Arrest of Vessels in Ukrainian Ports: Analysis of Recent Trends in Judicial Practice

Ukrainian Ports are Still Operating

Despite russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine and the resulting declaration of the highest security level at seaports, these ports continue to operate. Currently, there are six seaports in operation in Ukraine, three of which are located in Greater Odesa (namely Odesa, Pivdennyi, and Chornomorsk), and three more are located on the Danube, which is connected to the Black Sea by the navigable channels “Bystre” (under Ukrainian operation) and “Sulina Estuary” (under Romanian operation).

The Ukrainian marine corridor, as launched by the Ukrainian Navy in September 2023, continues to operate. According to official data from the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine, more than 200 million tons of cargo have been transported through the maritime corridor since September 2023, of which 118 million tons are grain. During this time, 7,800 vessels have used the maritime corridor. Since the start of russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, 935 port infrastructure facilities and 191 civilian vessels have been damaged or destroyed, and 255 civilians have been injured. Despite russia’s systematic attacks, the Ukrainian maritime corridor continues to operate.

Notably, all six of Ukraine’s operational seaports are located in Odesa Region, and for maritime attorneys, this means that all applications for the arrest of a vessel or the lifting of an arrest are considered by the Commercial Court of Odesa Region. As a reminder, Ukraine has had a Unified State Register of Court Decisions functioning for 19 years, in which all court decisions are published, except for those concerning investigative actions and cases related to state secrets. As of the date of this article’s publication, 134,986,286 court decisions have been published in the Registry. In just the first five months of 2026, the Commercial Court of Odesa Region issued 198 rulings regarding the arrest of vessels: these include rulings on arrest, on the lifting of arrest, on the application of counter-security, and several others. Thanks to the Registry, anyone can view the content of the rulings that interest them. We, however, suggest focusing on the latest trends we are observing in cases involving the arrest of vessels.

The 1952 Brussels Convention as the foundational international treaty for the classification of maritime claims

As maritime attorneys are well aware, there are two fundamental conventions governing the arrest of vessels: the well-known International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships of May 10, 1952, also known as the 1952 Brussels Convention, and the International Convention on the Arrest of Vessels of March 12, 1999, also known as the 1999 Geneva Convention. Ukraine has so far acceded only to the 1952 Brussels Convention, which Ukrainian courts have been applying since 2012.

The primary codified act regulating merchant shipping in Ukraine is the Merchant Shipping Code of Ukraine, adopted on May 23, 1995, which also contains Chapter 4, “Arrest of Vessels,” with a list of maritime claims (Art. 42), conditions for arrest (Art. 43), and liability for unjustified arrest (Art. 46).  However, in accordance with conflict-of-laws rules, the aforementioned Chapter 4, “Arrest of Vessels,” applies exclusively to vessels flying the Ukrainian flag and does not apply to vessels flying a foreign flag (see Article 14 of the Ukrainian Code of Maritime Law).

Until recently, some Ukrainian judges, when considering applications for arrest, erroneously referred to the provisions of Chapter 4 “Arrest of Vessels,” applying its provisions to vessels flying a foreign flag. I would like to note that cases involving the arrest of vessels flying the Ukrainian flag are extremely rare. At the same time, the situation has improved recently: courts have begun to rely exclusively on the provisions of the 1952 Brussels Convention in assessing maritime claims and the grounds for arrest, setting aside the provisions of the Ukrainian Merchant Shipping Code regarding the arrest of vessels.

Counter-Security as the Most Effective Instrument of Protecting the Vessel Owner’s Rights

In contrast to the 1999 Geneva Convention (see Article 6, “Protection of Owners and Charterers of Arrested Vessels”) the 1952 Brussels Convention does not provide for the possibility of the party initiating the arrest posting counter-security. At the same time, the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (Art. 141), which governs procedural issues related to the arrest of vessels, expressly provides for such a possibility upon a motion by the vessel owner or even simply at the court’s initiative. Pursuant to Article 141 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, the court may require the party filing a motion for provisional relief to provide security for any damages the defendant may incur as a result of the provisional relief (counter-security). Counter-security is typically provided by depositing funds into the court’s deposit account in the amount determined by the court. If the plaintiff is unable to deposit the required amount for valid reasons, counter-security may also be provided by:

1) providing a bank guarantee, surety, or other financial security in the amount determined by the court and from a person approved by the court, regarding whose financial capacity the court has no doubts;

2) taking other measures as determined by the court to mitigate potential losses and other risks to the defendant arising from the enforcement of the claim.

The amount of the counter-security is determined by the court, taking into account the circumstances of the case in question. Measures for counter-security must be proportionate to the security measures applied by the court and to the amount of damages the defendant may incur in connection with ensuring the claim. When it comes to the arrest of a vessel, the vessel owner’s expenses related to the vessel’s layup in port can reach thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars per day. Therefore, the instrument of counter-security as a means of protecting the rights of vessel owners is highly relevant. Based on our observations, Ukrainian courts have begun to use the instrument of counter-security more frequently, requiring applicants (those initiating the arrest) to deposit funds into the court’s deposit account. Let’s examine a few recent cases.

Arrest of the m/v “BOLD VOYAGER” in Chornomorsk Sea Port (Case No. 916/650/26)

In this case, a general cargo vessel BOLD VOYAGER (IMO 9565053) was arrested by a Court Ruling dated February 25, 2026, to secure a maritime claim by the cargo owner (a Ukrainian importer of mineral fertilizers) related to damage to the cargo during maritime transportation. The court prohibited the vessel from leaving the port of Chornomorsk and ordered the applicant to file a claim on the merits within 30 days of the issuance of the order.

The vessel owner proposed to the cargo owner a “club” guarantee from one of the leading liability insurance clubs as alternative security to lift the arrest, but the applicant rejected this proposal. The vessel owner then filed a motion with the court requesting counter-security, asking the court to order the claimant to provide counter-security in the amount of USD 2,427,365, characterizing the claimant’s refusal to accept the guarantee from the “GARD” club as bad faith. The court agreed with the vessel owner’s arguments and granted the motion in part, ordering the applicant (a Ukrainian importer of mineral fertilizers) to deposit USD 1,261,274 into the court’s deposit account as counter-security within 10 days of this order’s issuance.

As a result of these developments, the parties were able to quickly resolve the dispute out of court, and the arrest was subsequently lifted at the request of the Ukrainian importer.

Arrest of the m/v “MILLA” in Pivdennyi Sea Port (Case No. 916/1472/26)

In this case, the dry cargo vessel MILLA (IMO 9004487) was arrested by a court order dated April 22, 2026, to secure the charterer’s maritime claim arising from damage to the cargo during maritime transport, a breach of the maritime transport schedule, and the vessel owner’s refusal to load the full quantity of cargo onto the vessel at the port of loading.

The vessel owner filed a motion with the court requesting the provision of counter-security, in which it asked the court to order the applicant to provide counter-security in the amount of USD 623,759, justified by potential losses resulting from the arrest, including the payment of port fees during the vessel’s stay in the port of Pivdennyi. In this case, the court also agreed with the vessel owner’s arguments but reduced the counter-security by a factor of 80 (!), ordering the applicant to deposit USD 7,759 into the court’s deposit account as counter-security within 7 days of issuance of this ruling. The applicant complied with the court’s order and deposited the UAH equivalent of USD 7,759 into the court’s deposit account, thereby excluding the possibility of lifting the arrest due to failure to comply with the court’s requirements regarding counter-security.

Arrest of the m/v “SUNDRY” in the port of Chornomorsk (Case No. 916/2119/26)

In this case, the dry cargo vessel SUNDRY (IMO 9045651) was arrested by a court order dated May 29, 2026, to secure a maritime claim arising from a charter agreement and a maritime transport agreement, namely, due to damage to the cargo (mineral fertilizers) during maritime transport and a breach of the maritime transport deadlines, which resulted in losses to the applicant due to changes in market prices for mineral fertilizers.

On the eve of the hearing on the arrest application, the vessel owner filed a motion with the court requesting counter-security, in which he asked the court to order the applicant to provide counter-security in the amount of USD 198,468, justified by potential losses resulting from the arrest, including the payment of port fees during the vessel’s stay in the port of Chornomorsk. The applicant objected to the imposition of counter-security, arguing that there was no evidence of a real risk that the court’s decision to compensate the vessel owner for losses caused by the arrest would not be enforced. Unlike in the two previous cases, in this case the court agreed with the applicant’s arguments and refused to apply counter-security, noting that this would lead to a reduction in the working capital of the applicant – a resident of Ukraine who had already suffered losses due to damage caused to his cargo. The vessel owner disagreed with the arrest ruling and filed an appeal. As of the date of this article, the vessel owner’s appeal has not yet been considered.

The Parties Have Started to Make Greater Use of “Club” Guarantees

It should be noted that the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine provides for only two grounds for the unconditional release of a vessel from arrest: the vessel owner’s deposit of funds with the court or the provision of a bank guarantee in an amount equal to the maritime claim (see Parts 4 and 5 of Article 143 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine). However, in practice, the use of these instruments is complicated for a foreign vessel owner.

As we have repeatedly pointed out at forums and conferences attended by the judicial corps, the Commercial Court of Odesa Region still does not have a foreign currency account, which makes it impossible to deposit funds in freely convertible currencies (US dollars, euros, pounds, etc.) and requires the involvement of a maritime agent or law firm to convert the currency into UAH. This, in turn, leads to additional losses due to exchange rate differences. Furthermore, due to restrictions imposed by the National Bank of Ukraine on foreign currency transfers abroad in connection with martial law (see NBU Resolution No. 18 of February 24, 2022), the conversion of UAH funds into foreign currency and their subsequent return to the vessel owner are currently impossible.

As for the second instrument (bank guarantees), it is also not widely used due to the complexities associated with its execution. First and foremost, it is worth noting that Ukrainian courts interpret a bank guarantee to mean guarantees issued only by Ukrainian banks. This interpretation is correct, since, according to Article 2 of the Law on Banks and Banking Activities, “banks” are defined as legal entities authorized to provide banking services based on a banking license issued by the NBU. Second, when a Ukrainian bank issues a guarantee on behalf of a foreign principal (vessel owner), such a guarantee must be backed by either a deposit or a counter-guarantee from a foreign bank whose reputation and reliability are beyond question in the eyes of the Ukrainian bank. Therefore, in practice, the process of a Ukrainian bank issuing a bank guarantee involves the participation of the P&I club, which insures the vessel owner’s liability, the counter-guarantor bank, and the Ukrainian bank (the guarantor bank). In our experience, depending on the situation, the entire process can take anywhere from 3 to 6 weeks, provided there is proper coordination and cooperation between all parties involved.

In addition, nothing prevents the parties from using another instrument as alternative security, namely a letter of guarantee from a P&I club, in which the P&I club guarantees payment of a specified amount against a final and binding court or arbitral decision, or against a settlement agreement reached between the parties to resolve the dispute out of court. As our experience shows, the use of “club” guarantees as alternative security has been growing in recent times, which is fully in line with the practice of resolving such cases in the EU, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, I would like to note that cases involving the arrest of vessels are of particular interest to maritime attorneys, as each one presents its own unique details and features, allowing them to continually refine their professional skills and form judicial practice in the application of the provisions contained in the 1952 Brussels Convention on the Arrest of Vessels.