper also failed to provide necessary instructions regarding the discharge of the Cargo. Therefore, the aggrieved Ship Owner decided to exercise its lien to meet the outstanding amount that arose from the Agreement. Consecutively, the Ship Owner obtained a court order and disposed of the Cargo for USD 3.2 million after a period of five (5) months. However, the tale did not end there since the sale amount did not meet the wholesome claim amount of the Ship Owner. Therefore, a suit for summary judgment was instituted by the Ship Owner with the view to obtain the balance amount in freight and demurrage from the Charterer and the third-party shipper.

    The Undeniable Characteristics of Unpaid Freight

    In this instance, the court faced with the mammoth task of determining the characteristics of outstanding freightage amount while analyzing the provisions of the Agreement. Therefore, the court had to comprehend the precise moment when the freight became due to ascertain if the balance amount could be recoverable as the outstanding debt. One might wonder, why all this hassle over a few technical terms like unpaid debt and damages when the whole debacle surrounds a charter-party dispute. Recapping to the earlier mentioned complexity surrounding charter-party agreements, it is imperative to note that mitigation is a substantial factor that the court takes into consideration while ruling a suit for damages. That means that the court would consider the measures adopted by a party to curtail the potential losses of the other party in a suit for the award of damages arising from a tort. However, this rule does not have any standing in a suit to recover debt since the burden is generally not on the creditor to minimize the debtor's losses.

    In this case, the Charterer was placed with the burden to prove that the Ship Owner was negligent in its attempt to mitigate the losses that the other parties could incur. Therefore, the Charterer argued that the freight charges were payable as damages and further would not become due until the Cargo had been discharged or was made available to them by the Ship Owner. They also contended that freight had not accrued when the vessel had reached its destination, due to a breach of the Agreement that resulted from their failure to provide necessary instructions regarding discharge. Further, the Charterer claimed that the Ship Owner had not taken appropriate measures to mitigate the potential losses that they could incur since the former had exercised its right to lien only after (5) five months from the date of arrival of the vessel. Further, the Charterer argued that the sale receipts of the Cargo would be adequate to cover the costs of freight and minimize the claim against the third-party shipper if the Ship Owner had disposed of the Cargo earlier.

    However, the court comprehended that charter-party agreements consist of tailor-made provisions such as the before breaking bulk clause and hence, should concentrate on the specific provisions of the Agreement while analyzing the characteristics of the freight involved. However, the court also took the opinion that the provisions of general law and commercial practice should also be taken into consideration while determining the payment of freight in this case. Therefore, the Commercial Court scrutinized the provisions of the Agreement and held that shipment would be due before the Cargo is ready for discharge under the Agreement. Further, the court observed that the Agreement had granted the Ship Owner the right to withhold the discharge of the Cargo unless the Charterer paid the freight amount. The court also took the opinion that the freightage would be due from the moment the Ship Owner was ready to discharge the Cargo since the Agreement had provided that the former could retain the possession of the Cargo until the other partied cleared all payments. Therefore, in the present case, the amount of freight was payable as debt since the Charterer and the third-party shipper did not pay due amounts and provide the Ship Owner with relevant information regarding the discharge of the Cargo. Further, the court also rejected the contention of the Charterer relating to the duty of the Ship Owner to mitigate a separate loss, by stating that the alleged failure of the latter to dispose of the Cargo promptly cannot be the defense to a different suit for unpaid freight.

    Conclusion

    This case is expected to establish a global standard regarding the payment of freight as an outstanding debt. Therefore, the owner of a ship would not be under the duty to minimize the losses of the other parties as long as the freight had become due by the charter-party agreement. Further, it is imperative to note that courts interpret the relationship between the parties and the characteristics of the subject matter of a maritime dispute by analyzing the ambit of the underlying charter-party agreement. Therefore, parties in the contract should scrutinize disputes relating to charter-party agreements establish a clear nexus between rights and obligations against one another. The bespoke legal advice of an international law firm with a dedicated legal team is expected to support the cause of the parties in such an agreement.

    ]]>
    Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:00:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Дилемма OW Bunker]]> Дилемма OW Bunker

    Кто должен платить, когда поставщик топлива становится неплатежеспособным.

    1.   Введение

    Распад компании OW Bunker (the OW) широко освещался по всему миру. OW был одним из крупнейших в мире поставщиков бункерного топлива, подавший на банкротство в 2014 году. Финансовый крах OW имеет далеко идущие последствия для судовладельцев. Это происходит по тому, что на топливном рынке, владелец судна, как правило, входит в договор купли-продажи с поставщиком на поставку бункерного топлива. Поставщик затем заключает другой контракт со сторонним поставщиком. Таким образом, создается цепь контрактов без каких-либо договорных отношений между владельцем судна и стороной, стоящей в конце цепочки (которая фактически поставляет/доставляет топливо на судно). Контракты в цепи обычно сохраняют пункт о временном сохранении права собственности (the ROT), в пользу поставщиков. Все участники цепочки знают заранее, что топливо будет использоваться владельцем судна до того, как будут сделаны выплаты поставщику.

    Что произойдет, если поставщик/договорной контрагент (с которым владелец судна изначально заключил контакт на поставку) стал неплатежеспособным? В октябре 2014 года владелец Res Cogitans [2015] EWHC 2022 аключил контракт с OW Bunker на поставку топлива на судно стоимостью 443,800 долларов. В свою очередь OW Bunker приобрело топливо у Роснефть Лтд. Когда OW Bunker закрылись, владельцы судна получили конкурирующие претензии от банка ING и Роснефти Лтд (физического поставщика).

    Возникает вопрос, кому должен платить владелец судна, если договорной агент прекратил существование? Договорному контрагенту (ДК) или физическому поставщику (ФП)? Если ФП не получил платеж, может ли он арестовать судно? Цель данной статьи состоит в том, чтобы ответить на эти вопросы согласно морскому праву Великобритании и ОАЭ и представить некоторые предложения

     

    2.   Кому платить?

    Если владелец судна производит платеж ДК, существует риск того, что деньги будут удерживаться ликвидаторами и не достигнут ФП (юридическое лицо в конце цепочки). С другой стороны, если владелец судна заплатит ФП, это не освободит его от обязательств перед ДК (которым он должен выплатить по договору поставки). ДК и ликвидаторы могут также осуществлять удержание судна. Ликвидаторы имеют определенные обязанности по взысканию сумм, включая денежные средства предназначенные ФП. Таким образом, владелец судна может получить конкурирующие претензии как от ДК, так и ФП. Если ФП не получат оплату за топливо (которое они доставили на судно), то они имеют право его залога в качестве оплаты.

     

    3.   Могут ли ФП арестовать судно?

    В соответствии с английским морским правом, существуют два вида морских требований, которые могут привести к аресту судна.

    1.      Морское право ареста имущества должника - сюда входит «ущерб, нанесенный судном; спасенное имущество; удержание оплаты моряков и капитана; расходы капитана»;; и

    2.      Нормативные морские претензии – включающие «какие-либо претензии в отношении товаров или материалов, поставляемых на судно для его эксплуатации или технического обслуживания» и которые будут включать поставку бункерного топлива (с.20 (2) разделы (а) до (с) Закона Верховного суда) Однако, в соответствии со статьей 21 (4) Закона Верховного суда, до того, как действие против имущества может быть возбуждено и/или ФП подаст заявление об аресте судна, следующие условия должны быть соблюдены:

    a.       Требование должно быть связано с судном, и,

    b.       Лицо, которое должно нести ответственность за корабль, на момент возникновения претензии, должно быть хозяином судна или владеть им.

    Таким образом, ФП может иметь законное право и подать заявление на арест судна, только если его владелец лично несет ответственность перед поставщиком топлива. Так как владелец судна не имеет договорных отношений с ФП, поэтому он не несет перед ним личной ответственности. Следовательно, нет права арестовывать судно в Англии.

    Хотя некоторые ФП могут утверждать, что владелец судна является стороной договора в силу счета, адресованного ему. Тем не менее, это вряд ли будет считаться контрактными отношениями между ними, учитывая, что нет никаких доказательств договорных отношений. Согласно статье 19, Закона о продаже товаров в Великобритании 1979 года (SOGA), ФП может также утверждать, что в силу пункта о временном сохранении права собственности (ROT) в контракте, право собственности на топливо не было передано владельцу судна. Однако, этот пункт сложно применить, когда топливо используется судовладельцем.

    4.          Положение в ОАЭ

    Статья 115 (1) и (2) (i) Федерального Закона №26 от 1981 ("года о Коммерческом Морском Праве («КМП») гласит") states:

    1.       "«Постановление об аресте имуществе может быть установлено в отношении судна приказом компетентного гражданского суда. Это может быть сделано только для погашения морского долга.

    2.       Выражение «морской долг» означает требование в отношении какого-либо права, вытекающее из одной из следующих причин:

                                         i.          Поставки продуктов или оборудования, необходимого для использования или технического обслуживания судна, в любом месторасположении поставки".

    Согласно Статье 115, упомянутой выше, ФП находятся в сильной позиции, чтобы арестовать судно для обеспечения соблюдения своих требований. Чартерные суда также подлежат аресту согласно положениям КМП, если фрахтователь заказал бункерное топливо для судна.

    В OW Bunker Middle East DMCC ("OWBME"), владельцы судов были подвержены двойному требованию оплаты со стороны ФП и ликвидаторов OWBME. Кроме того, банк ING Bank N.V также имел интересы в силу Соглашения о Безопасности (СП), заключенного между ING и OWBME; и таким образом утверждая приоритетный статус кредитора по отношению к дебиторской задолженности OWBME. Владелец судна и его фрахтователь утверждали, что не несут ответственность за выплату ФП, так как не существует договорных отношений между сторонами. Соответственно, они попросили суд отклонить арест судна, поданный ФП.

    Федеральный Апелляционный Суд Хорфаккана, на основании Статьи 115 (i) вынес решение в пользу ФП, и апелляция банка ING была соответственно отклонена.

    Решение суда явно укрепляет позиции физических поставщиков бункерного топлива в ОАЭ, в отношении законности ареста судна. Оно также может предоставить некоторые показания для судовладельцев кому платить. Тем не менее, стоит отметить, что в ОАЭ, в отличие от юрисдикций общего права, решение апелляционного суда не является обязательным. Так что же делать владельцам судов, если они сталкиваются с двойными требованиями к оплате от договорных контрагентов и физических поставщиков, если ДК прекратил свое существование.

    5.   Решения и предложения

    Совершенно очевидно, что распад OW Bunkers оказал огромное влияние на владельцев судов по всему земному шару. Очевидно также, что время играет большую роль в судоходном бизнесе. Каждый час ареста судна в порту может быть очень дорогостоящим.

    Чтобы избежать риска задержания судна за неуплату топлива, судовладельцы в Сингапуре положили на депозит средства в суд Precious Shipping Ltd v. OW Bunker (Singapore) and others [2015] SGHC 187. Для предотвращения ареста контейнеровоза "Cosco Piraeus" суд Нью Джерси попросил владельца судна положить на депозит 938,607 долларов на счет юридической фирмы, чтобы покрыть задолженность бункеровки.  

    В принципе, владелец судна и поставщик могут договориться внести средства на целевой депозитный счет, пока суд не решит, кому платеж должен быть перечислен. Хотя зачисление средств на подобный счет может показаться справедливым решением, поставщику нет стимула на это соглашаться. Это происходит потому, что согласно КМП ОАЭ, поставщик находится в выгодном положении для того, чтобы возбудить иск за неуплату и арестовать судно. Следовательно, для поставщика согласиться с предложением означает долгое время ожидать решения суда;

    Кроме того, в ОАЭ только банковские гарантии, чеки или наличные деньги используются в качестве залога для должников. Так что, когда судно арестовано ФП, могут быть приняты только банковские гарантии, чеки или наличные деньги. Владелец судна как таковой может находиться под коммерческим давлением, чтобы урегулировать претензии поставщика, поскольку организация банковских гарантий, может быть очень дорогим занятием.  

    Итак, для владельца судна может быть выгодно достичь урегулирования до задержания судна. Таким образом, владелец судна может избежать задержания и выполнить свои финансовые обязательства. Владелец судна может также запросить у поставщика возмещение убытков, чтобы обезопасить себя от претензий третьих лиц. Для поставщиков подобное положение также выгодно, так как они будут получать компенсацию без задержки.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ]]>
    Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:43:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[Vessel Arrest ]]>Maritime trade has been carried out since ages and it remains to be backbone of world economy by hauling around 80 to 90% of world trade. UAE being the place in between Asia and Europe has been natural port. UAE is bordering the Gulf of Oman and the Persian(Arabic) Gulf, between Oman and Saudi Arabia where it joins the Arabian Sea.; it is in a strategic location along southern approaches to the Strait of Hormuz which is a vital transit point for world crude oil. UAE is growingly becoming centre for imports and re-exports. There is a surge in international trade giving rise to extensive global commercial transactions resulting into rise in general commercial and shipping disputes. This article accentuates the vessel arrest regime in UAE for securing debts as shipping companies deal with various claims which are often against vessel.   1. What is the Law governing Vessel Arrest in UAE?   The Vessel arrest is the way of security under maritime transactions. It is also a statutory right of a claimant under the UAE Commercial Maritime Code No. 26 of 1981, as amended by law No. 11 of 1988 (the 'Maritime Code') (hereinafter referred to as the "Law"). It provides and regulates the arrest of vessels. In UAE, distinction is made between 'provisional' arrest and 'executory' arrests. The regulations relating to the former are contained in Articles 115 - 122 of the law, while the latter are regulated by Articles 123 - 134.    The UAE Courts may apply maritime customs and general principles of justice, provided these customs  and principles do not conflict with the provisions of the Shari'ah as stated under Article 8 of the Law in the absence of any law pertaining to the subject matter of dispute. UAE is currently not signatory to any International Conventions pertaining to Vessel Arrest however various provisions of Hague-Visby rules are imbibed in the Law. UAE is also not signatory to Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules. However International Conventions expressly incorporated into bills of lading or contracts will be given the force of law in UAE Courts provided the costly process of translated and certified copy of the convention is provided to the Court.   2. What are the legal provisions for Vessel arrest?   The only ground for Arresting Vessel is Maritime debt as stated under Article 115 of the Law. A maritime debt is defined as a claim in respect of a right arising in the following circumstances: a) Damage suffered by the vessel by reason of collision or otherwise. b) Loss of life or personal injury occasioned by the vessel and arising out of the use thereof c) Assistance and salvage d) Contracts relating to the use or operation of the vessel under a charter party or other contract e) Contracts relating to the carriage of goods under a charter party, bill of lading or other document f) Loss of or damage to goods or chattels carried on board the vessel g) General average h) Towage or pilotage of the vessel i) Supplies of products or equipment necessary for the maintenance or operation of the vessel, wherever the supply is effected j) Construction, repair of equipment of the vessel, dock charges and dues k) Disbursements made by the master, shippers, charterers or agents on account of the owner thereof l) Wages of the master, officers and crew, and other persons working on board the vessel under a contract of maritime employment m) Dispute as to ownership of the vessel n) Dispute in connection with the joint ownership of the vessel, or with the possession or use thereof, or with the right to the profits arising out of the use thereof o) Maritime mortgages   Arrest of Sister Vessel:   Article 116(1) permits the arrest of a sister vessel owned by the debtor at the time when debt arose. However the courts do not have tendency of lifting corporate veil. There is no right to arrest other vessels owned by a defendant in the circumstances stated in Articles 116.2. Therefore, the sister vessel cannot be arrested where the claim concerns disputes over ownership, joint ownership and mortgages and the arresting party is only entitled to arrest the vessel to which the debt refers. However as per Article 117, the creditor can arrest vessel not owned by the debtor who is also a charterer and is granted navigational administration rights, he shall be solely responsible for any maritime debt on it and the creditor can arrest this vessel or any other vessel owned by the charterer and cannot arrest any other vessel owned by the disponent owner.   Therefore, contrary to English law there is no difference between Maritime Claims and Liens under UAE Law. It can be Maritime lien but creditor may not be entitled to vessel arrest if it does not fall in above stated categories of maritime debt as per the Law.   3. Which courts have competency to deal with vessel Arrest?   The competency of court is stated under Article 122 of the Law stating that the civil court in whose jurisdiction the arrest took place shall be entitled to decide on the subject matter of the claim in any of the following circumstances, even if the vessel is not UAE flagged, which are in addition to those set out in the procedural laws of the UAE: 1. If the plaintiff has a regular place of residence or main office in the state. 2. If the maritime debt arose in UAE. 3. If the debt arose on a voyage during which the vessel was arrested. 4. If the debt arose from a collision or an act of assistance over which the court has jurisdiction; and 5. If the debt is guaranteed by a maritime mortgage on the arrested vessel. However in practice the courts have often granted provisional arrest orders merely because of the vessel's presence in UAE territorial waters. This can be inferred from Article 21(2) of the CPC which states that the courts of the UAE shall be competent to hear a suit against a foreign defendant who has no domicile or residence in the UAE, if the case concerns property located in the state.    4. What is the procedure for vessel arrest?    A written application must be made to the civil court accompanied by copies of all relevant documents relating to the claim which may form prima facie evidence of existence of maritime debt. The court will briefly examine such documents and decide often without hearing counsel whether or not to grant a provisional remedy. In some Emirates, as a condition of granting an arrest, the court may require the arresting party to provide counter security as bank guarantee equivalent to claim amount and to undertake to indemnify the respondent for any loss or damage, within the claim amount, and to pay compensation if a final judgment determines that the arrest was wrongful. In addition to the indemnity undertaking the claimant must also, in certain Emirates, undertake to be responsible to the court for the costs and expenses of maintaining the vessel while it is under arrest. Under some circumstances such as where claimant is UAE national written undertaking may be sufficient. Further, in the cases of claims by crew members for their wages, the courts will not insist upon countersecurity being provided.   Further to arrest any vessel in UAE, the claimant needs to provide a notarized, attested and authenticated Power of Attorney (POA) to counsel having right to audience in UAE and if the said POA is executed abroad, it shall be notarized and regularized by the relevant Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Country of execution and authenticated by the UAE Embassy in that Country. Further, upon its arrival in the UAE, the POA shall be further authenticated into Arabic. These lengthy processes have often turned out to be an impediment in the urgent situations of arrest. Moreover, the documents supporting the claimant's entitlement to arrest the vessel must be translated into Arabic by an official court approved translator. This makes it unfeasible to obtain arrest of vessel in short notice. Hence the lawyer needs to be advised in advance of vessel arrival at port whenever possible.   Special Procedures:   As maritime claims are often treated on urgent basis by various jurisdictions all around the world for obvious reasons similarly UAE has separate rule embodied in Civil Procedures Code for the date of the hearing if it relates to a maritime claim which can be even an hour following the time of notification to defendant with no further requirement to prove any urgency and necessity for such short term notice unlike other civil cases.   5. What are the other matters to be considered in respect of the arrest?   a. Suit: The substantive suit is required to be filed within eight days from the date on which the attachment was effected as per Article 285 of the Civil Procedure Code. b. Court fees: The value of the claim determines the Court fees payable for instituting an action before the Court of First Instance in specific Emirate with maximum payable court fee of AED 30,000/- in UAE. c. Service of order: The order for the vessel arrest is served by the court bailiff and police officers, with the assistance of the port authority and served on the master of the vessel or his deputy, and on the port authority at the place where the vessel is arrested. Upon the service of order the usual procedure of the port authorities taking possession of the vessel's documents and the seamen's books or the passport of the master and the crew follows. d. Appeal: Since the time taken for interlocutory appeal and decision for release is lengthy it is advisable to provide security in order to obtain the release of the vessel. e. Maintenance of vessel: Usually the party seeking arrest has to account for the costs of maintaining the vessel whilst it is under arrest. Indeed, an undertaking to be responsible for the costs of maintaining the vessel is to be attached to its arrest application. This includes all port fees, towage and amounts due to the crew. f. Bail: Bail provision for arrested vessel is stated under Article 118 of the law wherein the competent civil court shall order lifting of arrest order on providing security or other surety which is sufficient to meet the claim. However it also states that a vessel will not be automatically released from arrest if the arrest has been effected in connection with either of the matters concerning: 1. a dispute as to the ownership of the vessel; 2. a dispute in connection with the co-ownership of the vessel, or 3. with the possession or use thereof, or 4. with the right to the profits arising out of the use thereof. In such cases, the court may permit the person in possession of the vessel to provide sufficient security and use it, and may pass discretionary order to charge a person with the management of the vessel during the period of the arrest. g. Release order: As per Article 118.3 of the law any release of vessel under above provision is not considered admission or acknowledgment of claim. h. Limitation period: Time limit is different for different types of claims for which arrest is sought. Such as claim for personal injury or death has time bar of 2 years as per Article 299 and claims concerning collisions have time bar of 2 years from date of collision as per Article 326.    6. How are the vessels sold after arrest order is final?   Once the final judgment is rendered against vessel the court orders the sale of arrested vessel. The sale is advertised as stated in Article 126 of the law requiring publication of a notice by the Creditor within 90 days in one of the widely circulated local newspapers, usually an Arabic daily. The reserve price and condition of sale is fixed by court. If the creditor fails to complete the publication formality within time frame the court may order arrest order to be discharged. The sale takes place after fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice and not later than 30 days. In all, three sessions of auctions are held at intervals of seven days. The highest bid in previous auction is taken as reserve price in next auction and in third session the highest bidder secures the vessel.    Concluding Remark    The legal process may become time consuming and lengthy due to translation and attestation requirement but being influenced by the international laws, maritime customs followed commonly and increasing trade, the courts may consider the arrest by claimants on prima facie evidence of debt in favour of claimant and security being provided. The most important concerning zone is guiding lawyers in advance to finish the process and to pull off arrest as required.  ]]>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:00:00 GMT<![CDATA[Crash and Splash]]> 1. What is maritime collision?

    A maritime collision is when there is physical contact between two vessels. This can be classified as one of three categories: i) fault of one vessel, ii) fault of both vessels, and iii) force majeure (event that cannot be controlled by the parties). The Law expressly states that, if a collision arises due to the error of one vessel the same will be solely liable for all and including all damages of cargo, belongings, monies or personal injury. If the collision has been cause by simultaneous negligence of both parties, where they failed to divert their course in due time, it will be considered as a both to blame collision. As a result both parties will be blamed and the liability will be assessed in proportion to the degree of error of each party.

    2. If at the last minute we manage to avoid physical contact but some damages were caused to another vessel?

    The Law states that where there is no collision, however the disrespect for the rules of navigation has been ignored by one or both vessels cause damage to another vessel, the collision rules and regulations shall apply to assess the negligence degree, the fault towards the other vessel. This means that per the Law the collision concept covers not only direct but also indirect collisions.

     

    3. How will the court assess my fault?

    The Maritime Code only imposes liability when there has been fault. It is therefore imperative to investigate whether there has been negligent conduct by one or both vessels and, if fault on both sides is found, the degree of blame will be between the vessels.

     

    4. In case of collision before which court shall I file my claim?

    It depends, as per the maritime code the claimant may file the action before the court where the defendant resides, where the vessel of the defendant is registered or located, where the sister vessel is sequestrated, where security has been offered or in the jurisdiction of the place where the collision occurred, if it took place within the ports, docks, or other domestic waters. However, please be advised that in the absence of any lawful excuse, the claim for compensation shall be filed within two years from the date of the incident collision.

     

    5. Do I as a witness have duty of care towards the vessels involved in the incident?

    Yes, the law states that every master must provide assistance and salvage to the other vessel, its crew/passengers as much as possible to the extent that they do not endanger or expose his own vessel or crew/passengers. If the master of the vessel abstains from providing assistance he can be charged with a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding AED 10,000. The operator or the owner of the vessel will be liable for the breach of this duty if the master is acting as per their express orders.

     

    6. Will I be eligible for any compensation for the assistance and salvage?

    Yes. You will have the right to claim for remuneration if you manage to achieve a satisfactory result with your actions, in any case the remuneration may not exceed the value of the salvaged goods. You will not  be entitled to remuneration for the rescue of crew/passengers, however if you do rescue other lives you may have a share of the remuneration granted to the one whom in the same incident assisted the vessel and mange to salvage the vessel; its goods, and or crew/passengers.

     

    7. What is categorized as loss?

    The UAE does not have their own rules to estimate the total value of losses or damages arising from a collision. However, according to international maritime rules and practice, losses sustained by the colliding vessels, damage to cargo or freight, costs and expenses associated with the collision, and their interest should be taken into account for the purpose of compensation.

     

    8. Who evaluates the extent of the collision?

    The provisions of the Maritime Code provide very little guidance concerning the evaluation of fault. However, as a collision is often caused by a vessel violating navigation rules, therefore, the evaluation of fault should be approached in the light of the Regulations for Preventing of Collisions at Sea (the Collision Regulations), adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1972. The Collision Regulations are in place not only to prevent a collision but also to prevent the risk of collision. They regulations were introduced into the national law of all shipping communities in the world and are applicable to all vessels upon the high sea and all waters connected therewith.  In UAE, all vessels, whom navigate in UAE water, must comply with the Collision Regulations. In any case where a master does not comply with the Collision Regulations, the master is liable to pay fine AED 1000.

     

    9. If I dry-dock my vessel who is liable to pay?

    The cost of dry-docking a vessel will be allowed as an element of collision damages, provided that the cause of damage for which the vessel is dry-docked and reasonable necessity of dry-docking is to make the vessel seaworthy proven by evidence. If the collision renders the vessel unseaworthy and requires a dry-docking to restore it back to seaworthiness the expenses and loss of time and loss of opportunity is allocated to the owner and the subsequent parties involved.

     

    10. During the collision there is personal injury to member on the boat, who is liable to pay?

    In the UAE the personal injury or death in a collision case will receive full verifiable damages. Assuming that the incident is both -to-blame collision, each vessel is jointly liable to the claimant. The amount that a vessel owner is obligated to pay death and personal injury claimant is included in the claim against the other vessel. If the amount the claimant receives is reduced because of the claimant's contributory fault, the ship-owner who pays the claim can include only that reduced amount in his claim against the other vessel.

    ]]>
    Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:00:00 GMT
    <![CDATA[ОАЭ Морские грузоперевозки и морское право (Часть 1) – Часто задаваемые вопросы]]>

    предисловие

    Путешествия и перевозки морским путем – один из наиболее ранних способов торговли. Разрешения споров касательно морской торговли отмечены в истории раньше, чем какие либо другие. Морское право претерпело значительные изменения с тех пор. Хотя каждая страна имеет свое собственное законодательство, регулирующее морские вопросы, крайне важно отметить, что значительная часть этой отрасли права зависит от международного права, которое включает многопартийные международные договоры.

    Я намерен открыть морскую торговую компанию и планирую купить новые корабли. Как мне правильно пройти процесс регистрации?

    Закон ОАЭ О Морской Торговле (Федеральный Закон Номер 26 от 1981 года, с поправками) (далее Закон) регулирует все способы транспортировки в пределах Объединенных Арабских Эмиратов. Закон запрещает кораблю идти под флагом ОАЭ, если судно не удовлетворяет условиям, установленным в статьях 18-37 Закона. Тем не менее, определенные категории кораблей освобождаются от процедуры регистрации.

    В соответствии с указом Министерства Связи №110 от 1998 года, запрещается эксплуатировать иностранные суда старше 20 лет в территориальныx водах ОАЭ. Как национальные, так и иностранные суда должны иметь действующую страховку, позволяющую работать на территории ОАЭ. Департамент по Морским Перевозкам в Министерстве Связи контролирует процесс регистрации и все вопросы, связанные с морской отраслью. Рыболовные суда, прогулочные лайнеры или коммерческие корабли весом менее 10 тонн освобождаются от регистрации. Суда, баржи, лихтеры, буксиры, лодки, краны, лодки ныряльщиков, фрахтователи и другие плавающие сооружения на территории портов ОАЭ также освобождаются от регистрации. Танкеры, которым более 10 лет, не могут быть зарегистрированы.

    Статья 27 Закона устанавливает процедуру регистрации и требует, чтобы каждый заявитель предоставил: а) название судна; б) прежнее название судна (если таковое имеется); в) дату и место строительства, название и адрес завода или верфи, где был построен корабль; тип корабля, грузоподъемность и другие измерения; г) имена владельцев, их род занятий, вероисповедание, национальность и адрес; д) название компании-владельца, род деятельности, адрес штаб-квартиры, тип управления е) имя капитана судна, национальность, место жительства и его квалификации; ж) наименование перевозчика и связанные с ним детали; з) детали закладной и т.д.

    В недавнем решении исполнительного комитета, резолюция №11 от 2013г., реализующий подзаконный акт закона №11 от 2010г., касающийся лицензирования судов в эмирате Дубай, роль Управления Maritime City Дубая была усилена, что позволило ему установить схему регистрации для судов, работающих в территориальных водах эмирата Дубай. Решение также включает в себя вопросы, связанные с передачей собственности на судно, изменения в лицензии, отмена лицензии, утеря или повреждение, и т.д..

    Будет ли мое судно автоматически иметь гражданство ОАЭ? 

    В соответствии с положениями статьи 14 Закона, судно приобретает принадлежность ОАЭ, если оно зарегистрировано в одном из портов Арабских Эмиратов или его владельцем является гражданин или компания, имеющая гражданство ОАЭ. До тех пор, пока юридические лица сохраняют соответствующую структуру долевого распределения, указанную в Законе ОАЭ о Коммерческих Компаниях (Федеральный Закон №8 от 1984 г.), судна, зарегистрированные на такие организации, могут получить гражданство ОАЭ. В случае, если судно находится в корпоративном владении, учредителем которой является более, чем одно государство, судно, в таком случае, приобретает гражданство государств-партнеров в соответствии с международными договорами. Судна, которые были конфискованы за нарушение закона и неопознанные суда будут автоматически приобретать гражданство.

    Какие трудовые законы будут регулировать мой экипаж? 

    Статья 165 Закона устанавливает, что «права и обязанности экипажа должны быть определены в подзаконных актах, установленных на судне, таким образом, чтобы они не противоречили трудовому праву». За исключением положений о сверхурочных, Трудовое Право ОАЭ (Федеральный Закон №8 от 1980 г.) регулирует вопросы трудоустройства.

    Кто может назначать и увольнять капитана? Каковы его полномочия и обязанности? 

    Капитан назначается и увольняется оператором судна. Закон устанавливает, что капитан должен быть единственным командующим на судне в соответствии с указаниями оператора и вести морской маршрут. При управлении судном капитан должен принимать во внимание технические принципы, принятые в навигации по морю, международные конвенции и положения, действующие в государстве, на территории которого находится судно. Капитан также должен содержать судно в готовом для плавания состоянии, убедиться, что имеются достаточные запасы для плавания. Капитан лично должен выбрать маршрут движения судна при заходе или выходе из порта, стоянке на якоре или прохождении рек, и в целом, во всех случаях, когда навигация выполняется в сложных условиях, даже если ему приходится обращаться за помощью к лоцману. Капитан также имеет полномочия установления подлинности документов и может решать все административные вопросы на борту корабля, он также имеет право налагать дисциплинарные взыскания в соответствиями с правилами и условиями законодательства.

    Каковы мои права и обязанности, если я подписываю контракт на морскую транспортную перевозку? 

    Контракт на морскую перевозку – это договор, в котором перевозчик обязывается перевезти груз из одного порта в другой в соответствии с условиями, оговоренными между перевозчиком и отправителем. Это должно быть закреплено в накладной, и перевозчик, или его представитель, должны предоставить эту накладную по первому требованию отправителя. Накладная должна содержать соответствующие детали по контакту, включающие имя, адрес перевозчика, отправителя, получателя, порт погрузки и порт назначения, дата и место выдачи.

    Что происходит в случае аварий и происшествий? 

    Статьи 318-326 Закона регулируют и покрывают часть законодательства, касающуюся аварий и происшествий на море. Гражданский Кодекс ОАЭ также регулирует эти вопросы. Более подробно мы будем обсуждать это в следующей статье.

    Морской Кодекс ОАЭ говорит о том, что в случае столкновения между морскими судами, или между морским судном и лодкой, находящейся в домашних водах, компенсация за повреждения будет присуждена в соответствии с положениями данного Кодекса, вне зависимости от законодательства страны, в которой произошло происшествие. 

    Что произойдёт, если один из членов моего экипажа получит травму в ходе плавания?

    Если кто то из моряков получил травму или заболел, выполняя служебные обязанности, оператор должен предоставить лечение бесплатно, и полную оплату за время плавания, после которого в силу вступает Закон о Труде.

    Даже если он был пьян и был ранен в результате драки с другим моряком во время плавания?

    Если моряк был ранен в результате драки, оператор должен предоставить ему лечение, но имея право вычесть стоимость лечения из оплаты его труда. Если улучшения состояния не наступает, ему не полагается оплата, кроме отработанных дней. Если наступает смерть, оператор обязан оплатить похороны вне зависимости от причины смерти.

    Какой уголовный закон применяется в этом случае?

    Уголовный Кодекс ОАЭ, статья 17, второй параграф указывает на то, что он также относится к коммерческим судам и воздушным суднам, носящим флаг государства ОАЭ.

    Существует ли специальный Морской Суд? В какой судебный орган мне следует обращаться в случае возникновения проблем?

    Нет, в ОАЭ нет Морского Суда. Дела, связанные с морским правом, рассматриваются в обычных судах. Для рассмотрения подобных дел часто привлекаются специалисты в морских спорах.

    ]]>
    Thu, 22 May 2014 12:00:00 GMT