Allanando el camino para el reconocimiento de las ventas judiciales de buques celebradas en el extranjero. Análisis comparado de los procedimientos de venta judicial en jurisdicciones seleccionadas

  1. Shao, Ying-Feng
  2. Carballo Piñeiro, Laura
  3. Mejia Jr., Maximo Q.
Revista:
Cuadernos de derecho transnacional

ISSN: 1989-4570

Ano de publicación: 2023

Volume: 15

Número: 1

Páxinas: 136-160

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.20318/CDT.2023.7536 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Cuadernos de derecho transnacional

Resumo

The extent to which a state will recognise the effects of a foreign judicial sale of a ship is subject to its private international law rules, which consist of various conditions for recognition. The application of these conditions may be mediated by the principles informing domestic sales. Thus, to understand better how national recognition mechanisms work, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of sale proceedings in selected jurisdictions to examine whether these principles fundamentally diverge and may impair the recognition. Varying principles exist as regards six aspects of the sale proceeding. In light of the prevailing conditions for recognition of foreign judicial sales, it is inferred that the principles concerning four sale aspects may resurface at the recognition stage, putting in danger the free circulation of the ship purchaser’s title. These four sale aspects include the ship’s location, the notification of sale, the variance in the standard sale, and the extra protection given to high-ranking  creditors in the distribution of proceeds. In contrast, the principles in respect of the remaining two sale aspects, viz., the time to initiate a sale and the approach to obtaining the best  possible price, though substantially divergent, may not impede the recognition.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • “Limited Real Rights” < http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/content/dutchcivillaw022.htm> assessed 22 June 2022.
  • A. BRIGGS, «Recognition and enforcement of judgments (common law)», Encyclopedia of Private International Law, 2017, pp. 1479-1486; T. DOMEJ, «Recognition and enforcement of judgments (civil law)», Encyclopedia of Private International Law, 2017, pp. 1471-1480.
  • A. MANDARAKA-SHEPPARD, Modern Admiralty Law, Cavendish Publishing, 2001, p. 139.
  • A. V. DICEY / others, Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 15th ed., Sweet and Maxwell, 2015, para. 22-058.
  • Bollinger & Boyd v Capt. Claude Bass (1978) 576 F. 2d 595, 598 (US, 5th Cir).
  • Comité Maritime International (CMI), Yearbook 1985 Lisboa I, p. 46.
  • Curtis v Wild [1991] 4 All ER 172
  • D. C. JACKSON, Enforcement of Maritime Claims, Informa Law from Routledge, 2005, ch. 25.
  • D. V. BEMMEL, “The Enforced Sale of Sea-going Vessels in the Netherlands”, < https://langelaarklinkhamer.com/en/the- enforced-sale-sea-going-vessels-the-netherlands/> assessed 21 June 2022
  • E. C. JIANKAI, “Judicial Sale of Arrested Vessels: The Suitability of Taobao as a Platform for Singapore Judicial Sale”, SAcLJ, 2019, vol. 31, pp. 72-94.
  • European and Australasian Royal Mail v P. & O. (1866) 14 LT 704.
  • F. BERLINGIERI, «Synopsis of the Replies from the Maritime Law Associations of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malta, Nigeria, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, America, Venezuela to the Questionnaire in Respect of Recognition of Foreign Judicial Sales of Ships», in CMI, Year Book 2010, pp. 247-384, question 2.1 (Malta).
  • G. BERLINGIERI, «Italy Part III. Judicial Sales of Vessels and Priority of Claims’», in C. BREITZKE / J. LUX (eds.), Maritime Law Handbook, Kluwer Law International BV, 2019.
  • H. V. D. H. V. OORDT / others, “Appeal Court Partially Restores Retention Rights for Dutch Shipyards”, Lexology (7 October 2015) <https://www.lexology.com/commentary/shipping-transport/netherlands/akd/appeal-court-partially-restores-re- tention-rights-for-dutch-shipyards> assessed 22 June 2022.
  • J. ERIK PÖTSCHKE, «Judicial Sale of Ships in Germany as an Example for a Civil Law concept», in CMI, Yearbook 2013, pp. 143-150.
  • J. SCERRI-DIACONO / others, “The Meaning of ‘Ship’ in Judicial Sales in Malta”, JIML, vol. 25, 2019, pp. 156-160.
  • J. SCERRI-DIACONO, “Private, Court-Approved Sales of Vessels and Aircraft in Malta”, LMCLQ, 2012, pp. 356-358.
  • K. DINGLI / T. GRECH, “Ship Arrest in Malta”, < https://shiparrested.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MaltaSAP.pdf> accessed 23 May 2022.
  • L. BLEYEN, Judicial Sales of Ships: A Comparative Study, Springer, 2016
  • L. TEC, “Judicial Sale of Vessels in Asia-Pacific Common Law Jurisdiction”, in CMI, Yearbook 2013, pp. 150-166.
  • L. ZHANG, Ship Arrest and Relevant Issues, Law Press China, 2009, pp. 151-153. See also the Guidance of Auction Work of the Nan-jin Maritime Court, s 2. <南京海事法院_《南京海事法院船舶拍卖工作指南》 (njhsfy.gov.cn)> accessed 4 July
  • M. THOMPSON, “Ship Auctioned in Jamaica Rearrested in Malta”, The Gleaner (22 February 2019); J. P. GAUCI-MAISTRE / others, “Malta Overrules Foreign Auction”, The Arrest News (April 2019).
  • N. MEESON / J. KIMBELL, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice, 5th ed, Informa Law from Routledge, 2017
  • P. MYBURGH, “‘Satisfactory for its Own Purposes’: Private Direct Arrangements and Judicial Vessel Sales”, JIML, 2016, vol. 22, pp. 355-369.
  • Polpen Shipping Company Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd [1943] KB 161
  • R v Goodwin [2006] 1 WLR 546; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432.
  • R v Goodwin [2006] 1 WLR 546; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432. Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163.
  • R. COLES and E. WATT, Ship Registration: Law and Practice, 2nd ed, Informa, 2009, para. 19.2.
  • R. HEWARD, «England and Wales Part III. Judicial Sales of Vessels and Priority of Claims», in C. BREITZKE / J. LUX (eds.), Maritime Law Handbook, Kluwer Law International BV, 2019, pp. 5-27.
  • S. BRÆKHUS, «Choice of Law Problems in International Shipping (Recent Developments)», Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 164, pp. 259-260.
  • Sea-Tec Fabricators Ltd v Offshore Fishing Co [1985] FCJ 236.
  • Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163
  • The Mayor & Corporation of Southport v Morriss [1893] 1 QB 359
  • The Senior Court Act 1981, s 24(1); the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 313.
  • Van Steenderen Mainport Lawyers, “First-step Analysis: Shipping Law and Practice in Netherlands”, Lexology (1 August 2019) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f4aa193-b949-4e88-878c-fdcdd2a13523> assessed 22 June 2022.
  • W. TETLEY / R.C. WILKINS, Maritime Liens and Claims, International Shipping Publications, 1998
  • Weeks v Ross [1913] 2 KB 229 (
  • X. BAI, “Defining the Legal Relationship between Parties in the Reform of Judicial Auction”, China Trial (Beijing, 5 March 2012). The original title in Chinese: 司法拍卖改革中各方参与主体法律关系的界定.
  • Y. SHAO / L. CARBALLO PIÑEIRO / M. Q. MEJIA. JR., “Recognition of Foreign Judicial Sales of Ships and Private International Law”, JIML, vol. 28, 2022, pp. 166-186.
  • Y. SHAO / L. CARBALLO PIÑEIRO, “Towards a Harmonised Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Judicial Sales of Ships Through Conventions Addressing Maritime Liens and Mortgages”, Il diritto marittimo, 2021, pp. 736-761.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet