目录

1．陈震、陈春申请强制执行“中威案”判决扣押船舶案

2．舟山市海利远洋渔业有限公司申请“雪曼斯”轮案

3．奥列格等外籍船员申请扣押“密斯姆”轮案

4．上海海事法院扣押拍卖“富通09”轮案

5．“三湖蓝宝石”轮系列扣押案

6．丹麦供油有限公司申请扣押“星耀”轮案

7．德国航运贷款银行申请扣押拍卖“阿明”轮案

8．五矿国际货运有限责任公司申请扣押“海芝”轮案

9．巴拿马天裕轮船有限公司申请扣押“姗妮1号”案

10．马绍尔群岛伊克利普斯财产股份公司申请扣押“L-710”轮案

案例1

陈震、陈春申请强制执行“中威案”判决扣押船舶案

（一）基本案情

1936年，中威轮船公司将其所有的“顺丰”轮、“新太平”轮租与大同海运株式会社使用。租用期间，两轮被日本海军“扣留”，后交由大同海运株式会社继续运营至两轮沉没。中威轮船公司尔后通过政治、外交、司法等途径向日本政府索赔两轮损失，均未果。1988年12月，原告中威轮船公司、陈震、陈春就该案向上海海事法院提起诉讼，要求被告日本海运株式会社（即大同海运株式会社后身）支付租金并赔偿损失。诉讼期间，日本海运株式会社变更为商船三井株式会社。

2007年12月7日，上海海事法院判决被告商船三井株式会社向原告陈震、陈春支付并赔偿船舶租金及孳息、船舶运营损失及孳息、船舶损失及孳息合计2,916,477,260.80日元。原、被告均不服提起上诉。2010年8月6日，上海市高级人民法院作出终审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。判决生效后，商船三井株式会社迟迟不肯主动履行生效判决确定的赔偿义务。

（二）裁判结果

2014年4月19日，上海海事法院在本案强制执行程序中，对停泊于我国浙江省嵊泗马迹山港的被执行人商船三井株式会社所有的“宝韵”（BAOSTEEL EMOTION）轮依法实施扣押，4天后，商船三井株式会社即按照上海海事法院《限期履行通知书》的要求，支付了判决本金2,916,477,260.80日元；一、二审案件受理费、申请执行费；同时就迟延履行债务利息提供了现金担保。4月24日，上海海事法院依法解除了对“宝韵”轮的扣押。

（三）典型意义

本案通过扣押船舶，促使日本商船三井株式会社履行我国法院生效判决，为历时26年的“中威案”画上了圆满的句号，极大的维护了我国法律与司法的权威，在国际航运界、海事司法界引起强烈反响，成为国内外媒体报道的焦点，树立了我国良好的法治形象。

案例2

舟山市海利远洋渔业有限公司申请“雪曼斯”轮案

（一）基本案情

“雪曼斯”（SNOWMASS）轮系俄罗斯籍远洋运输船，原登记所有人为东风航运代理有限公司（EASTWIND SHIPPING AGENCIES SA），登记光船承租人为斯马特航运代理有限公司（SMART SHIPPING AGENCY LTD）。2009年11月，该轮自阿根廷外大西洋西南海域承运一批冷冻鱿鱼到达舟山港，货物变质受损。货主上海和顺渔业有限公司、舟山市海利远洋渔业有限公司、舟山新吉利远洋渔业有限公司以该轮冷冻设备故障导致其托运的冷冻鱿鱼严重受损为由，于2009年12月29日向宁波海事法院申请扣押停泊于舟山港马峙锚地的“雪曼斯”轮，要求船方提供300万元担保。

（二）裁判结果

宁波海事法院审查后依法裁定扣押“雪曼斯”轮，责令“雪曼斯”轮船东向法院提供300万元或其他可靠担保。该轮船东已被宣告破产，由破产管理人接管，因忙于破产事务无暇顾及涉案纠纷，外籍船员困顿无助，一名外籍船员扣押期间因病死亡。对此，宁波海事法院采取了以下应对措施：第一，安排好船员扣押期间食宿，协调看船公司负责看管；第二，垫付船员遣返费，在做好船舶交接后，立刻安排船员回国；第三，通知原告追加提供充足担保；第四，依法拍卖船舶，将连同船员医疗费、遗体火化等费用在内的遣返费用在船舶拍卖款中优先拨付。

（三）典型意义

在船东弃船的情形下，如何妥善处理外籍船员特别是船员遗体回国等相关事宜，我国法律没有明确规定。宁波海事法院发扬国际人道主义精神，在外籍船员困顿无助时安排好船员扣押期间的食宿，及时垫付遣返费用，并协调船舶代理公司安排船员顺利回国。将政府部门垫付的外籍船员医疗费、殡仪馆存放费及遗体火化费等纳入到船员遣返费用，兼顾中外各方利益，促使这一涉外事件快速妥善解决，彰显了我国法院司法为民的人文情怀，树立了良好国际形象。

案例3

奥列格等外籍船员申请扣押“密斯姆”轮案

（一）基本案情

“密斯姆”（Maxima）轮是密斯姆航运公司所有的散货轮，注册地在荷属安德列斯威廉斯塔德港。2012年6月，该轮在我国沿海海域航行途中不慎与他轮发生碰撞，事故造成他轮严重受损，同时因碰撞发生溢油事故，对附近海域造成污染。事故发生后，“密斯姆”轮被送往崇明码头维修。自此，奥列格等11名在船的乌克兰籍船员工资一直未予发放，之后6名船员自掏腰包先行回国，其余5名船员仍滞留在船，负责看守船舶。2013年7月，“密斯姆”轮在船的5名乌克兰船员因船东长期拖欠其工资于2013年7月17日向上海海事法院提出扣押船舶的海事请求保全申请，并就船员劳务合同纠纷对船东密斯姆航运公司提起诉讼。其他船员随后也提起诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

上海海事法院收到申请后，于当日即作出扣船裁定。考虑到外籍船员盼望早日回家的急切心情，法院协调落实船员上淡水、物料、生活保障用品的供应后，积极与船员劳务公司、船东代理以及外籍船员律师联系，委托国内船员劳务公司派员看管船舶，使外籍船员得以回国。

开庭审理后，上海海事法院迅速作出判决，支持了船员们的全部诉请。判决生效后，因被告未在法定期限内履行判决书中确定的义务，奥格列等于2014年1月向上海海事法院申请强制执行。上海海事法院依法启动船舶拍卖程序。最终“密斯姆”轮以人民币3990万元被德国一家航运公司竞得，船员的劳务报酬在拍卖款中依法获得优先清偿。

（三）典型意义

在该系列案件处理过程中，上海海事法院以船员为本，数次登轮召开现场会议、关心船员生活及船舶安全，把牢船舶检验、评估、安全监管等各个环节，确保船检及评估报告客观反映船舶实际情况和价值，克服航运市场低迷等不利因素的影响，顺利推进司法拍卖程序。在拍卖成功后，从船舶拍卖价款中优先拨出人民币154.30万元作为11名乌克兰籍船员的劳动报酬。上海海事法院依照我国法律，遵循国际惯例，依法行使司法权，平等保护国内外当事人的合法权益，让外籍船员感受到中国司法的温暖。受到乌克兰驻上海领事馆的肯定和感谢，树立了上海国际航运中心的良好形象。

案例4

上海海事法院扣押拍卖“富通09”轮案

（一）基本案情

“富通09”轮系登记在被执行人朱某名下的干货轮，总吨3880吨，载重量8300吨。远东国际租赁有限公司为与芜湖市富通轮船运输有限责任公司、朱某船舶营运借款合同纠纷，于2014年8月13日向上海海事法院申请在上海港扣押朱某所有的“富通09”轮。上海海事法院裁定予以准许，并实施了扣押。同月26日，远东国际租赁有限公司与上海银行股份有限公司浦东分行共同向该院就此纠纷提起诉讼。次月5日，原、被告在法院的主持下达成调解协议，各被告同意向原告支付相应借款本金、利息等，若未能按期支付，原告可向上海海事法院申请拍卖“富通09”轮，并在拍卖款中优先受偿。后因被告未能在调解书中确认的期限内支付调解款，原告申请强制执行。

（二）裁判结果

上海海事法院收到强制执行申请后，立即对可执行财产进行排摸调查，并最终决定拍卖已扣押的“富通09”轮。鉴于在以往的船舶拍卖中，因航运市场经济复苏缓慢的原因，一艘船舶常需要经多次流拍——降价——再拍的过程才得以最终成效，法院决定尝试以网上拍卖的方式拍卖该轮。2014年10月20日，上海海事法院依据《海事诉讼特别程序法》的相关规定，成立了“富通09”轮拍卖委员会。经反复论证网上拍卖的可行性后，根据《上海法院涉国有资产司法委托拍卖操作规则》的相关规定，上海海事法院与上海联交所协商开展网络竞拍船舶工作。11月28日15时17分，经过32轮的激烈竞价，“富通09”轮在上海联合产权交易所官方网站的交易平台以604万元的价格成功拍卖。

（三）典型意义

船舶拍卖是海事债权实现的一个重要途径。在传统模式中，竞买人需要到拍卖现场参加竞拍，费用支出与时间成本降低了潜在竞买人参加竞买的积极性。网上拍卖充分运用现代互联网信息技术，极大地节约了竞买人的交易成本和交易时间，提高了船舶拍卖的竞争程度，更利于发现标的资产价格，保护债权人利益。上海海事法院在本案中依托上海联交所的成熟交易平台，确保了拍卖程序的安全性。是一次创新海事执行方式、提高便民服务水平的有益探索。

案例5

“三湖蓝宝石”轮系列扣押案

（一）基本案情

2011年6月9日，申请人阿联酋阿曼国际贸易公司（OMEN TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED）因与被申请人韩国三湖海运株式会社（SAMHO SHIPPING CO.，LTD）债务纠纷向武汉海事法院申请扣押被申请人所属的“三湖蓝宝石”（SAMHO SAPPHIRE）轮。此后，又有六家境外债权人，申请对该轮采取扣押措施，债权人涉及七个国家和地区，债权总额达600余万美元。此外还有该轮抵押权人韩国釜山银行的抵押债权超过4000万美元。

（二）裁判结果

武汉海事法院于2011年6月11日在南通对“三湖蓝宝石”轮实施扣押。船东三湖海运株式会社由于有两条船连续遭到索马里海盗劫持，公司经营遭受重创，已被韩国法院列入破产保护。由于船东无力提供担保，依照我国海事诉讼特别程序法，船舶依法将被拍卖。部分船员在船舶被扣押后，情绪极不稳定，要求弃船回国。韩国驻武汉领事馆向湖北省外事办发出照会，对被扣船舶和船员的安全表示关注。

由于当时国际航运市场并不景气，该轮的拍卖价格估计只有1000多万美元，远不够抵押权人一家受偿。同时，拍卖船舶还要支付检验、评估、拍卖费用，船东将会承担巨大的损失。因此拍卖结果无论是对船东、抵押权人还是普通债权人来说均无一受益。

武海海事法院积极地与各方当事人进行联系沟通，释明中国法律，分析拍卖的成本和结果，经过耐心细致而艰苦的调解工作，终于促成各方当事人达成和解协议，同意由“三湖蓝宝石”轮抵押权人釜山银行拿出45万美元按普通债权人的债权比例进行支付，各普通债权人同意解除对“三湖蓝宝石”轮的扣押。2011年9月23日，武汉海事法院解除对该轮的扣押，“三湖蓝宝石”轮安全驶离南通，开往釜山。

（三）典型意义

“三湖蓝宝石”轮系列扣押案，涉及多个国家的多方当事人，协调难度大。加之该轮为化学品船，船长、船员均为外籍人员且来自多个国家，扣押期间的船舶安全与船员安抚工作都是巨大挑战。武汉海事法院充分发挥调解这一中国经验在解决复杂纠纷方面的独特优势，促成当事各方达成和解，使涉案船舶得以解除扣押，恢复营运。取得了良好的法律效果与社会效果，得到涉案各方当事人的好评。案件审结后，韩国驻武汉领事馆领事专程到法院致以谢意，对中国法院公正高效保护韩国企业合法权益的司法行为予以高度赞赏。申请人阿曼国际贸易公司向武汉海事法院南通法庭赠送牌匾一块，上书“优质高效调解”。

案例6

丹麦供油有限公司申请扣押“星耀”轮案

（一）基本案情

申请人丹麦供油有限公司（A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd.）于2012年12月12日在香港海域为被申请人所属的巴拿马籍“星耀”（Xing Yao）轮提供485.1820公吨Fol80Cst及158.5280公吨Gas-Oil的船用油，费用为461,238.21美元。被申请人仅支付人民币1,000,000元（折合美元为158,730美元），仍欠302,508美元。后该轮驶入广东汕头水域，被申请人已联系好买家正准备向新的船东交船。为防止债权落空，申请人于2013年1月22日紧急向广州海事法院提出诉前海事请求保全申请，申请扣押“星耀”轮，并责令被申请人提供302,508美元或等值人民币的担保。“星耀”轮因吨位大无法靠泊码头，在汕头港离岸约25海里水域抛锚，随时可能驶离。

（二）裁判结果

广州海事法院收到申请后，立即组成合议庭进行审查，要求申请人提供被扣船舶的具体地点；另一方面制作扣押船舶裁定书及扣船令。根据法律规定，海事请求权人应向船舶所在地的海事法院提出诉前海事请求保全申请，本案海事请求权人提供了“星耀”轮已驶离香港海域进入广东汕头海域抛锚的证据，应由广州海事法院依法行使海事司法管辖权扣船。经审查，广州海事法院认为，申请人的申请符合法律规定，应予准许。依照《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》第二十一条第（十二）项，第二十三条第一款第（一）、（二）项，第二十八条第一款的规定，裁定准许申请人的诉前海事请求保全申请；扣押被申请人所属的停泊于汕头港的“星耀”轮；责令被申请人提供302,508美元或等值人民币的担保。2013年1月24日，法官乘坐交通艇往返近七个小时，冒着海上风浪，在离岸25海里水域登轮扣押了六万吨级的“星耀”轮；扣押船舶后，法官又积极促成申请人与被申请人进行协商。在法院主持下进行了诉前调解，1月29日，申请人即从被申请人处得到全额赔款。

（三）典型意义

本案是一宗涉及丹麦、巴拿马等不同国家当事人及中国香港法域的纠纷，涉案船舶进入中国广东海域后，中国内地海事法院通过及时有效地行使司法管辖权，诉前扣押船舶，并开展诉前调解工作，仅用5天时间便高效地解决了当事人之间的纠纷，真正做到了“案结事了”。2013年3月26日，广州海事法院收到申请人致函，对中国法院及时高效扣船解决纠纷表示感谢。该感谢函称：“贵院法官有效的扣船工作，使我司的合法权益得到了最快的保障，是帮助我司实现债权的关键”，“按照国际上一般诉讼程序，这一过程将会十分漫长”。国外当事人选择在中国法院进行诉讼活动，通过及时扣船并成功调解，使其合法权益得到了最快的保障和实现，增强了国外当事人对中国海事司法的信任度，树立了中国法院的司法公信力和中国法官的良好司法形象。

案例7

德国航运贷款银行申请扣押拍卖“阿明”轮案

（一）基本案情

申请人德国航运贷款银行（DVB Bank SE）与马耳他共和国艾斯姆阿明航运有限公司（ISIM Amin Limited）等签订贷款协议，后者以“阿明”轮（MV Amin，后更名为MV Amin2即“阿明2”轮）作为担保，双方签订了《抵押协议》等法律文件并办理了第一顺位船舶抵押权登记。2013年10月29日，德国航运贷款银行以艾斯姆阿明航运有限公司违反合同诸多约定，拖欠债务本息27777581.76欧元为由，向厦门海事法院申请诉前海事请求保全，扣押停泊于漳州港的伊朗籍“阿明2”(MV Amin2)轮，并责令被申请人提供金额为27777581.76欧元的担保。

（二）裁判结果

厦门海事法院经审查认为，德国航运贷款银行的申请符合法律规定，于2013年11月4日裁定予以准许，该行随后向厦门海事法院提起诉讼。由于被申请人未能提供担保，德国航运贷款银行申请拍卖船舶，并于2014年5月5日得到准许。

2014年10月28日上午，来自挪威、巴拿马、马绍尔群岛共和国、利比里亚及中国香港等国家和地区的竞买人参加了拍卖，经过157轮叫价后，载重近16万吨的超级油轮“阿明2”轮以人民币3.24亿元的价格成交，超出起拍价近8000万元。

（三）典型意义

本案船舶价值巨大，双方当事人均为外国企业，竞买人也多为外国企业。中国法院在扣押与拍卖船舶过程中，严格依照法律规定。依照维也纳领事公约，及时通知船籍国驻华使领馆。积极协调外轮代理、边检部门，提前制定工作流程，充分满足中外竞买人实地察看船舶的要求。严格依法裁定、果断执行、认真负责、细致周到的专业水准、敬业精神和工作作风，也充分树立了我国法院的司法公信力，彰显了我国海事司法的良好形象。

案例8

五矿国际货运有限责任公司申请扣押“海芝”轮案

（一）基本案情

2000年9月6日，五矿国际货运有限责任公司（以下简称五矿公司）与海南龙珠船务有限公司（以下简称龙珠公司）签订光船租赁协议，承租龙珠公司光租经营的“海芝”轮，租期为1年+1年+1年，由五矿公司选择。2000年11月，双方达成还船协议，五矿公司将“海芝”轮交还龙珠公司，但龙珠公司拖欠五矿公司光租保证金及其他款项3483887.37元。2002年1月18日，五矿公司向宁波海事法院提出诉前海事请求保全申请，要求扣押龙珠公司光租经营的停泊在温州港的“海芝”轮，责令龙珠公司提供400万元的担保。

（二）裁判结果

2002年1月21日，宁波海事法院作出裁定，准许五矿公司的诉前海事请求保全，并在温州小门岛液化气码头扣押了“海芝”轮。经查，“海芝”轮登记为圣文森特和格林纳汀斯的力涛航运有限公司（OCEAN LINK SHIPPING LIMITED）所有，1999年8月5日光租给龙珠公司经营，并在海口港监办理了船舶光租登记，属海关监管船舶。“海芝”轮扣押后，五矿公司、船舶抵押权人中国船舶工业贸易公司、船舶管理人珠海市宏舟船务有限公司分别向宁波海事法院提起诉讼；全体船员因得不到劳动报酬，商定由船长作为代表起诉讨要工资；海口海关申请债权，要求在船舶拍卖过程中，扣缴相关税款。五矿公司与龙珠公司光租租赁合同纠纷一案判决生效后，宁波海事法院根据五矿公司的申请，裁定拍卖“海芝”轮，以2338万元（含税款）成交。在优先拨付诉讼费用、国家税收、船舶保管、拍卖等费用后，余款由各债权人依法受偿分配。

（三）典型意义

一是以具体案例明确海事请求权人可以申请扣押并拍卖承租人光租的当事船舶，较好地衔接了光租船舶的扣押和拍卖程序，有力地保障了海事请求权人的合法权益。二是明确境外船舶光租入境因拍卖转为国内船舶，进口环节国家税收应予优先拨付。“海芝”轮光租入境，属于海关监管船舶，因法院司法拍卖转为国内船舶时，依法缴纳相关国家税收（包括海关关税、代征增值税和光租税共计4762785.75元），且该笔费用应视为《中华人民共和国海商法》第二十四条规定的“为海事请求人的共同利益而支付的其他费用”优先拨付。本案在妥善分配处理多项债权的情况下，依法保护了国家税收收入，维护海关监管制度。

案例9

巴拿马天裕轮船有限公司申请扣押“姗妮1号”案

（一）基本案情

申请人巴拿马天裕轮船有限公司（TENYU SHIPPING S.A. PANAMA）所属“天裕”（TENYU）轮于1998年9月装载3006吨铝锭从印度尼西亚库拉天琼港启航前往韩国仁川港，1998年9月27日，船、货及船员全部失踪。1998年12月17日，一艘悬挂洪都拉斯旗名为“姗妮1号（SANEI-1）”的货轮，配备16名印度尼西亚船员，装载3000吨棕榈油，驶进中国张家港。经国际海事组织调查，怀疑其为失踪的“天裕”轮。天裕公司于1998年12月23日向武汉海事法院递交诉前财产保全申请书，请求扣押停泊在中国张家港的“姗妮1号”轮。

（二）判决结果

武汉海事法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第九十三条、第二百五十一条第二款的规定，裁定准许申请人天裕轮船有限公司的诉前财产保全请求；扣押被申请人所属“姗妮1号”轮；责令被申请人提供1亿日元（83.3万美元）的担保。武汉海事法院将扣押船舶裁定书送达该轮船长后，“姗妮1号”轮船舶证书上记载的船东一直没有任何反应。1999年1月11日，天裕公司向武汉海事法院提起船舶所有权确认之诉，并随后向武汉海事法院提交了先予执行申请书，请求将“天裕”轮先予返还。1999年4月6日天裕公司向武汉海事法院提交了由中保财产保险有限公司武汉市分公司国际业务部出具的先予执行担保。1999年4月15日，武汉海事法院作出（1999）武海法通执字第25号民事裁定书，将扣押在中国张家港的“姗妮1号”轮即“天裕”轮返还给天裕公司。1999年11月22日，武汉海事法院作出判决，确认“姗妮1号”轮即为天裕公司所有的“天裕”轮。

（三）典型意义

本案是一起因国际海事欺诈或海盗袭击导致船舶失踪引起的扣押船舶案件。天裕公司是日本船东在巴拿马注册的一家单船公司，“天裕”轮的船壳保险人是日本共荣火灾海上保险株式会社，货物保险人是英国劳合社，失踪船员来自韩国和中国。“天裕”轮在马六甲海峡失踪，被改头换面成“姗妮1号”轮来到中国，其上船员是印度尼西亚人。本案案卷文字涉及到日文、韩文、英文和中文等多种文字。

通过本案中的船舶扣押与审判，有效打击了国际海上欺诈及国际犯罪集团的嚣张气焰，树立了中国法院公正、高效的良好司法形象。天裕公司及其日本母公司向武汉海事法院赠送了“断疑案、伸正义、维护司法公正”的锦旗。世界著名保险协会劳合社时任主席马克思·泰勒先生，代表保险人致函武汉海事法院称：贵院站在公正的立场，给予了我们迅速和不偏不倚的支持。我们相信凭着对正义的高度责任感，贵院已经为中国法制建设进程，特别是为中国致力于成为亚太地区海事审判中心的目标，作出了显著的贡献！

案例10

马绍尔群岛伊克利普斯财产股份公司申请扣押“L-710”轮案

（一）基本案情

2006年12月1日，申请人马绍尔群岛共和国伊克利普斯财产股份公司与被申请人中国福建圣龙船舶制造有限公司、温州润洋进出口贸易有限公司签订《船舶建造合同》，约定由两被申请人在福建福安为申请人设计建造一艘57000载重吨的单壳散货船（建造船号为“SL-710”），价格3800万美元，分五期预付，每期760万美元，双方约定争议提交英国伦敦仲裁解决。申请人在支付第一期购船款760万美元后，以两被申请人违约为由取消合同。2009年7月，两被申请人向英国伦敦仲裁庭申请仲裁，请求裁决申请人无权取消合同、无权要求返还预付款。申请人则提出反请求，请求裁决其已依约解除合同，有权请求返还760万美元预付款及利息；或裁决两被申请人构成毁约性违约，赔偿经评估得出的损失额。2010年9月，申请人得知两被申请人准备出售在建中的“SL-710”船，遂向厦门海事法院申请扣押该船，责令两被申请人提供908万美元可靠担保。

（二）裁判结果

厦门海事法院经审查认为，申请人的申请符合我国扣押船舶的法定条件，依照《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别诉讼法》第十二条、第十四条、第二十一条第（十三）项、第二十三条第一款第（一）项，以及《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法>若干问题的解释》第二十一条第二款的规定，裁定扣押了停泊于福建省福安市的“SL-710”船，责令两被申请人提供价值908万美元的可靠担保。船舶扣押期间，英国伦敦仲裁庭裁决申请人有权依据普通法解除合同并请求损害赔偿。随后两被申请人与申请人达成和解并履行赔偿义务，厦门海事法院依法解除对“SL-710”船的扣押。

（三）典型意义

本案是外国当事人在其纠纷由外国仲裁机构进行仲裁过程中，向我国法院申请扣押船舶的海事请求保全案件。仲裁程序从申请仲裁到承认执行往往历时数年，期间容易因当事人转移资产而使胜诉裁决不能执行。我国作为联合国《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》的缔约国，负有依法在我国承认、执行外国仲裁裁决的国际义务。应外国仲裁当事人的申请，对位于我国的船舶采取扣押保全措施，有助于保障外国仲裁裁决的顺利执行。

《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》第十四条规定，“海事请求保全不受当事人之间关于该海事请求的诉讼管辖协议或者仲裁协议的约束。”《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法＞若干问题的解释》第二十一条第二款进一步明确，“外国法院已受理相关海事案件或者有关纠纷已经提交仲裁，但涉案财产在中华人民共和国领域内，当事人向财产所在地的海事法院提出海事请求保全申请的，海事法院应当受理。”本案中，厦门海事法院依法裁定准许伊克利普斯财产股份公司的扣押船舶申请，及时制止两被申请人对船舶的处分，促使相关外国仲裁裁决确定的权利义务得以顺利实现。展现了我国海事法院严格适用法律，平等保护中外当事人合法权益的理念和胸怀，赢得国际认可与赞誉，希腊籍船东为此专程赶到厦门海事法院表示感谢和敬意。

catalogue

1. Chen Zhen and Chen Chun's Application for Compulsory Execution of the Arrest of Ships in the "Zhongwei Case"

2. Zhoushan Haili Ocean Fisheries Co., Ltd. applied for the "Xuemansi" ship case

3. Oleg and other foreign crew members applied for the arrest of the "Misham" ship case

4. Case of Shanghai Maritime Court Seizing and Aucting the "Futong 09" Ship

5. The "Three Lakes Sapphire" Series Detention Case

6. Danish Oil Supply Co., Ltd. applied for the seizure of the "Starlight" ship case

7. The German Shipping Loan Bank applied for the seizure and auction of the "Amin" ship case

8. Case of Minmetals International Freight Co., Ltd. Applying for Seizure of the "Haizhi" Ship

9. Panama Tianyu Shipping Co., Ltd. applied for the seizure of "Shanni 1" case

10. Application for Seizure of the "L-710" Round by Ickleps Property Company in the Marshall Islands

Case 1

Chen Zhen and Chen Chun's Application for Compulsory Execution of the Arrest of Ships in the "Zhongwei Case"

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 1936, Zhongwei Shipping Company leased all of its "SF Express" and "New Taiping" ships to Datong Shipping Co., Ltd. During the lease period, two ships were "detained" by the Japanese Navy and later handed over to Datong Shipping Co., Ltd. for continued operation until the two ships sank. Zhongwei Shipping Company later claimed two losses from the Japanese government through political, diplomatic, and judicial channels, but failed to do so. In December 1988, the plaintiffs Zhongwei Shipping Company, Chen Zhen, and Chen Chun filed a lawsuit in the Shanghai Maritime Court, demanding that the defendant Japan Shipping Co., Ltd. (later known as Datong Shipping Co., Ltd.) pay rent and compensate for the losses. During the litigation period, Japan Shipping Corporation was changed to Mitsui Corporation.

On December 7, 2007, the Shanghai Maritime Court ruled that the defendant, Mitsui Corporation, paid and compensated the plaintiffs Chen Zhen and Chen Chun for the total amount of Japanese yen 2916477260.80 in respect of ship rent and interest, ship operation losses and interest, and ship losses and interest. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are dissatisfied and file an appeal. On August 6, 2010, the Shanghai Higher People's Court made a final judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. After the judgment came into effect, Merchant Shipping Mitsui Co., Ltd. refused to actively fulfill the compensation obligations determined by the effective judgment.

（2） Judgment results

On April 19, 2014, the Shanghai Maritime Court, in the enforcement proceedings of this case, lawfully detained the "BAOSTEEL EMOTION" vessel owned by the executed merchant ship Mitsui Co., Ltd., which was moored at Majishan Port in Shengsi, Zhejiang Province, China. Four days later, the merchant ship Mitsui Co., Ltd. paid the judgment principal of 2916477260.80 yen in accordance with the requirements of the Shanghai Maritime Court's "Notice of Performance within a Time Limit"; 1、 Second instance case acceptance fees and application execution fees; At the same time, cash guarantee was provided for the interest on delayed debt performance. On April 24th, the Shanghai Maritime Court lifted the seizure of the "Baoyun" ship in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

This case, through the seizure of ships, prompted Japanese merchant ship Mitsui Co., Ltd. to fulfill the effective judgment of the Chinese court, marking a successful end to the 26 year "Zhongwei Case", greatly safeguarding the authority of China's law and justice, causing strong reactions in the international shipping and maritime judicial sectors, becoming the focus of media coverage at home and abroad, and establishing a good image of China's rule of law.

Case 2

Zhoushan Haili Ocean Fisheries Co., Ltd. applied for the "Xuemansi" ship case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The "SNOWMASS" ship is a Russian ocean shipping vessel, originally registered as Eastwind SHIPPING AGENCIES SA, and registered as SMART SHIPPING AGENCY LTD. In November 2009, the ship carried a batch of frozen squid from the southwestern waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Argentina and arrived at Zhoushan Port, causing the goods to deteriorate and be damaged. On December 29, 2009, the shippers Shanghai Heshun Fishery Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Haili Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd., and Zhoushan New Geely Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd. applied to the Ningbo Maritime Court for the seizure of the "Xuemansi" ship anchored at the Mashi anchorage in Zhoushan Port, requesting the shipowner to provide a guarantee of 3 million yuan, citing the serious damage to the frozen squid they had shipped due to the failure of the ship's refrigeration equipment.

（2） Judgment results

After examination, the Ningbo Maritime Court ruled in accordance with the law to seize the "Xuemansi" ship and ordered the owner of the "Xuemansi" ship to provide the court with 3 million yuan or other reliable guarantees. The shipowner of the ship has been declared bankrupt and taken over by the bankruptcy administrator. Due to being busy with bankruptcy affairs and unable to attend to the disputes involved, the foreign crew member is stranded and helpless. One foreign crew member died due to illness during the detention period. In response to this, the Ningbo Maritime Court has taken the following measures: first, arrange for the accommodation and food of crew members during the detention period, and coordinate with the shipping company to take charge of the custody; Secondly, advance the repatriation fee for the crew, and immediately arrange for the crew to return home after completing the handover of the ship; Thirdly, notify the plaintiff to provide sufficient additional guarantees; Fourthly, by auctioning the ship in accordance with the law, priority will be given to the repatriation expenses, including medical expenses for crew members and cremation expenses, among the ship's auction proceeds.

（3） Typical significance

In the case of shipowners abandoning the ship, there is no clear legal provision in China on how to properly handle matters related to the return of foreign crew members, especially the remains of crew members. The Ningbo Maritime Court upholds the spirit of international humanitarian law, arranges accommodation and meals for foreign crew members during their detention period when they are stranded and helpless, timely pays repatriation fees, and coordinates with the shipping agency to arrange for crew members to return home smoothly. The inclusion of medical expenses, funeral home storage fees, and cremation fees advanced by government departments for foreign crew members in crew repatriation expenses, taking into account the interests of both domestic and foreign parties, has facilitated the rapid and proper resolution of this foreign-related incident, showcasing the humanistic sentiment of China's courts in serving the people and establishing a good international image.

Case 3

Oleg and other foreign crew members applied for the arrest of the "Misham" ship

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Maxima is a bulk carrier owned by the Maxima Shipping Company, registered at Williamstad Port in the Netherlands. In June 2012, the ship accidentally collided with another ship while sailing in the coastal waters of China, causing serious damage to the other ship. At the same time, an oil spill accident occurred due to the collision, causing pollution to the nearby waters. After the accident, the "Misam" ship was sent to Chongming Port for maintenance. Since then, 11 Ukrainian crew members, including Oleg, have not been paid their wages on board. Afterwards, 6 crew members returned to their home country at their own expense, while the remaining 5 crew members remain on board and are responsible for guarding the ship. In July 2013, five Ukrainian crew members on board the "Mism" ship filed a maritime preservation application for the arrest of the ship with the Shanghai Maritime Court on July 17, 2013, due to the shipowner's long-term arrears of their wages. They also filed a lawsuit against the shipowner Mism Shipping Company regarding the dispute over the crew service contract. Other crew members subsequently filed lawsuits.

（2） Judgment results

After receiving the application, the Shanghai Maritime Court made a detention order on the same day. Considering the eagerness of foreign crew members to return home as soon as possible, the court coordinated and implemented the supply of fresh water, materials, and daily necessities for crew members, actively contacted crew service companies, shipowner agents, and foreign crew lawyers, and entrusted domestic crew service companies to send personnel to take care of the ship, enabling foreign crew members to return home.

After the trial, the Shanghai Maritime Court quickly made a judgment in support of all the claims of the crew. After the judgment came into effect, due to the defendant's failure to fulfill the obligations determined in the judgment within the statutory time limit, Ogley applied for compulsory execution to the Shanghai Maritime Court in January 2014. The Shanghai Maritime Court has initiated a ship auction procedure in accordance with the law. In the end, the "Misham" ship was won by a German shipping company for RMB 39.9 million, and the crew's labor remuneration was legally prioritized in the auction proceeds.

（3） Typical significance

In the process of handling this series of cases, the Shanghai Maritime Court focused on crew members, held on-site meetings several times on board ships, cared about crew members' lives and ship safety, strengthened various links such as ship inspection, evaluation, and safety supervision, ensured that ship inspection and evaluation reports objectively reflected the actual situation and value of the ship, overcame the impact of unfavorable factors such as the sluggish shipping market, and smoothly promoted the judicial auction process. After the successful auction, RMB 1.543 million was allocated as the labor compensation for 11 Ukrainian crew members from the auction price of the ship. The Shanghai Maritime Court, in accordance with Chinese laws and international practices, exercises judicial power in accordance with the law, equally protects the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign parties, and allows foreign crew members to feel the warmth of Chinese justice. Received recognition and gratitude from the Ukrainian Consulate in Shanghai, and established a good image of Shanghai International Shipping Center.

Case 4

Case of Shanghai Maritime Court Seizing and Aucting the "Futong 09" Ship

（1） Basic facts of the case

The "Futong 09" gear train is a dry cargo ship registered under the name of the executed person Zhu, with a total tonnage of 3880 tons and a carrying capacity of 8300 tons. Far East International Leasing Co., Ltd. applied to the Shanghai Maritime Court on August 13, 2014 to seize Zhu's "Futong 09" ship at Shanghai Port in order to resolve a dispute over the loan contract for ship operation between Wuhu Futong Shipping Co., Ltd. and Zhu. The Shanghai Maritime Court ruled to grant permission and implemented the seizure. On the 26th of the same month, Far East International Leasing Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Bank Co., Ltd. Pudong Branch jointly filed a lawsuit against the court regarding this dispute. On the 5th of the following month, the plaintiff and defendant reached a mediation agreement under the auspices of the court, and each defendant agreed to pay the corresponding loan principal, interest, etc. to the plaintiff. If the payment is not made on time, the plaintiff can apply to the Shanghai Maritime Court to auction the "Futong 09" round and receive priority compensation from the auction proceeds. Later, due to the defendant's failure to pay the mediation fee within the time limit confirmed in the mediation agreement, the plaintiff applied for compulsory execution.

（2） Judgment results

After receiving the enforcement application, the Shanghai Maritime Court immediately conducted an investigation into the executable property and ultimately decided to auction the seized "Futong 09" ship. Given that in previous ship auctions, due to the slow economic recovery of the shipping market, a ship often required multiple auctions, price reductions, and auctions to achieve final results, the court decided to attempt to auction the ship online. On October 20, 2014, the Shanghai Maritime Court established the "Futong 09" auction committee in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law. After repeatedly demonstrating the feasibility of online auctions, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Shanghai Court's Rules for Judicial Entrusted Auction of State owned Assets", the Shanghai Maritime Court and the Shanghai Stock Exchange have negotiated to carry out online bidding for ships. At 15:17 on November 28th, after 32 rounds of intense bidding, the "Futong 09" round was successfully auctioned off on the trading platform of the official website of the Shanghai United Property Exchange for 6.04 million yuan.

（3） Typical significance

Ship auction is an important way to realize maritime claims. In traditional models, bidders need to attend the auction site to participate in the bidding, and the cost of expenses and time reduces the enthusiasm of potential bidders to participate in the bidding. Online auctions make full use of modern internet information technology, greatly saving transaction costs and time for bidders, improving the competitiveness of ship auctions, and making it more conducive to discovering the price of the underlying assets and protecting the interests of creditors. In this case, the Shanghai Maritime Court relied on the mature trading platform of the Shanghai Stock Exchange to ensure the safety of the auction process. It is a beneficial exploration to innovate maritime execution methods and improve the level of convenient services for the people.

Case 5

The "Three Lakes Sapphire" Series Seizure Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 9, 2011, the applicant, OMEN TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, applied to the Wuhan Maritime Court for the seizure of the "SAMHO SAPPHIRE" ship belonging to the respondent due to a debt dispute with the respondent, SAMHO SHIPPING CO., LTD. Afterwards, six overseas creditors applied for seizure measures against the round, involving seven countries and regions, with a total debt amount of over 6 million US dollars. In addition, the mortgagee of this round, Busan Bank of South Korea, has a mortgage debt exceeding $40 million.

（2） Judgment results

On June 11, 2011, the Wuhan Maritime Court detained the "Three Lakes Sapphire" ship in Nantong. The shipowner Sanhu Shipping Co., Ltd. has been placed under bankruptcy protection by a South Korean court due to two consecutive hijackings by Somali pirates, causing heavy damage to the company's operations. Due to the shipowner's inability to provide guarantees, in accordance with China's Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law, the ship will be auctioned off in accordance with the law. Some crew members were extremely unstable after the ship was seized and requested to abandon the ship and return home. The South Korean Consulate in Wuhan issued a note to the Foreign Affairs Office of Hubei Province, expressing concern about the safety of the detained ship and crew.

Due to the sluggish international shipping market at that time, the estimated auction price for this round was only over 10 million US dollars, which was far from enough for the mortgagee's family to be compensated. At the same time, the auction of the ship also requires payment of inspection, evaluation, and auction fees, and the shipowner will bear huge losses. Therefore, the auction results have no benefits for shipowners, mortgagees, or ordinary creditors.

The Wuhai Maritime Court actively contacted and communicated with all parties involved, explained Chinese laws, analyzed the costs and results of the auction, and through patient and meticulous mediation work, finally facilitated a settlement agreement between the parties. It agreed that Busan Bank, the mortgagee of the "Three Lakes Sapphire" ship, would provide 450000 US dollars to be paid according to the proportion of ordinary creditors' rights, All ordinary creditors agree to release the seizure of the "Three Lakes Sapphire" vessel. On September 23, 2011, the Wuhan Maritime Court lifted the seizure of the ship, and the "Three Lakes Sapphire" ship safely departed Nantong for Busan.

（3） Typical significance

The "Three Lakes Sapphire" series of seizure cases involve multiple parties from multiple countries, making coordination difficult. In addition, the vessel is a chemical vessel, and both the captain and crew are foreign nationals from multiple countries. The safety of the vessel and the pacification of the crew during the detention period are significant challenges. The Wuhan Maritime Court fully leverages the unique advantages of mediation, a Chinese experience in resolving complex disputes, and facilitates the parties to reach a settlement, enabling the vessel involved to be released from detention and resume operation. It has achieved good legal and social effects, and has received praise from all parties involved in the case. After the case was concluded, the Consul of the South Korean Consulate in Wuhan made a special trip to the court to express gratitude and highly appreciate the judicial actions of Chinese courts in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Korean enterprises in a fair and efficient manner. The applicant, Oman International Trading Company, presented a plaque to the Nantong Court of Wuhan Maritime Court, stating "High quality and efficient mediation".

Case 6

Danish Oil Supply Co., Ltd. applied for the seizure of the "Starlight" ship case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The applicant, A/S Dan Bunkering Ltd., provided 485.1820 metric tons of Fol80Cst and 158.5280 metric tons of Gas Oil for the Panamanian owned "Xing Yao" vessel on December 12, 2012 in Hong Kong waters, at a cost of $461238.21. The respondent only paid RMB 1000000 (equivalent to USD 158730) and still owes USD 302508. After the ship sailed into the waters of Shantou, Guangdong, the respondent has contacted the buyer and is preparing to deliver the ship to the new shipowner. In order to prevent the failure of the creditor's rights, the applicant urgently submitted a pre litigation maritime preservation application to the Guangzhou Maritime Court on January 22, 2013, applying for the seizure of the "Star Yao" ship, and ordering the respondent to provide a guarantee of $302508 or equivalent in RMB. Due to its large tonnage, the "Xingyao" ship was unable to dock at the dock and anchored in the waters about 25 nautical miles offshore of Shantou Port, which may depart at any time.

（2） Judgment results

After receiving the application, the Guangzhou Maritime Court immediately formed a collegial panel for examination, requesting the applicant to provide the specific location of the detained ship; On the other hand, it is necessary to produce a ship arrest ruling and a ship arrest order. According to legal regulations, the maritime claimant should submit a pre litigation maritime preservation application to the maritime court of the location of the ship. In this case, the maritime claimant provided evidence that the "Star Yao" ship had departed from Hong Kong waters and anchored in the Shantou waters of Guangdong, and the Guangzhou maritime court should exercise maritime jurisdiction to detain the ship in accordance with the law. After examination, the Guangzhou Maritime Court believes that the applicant's application meets legal requirements and should be granted permission. According to Article 21 (12), Article 23 (1), (2), and Article 28 (1) of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the applicant's application for pre litigation maritime preservation shall be granted a ruling; Seizure of the "Xingyao" ship anchored at Shantou Port belonging to the respondent; Order the respondent to provide a guarantee of $302508 or equivalent in RMB. On January 24, 2013, the judge boarded the 60000 ton "Xingyao" ship in a 25 nautical mile offshore water area after traveling in a traffic boat for nearly seven hours and braved the sea waves; After the arrest of the ship, the judge actively facilitated negotiations between the applicant and the respondent. Pre litigation mediation was conducted under the auspices of the court. On January 29, the applicant received full compensation from the respondent.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a dispute involving the parties in Denmark, Panama and other countries as well as the Hong Kong jurisdiction of China. After the ship involved entered the sea area of Guangdong, China, the maritime court in mainland China effectively exercised jurisdiction in a timely manner, seized the ship before litigation, and carried out pre litigation mediation. It took only five days to effectively resolve the dispute between the parties, and really achieved "the case is closed". On March 26, 2013, the Guangzhou Maritime Court received a letter from the applicant expressing gratitude to the Chinese court for timely and efficient detention of ships to resolve disputes. The thank-you letter states: "The effective detention of the ship by your judge has provided the fastest protection for our company's legitimate rights and interests, and is the key to helping our company achieve its debt." According to the general international litigation procedures, this process will be very long. Foreign parties have chosen to engage in litigation activities in Chinese courts, and through timely arrest and successful mediation, their legitimate rights and interests have been safeguarded and realized as quickly as possible. This has strengthened the trust of foreign parties in Chinese maritime justice, established the judicial credibility of Chinese courts, and established a good judicial image of Chinese judges.

Case 7

German Shipping Loan Bank's Application for Seizure and Auction of the "Amin" Ship Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The applicant, DVB Bank SE, has signed a loan agreement with ISIM Amin Limited and other companies in the Republic of Malta. The latter uses MV Amin (later renamed MV Amin 2 or "Amin 2") as collateral, and both parties have signed legal documents such as the "Mortgage Agreement" and registered the first priority ship mortgage. On October 29, 2013, the German shipping loan bank applied to the Xiamen Maritime Court for pre litigation maritime preservation, seized the Iranian MV Amin2 anchored at Zhangzhou Port, and ordered the respondent to provide a guarantee in the amount of 27777581.76 euros, citing the breach of many contractual agreements by Esme Amin Shipping Co., Ltd., which owed 27777581.76 euros in principal and interest.

（2） Judgment results

After examination, the Xiamen Maritime Court found that the application of the German Shipping Loan Bank met legal requirements and ruled on November 4, 2013 to grant permission. The bank subsequently filed a lawsuit with the Xiamen Maritime Court. Due to the respondent's failure to provide guarantees, the German Shipping Loan Bank applied for the auction of the ship and was granted permission on May 5, 2014.

On the morning of October 28, 2014, bidders from countries and regions such as Norway, Panama, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, and Hong Kong, China participated in the auction. After 157 rounds of bidding, the super tanker "Amin 2" with a capacity of nearly 160000 tons sold at a price of 324 million yuan, exceeding the starting price by nearly 80 million yuan.

（3） Typical significance

The value of the ship in this case is enormous, and both parties are foreign enterprises, and the bidders are mostly foreign enterprises. Chinese courts strictly follow legal provisions in the process of arresting and auctioning ships. According to the Vienna Consular Convention, promptly notify the embassy or consulate of the country of registry in China. Actively coordinate with foreign shipping agents and border inspection departments, develop work processes in advance, and fully meet the requirements of Chinese and foreign bidders for on-site inspection of ships. The professional standards, professional dedication, and work style of strictly ruling in accordance with the law, decisive execution, seriousness and responsibility, and meticulous consideration have also fully established the judicial credibility of Chinese courts and demonstrated the good image of China's maritime justice.

Case 8

Case of Minmetals International Freight Co., Ltd. Applying for Seizure of the "Haizhi" Ship

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 6, 2000, Minmetals International Freight Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Minmetals Company) signed a bareboat lease agreement with Hainan Longzhu Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Longzhu Company) to lease the "Haizhi" ship operated by Longzhu Company under bareboat lease, with a lease term of 1 year+1 year+1 year, at the option of Minmetals Company. In November 2000, both parties reached an agreement to return the ship, and Minmetals Corporation returned the "Haizhi" ship to Longzhu Corporation. However, Longzhu Corporation owed Minmetals Corporation 3483887.37 yuan in rent deposit and other payments. On January 18, 2002, Minmetals Company filed a pre litigation maritime preservation application with the Ningbo Maritime Court, requesting the seizure of the "Haizhi" ship, which was operated by Longzhu Company and moored at Wenzhou Port, and ordering Longzhu Company to provide a guarantee of 4 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

On January 21, 2002, the Ningbo Maritime Court made a ruling allowing Minmetals Company's pre litigation maritime claim for preservation, and seized the "Haizhi" ship at the Xiaomen Island Liquefied Gas Terminal in Wenzhou. After investigation, the "Haizhi" ship was registered as owned by OCEAN LINK SHIPPING LIMITED of Saint Vincent and Grenadines. On August 5, 1999, it was leased to Longzhu Company for operation and registered as a ship under customs supervision at Haikou Port. After the detention of the "Haizhi" ship, Minmetals Corporation, the mortgagee of the ship, China Shipbuilding Industry Trading Corporation, and the ship manager, Zhuhai Hongzhou Shipping Co., Ltd., respectively filed lawsuits with the Ningbo Maritime Court; All crew members agreed to have the captain act as a representative to sue for wages due to lack of labor remuneration; Haikou Customs applies for creditor's rights and requires the withholding of relevant taxes during the ship auction process. After the judgment on the dispute over the bare lease contract between Minmetals Company and Longzhu Company came into effect, the Ningbo Maritime Court, based on Minmetals Company's application, ordered the auction of the "Haizhi" ship for 23.38 million yuan (including tax). After prioritizing the allocation of litigation costs, national taxes, ship storage, auction and other expenses, the remaining balance shall be distributed by each creditor in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

Firstly, it is clarified through specific cases that the maritime claimant can apply for the seizure and auction of the charterer's leased vessel, which effectively connects the seizure and auction procedures of the leased vessel and effectively protects the legitimate rights and interests of the maritime claimant. The second is to clarify that when foreign ships enter the country under charter only and are converted into domestic ships through auction, national taxes in the import process should be prioritized for payment. The "Haizhi" vessel, which enters the country under customs supervision, shall pay relevant national taxes (including customs duties, value-added tax collected on behalf of others, and light charter tax totaling 4762785.75 yuan) in accordance with the law when converted into a domestic vessel through judicial auction by the court. This fee shall be deemed as "other fees paid for the common interests of maritime claimants" as stipulated in Article 24 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China, and shall be prioritized for payment. This case has protected the national tax revenue and maintained the customs supervision system in accordance with the law, while properly allocating and handling multiple claims.

Case 9

Panama Tianyu Shipping Co., Ltd. applied for the seizure of "Shanni 1" case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The "TENYU" vessel belonging to TENYU SHIPPING S.A. PANAMA, the applicant, loaded 3006 tons of aluminum ingots in September 1998 and set sail from the port of Kula Tianqiong in Indonesia to Incheon Port in South Korea. On September 27, 1998, all the ship, cargo, and crew disappeared. On December 17, 1998, a cargo ship named "SANEI-1" under the Honduran flag, equipped with 16 Indonesian crew members and carrying 3000 tons of palm oil, sailed into Zhangjiagang, China. After investigation by the International Maritime Organization, it is suspected that it is the missing "Tianyu" ship. On December 23, 1998, Tianyu Company submitted a pre litigation property preservation application to the Wuhan Maritime Court, requesting the seizure of the "Shanni 1" vessel anchored in Zhangjiagang, China.

（2） Judgment result

The Wuhan Maritime Court, in accordance with Article 93 and Article 251 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, has ruled to grant the applicant Tianyu Shipping Co., Ltd.'s pre litigation property preservation request; Seizure of the "Shanni 1" ship belonging to the respondent; Order the respondent to provide a guarantee of 100 million yen (833000 US dollars). After the Wuhan Maritime Court delivered the order to seize the ship to the captain of the vessel, the shipowner recorded on the certificate of the "Shanni 1" vessel had not responded. On January 11, 1999, Tianyu Company filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of ship ownership with the Wuhan Maritime Court, and subsequently submitted an application for advance execution to the Wuhan Maritime Court, requesting the return of the "Tianyu" ship in advance. On April 6, 1999, Tianyu Company submitted a pre execution guarantee issued by the International Business Department of China Insurance Property and Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch to the Wuhan Maritime Court. On April 15, 1999, the Wuhan Maritime Court issued a civil ruling (1999) No. 25, which returned the "Shanni 1" ship, also known as the "Tianyu" ship, detained in Zhangjiagang, China, to Tianyu Company. On November 22, 1999, the Wuhan Maritime Court made a judgment confirming that the "Shanni 1" ship was owned by Tianyu Company as the "Tianyu" ship.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an arrest of a ship caused by international maritime fraud or pirate attacks leading to the disappearance of the ship. Tianyu Company is a single vessel company registered by Japanese shipowners in Panama. The hull insurer of the "Tianyu" ship is Japan's Gongrong Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the cargo insurer is Lloyd's, and the missing crew members come from South Korea and China. The "Tianyu" ship disappeared in the Strait of Malacca and was rebranded as the "Shanni 1" ship to China, with Indonesian crew members on board. The case file involves multiple languages such as Japanese, Korean, English, and Chinese.

The arrest and trial of ships in this case effectively cracked down on international maritime fraud and the arrogance of international criminal groups, and established a fair and efficient judicial image of Chinese courts. Tianyu Company and its Japanese parent company presented the banner of "resolving suspicious cases, upholding justice, and maintaining judicial fairness" to the Wuhan Maritime Court. Mr. Max Taylor, then Chairman of the world-renowned insurance association Lloyd's, wrote on behalf of the insurer to the Wuhan Maritime Court, stating that your court has taken a fair stance and provided us with prompt and impartial support. We believe that with a high sense of responsibility for justice, your court has made significant contributions to China's legal construction process, especially to China's goal of becoming a maritime trial center in the Asia Pacific region!

Case 10

Application for the seizure of the "L-710" round by Ickleps Property Company in the Marshall Islands

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 1, 2006, the applicant, Icklips Property Co., Ltd. of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, signed a "Ship Construction Contract" with the respondent, Fujian Shenglong Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Wenzhou Runyang Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd., agreeing that the two defendants would design and build a 57000 deadweight ton single shell bulk cargo ship (construction ship number "SL-710") for the applicant in Fu'an, Fujian, with a price of 38 million US dollars, to be prepaid in five installments, Each installment is worth 7.6 million US dollars, and both parties agree to submit the dispute to arbitration in London, UK for resolution. After paying the first installment of $7.6 million for the purchase of the ship, the applicant cancelled the contract on the grounds of breach of contract by the two defendants. In July 2009, the two defendants applied for arbitration to the London Arbitration Court in the UK, requesting a ruling that the applicants had no right to cancel the contract or request a refund of the advance payment. The applicant has filed a counterclaim, requesting a ruling that they have terminated the contract in accordance with the agreement, and has the right to request a refund of the advance payment of 7.6 million US dollars and interest; Or ruling that the two defendants constitute a breach of contract, and compensating the assessed amount of losses. In September 2010, the applicant learned that the two defendants were preparing to sell the "SL-710" ship under construction, and therefore applied to the Xiamen Maritime Court to seize the ship, ordering the two defendants to provide a reliable guarantee of 9.08 million US dollars.

（2） Judgment results

After examination, the Xiamen Maritime Court found that the applicant's application meets the legal conditions for arresting ships in China, and in accordance with Article 12, Article 14, Article 21 (13), and Article 23 (1) of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, According to Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the "SL-710" ship moored in Fu'an City, Fujian Province was ordered to be seized, and the two defendants were ordered to provide reliable guarantees worth 9.08 million US dollars. During the arrest of the ship, the London Arbitration Tribunal ruled that the applicant has the right to terminate the contract and request compensation for damages in accordance with common law. Subsequently, the two defendants reached a settlement with the applicant and fulfilled their compensation obligations, and the Xiamen Maritime Court lifted the arrest of the "SL-710" ship in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a maritime preservation case where a foreign party applied to a Chinese court for the arrest of a ship during the arbitration process of their dispute by a foreign arbitration institution. The arbitration procedure often takes several years from applying for arbitration to acknowledging enforcement, during which the successful award may not be enforced due to the transfer of assets by the parties. As a contracting party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, China has an international obligation to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards in accordance with the law. At the request of foreign arbitration parties, taking measures of seizure and preservation of ships located in China can help ensure the smooth execution of foreign arbitration awards.

Article 14 of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "maritime claim preservation shall not be bound by the litigation jurisdiction agreement or arbitration agreement between the parties regarding the maritime claim." Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Maritime Litigation Special Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China further clarifies, If a foreign court has accepted the relevant maritime case or the relevant dispute has been submitted for arbitration, but the property in question is within the territory of the People's Republic of China, and the party applies for maritime preservation to the maritime court in the place where the property is located, the maritime court shall accept it. In this case, the Xiamen Maritime Court has ruled in accordance with the law to allow the arrest application of the ship by Iclipus Property Co., Ltd., and promptly stopped the two defendants from disposing of the ship, Promote the smooth implementation of the rights and obligations determined by relevant foreign arbitration awards. The Greek shipowner has made a special trip to Xiamen Maritime Court to express gratitude and respect for the strict application of the law and equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both Chinese and foreign parties, which has won international recognition and praise.