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

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 15

Número: 1

Páginas: 136-160

Tipo: Artículo

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

Otras publicaciones en: Cuadernos de derecho transnacional

Resumen

El reconocimiento de la venta judicial de buque en el extranjero depende de las normas de derecho internacional privado del país donde se pretende su reconocimiento que, como es sabido, suele examinar diversos requisitos. Como quiera que los mismos están influenciados por las normas que rigen los procedimientos internos, este artículo realiza un análisis de derecho comparado en diversas jurisdicciones para comprender mejor cómo funcionan los mecanismos de reconocimiento de este tipo de ventas. De el se deprende que, al menos, seis aspectos reciben un tratamiento diferente dependiendo de la jurisdicción examinada. De ellos, cuatro son susceptible de reaparecer en el momento del reconocimiento poniendo en peligro la libre circulación del título de comprador del buque, esto es, la localización del buque en el momento de la venta, en qué condiciones se notifica, las divergencias en la venta estándar y la protección adicional otorgada a los acreedores privilegiados en la distribución del producto. En cambio, cuestiones como en qué momento iniciar una venta y cómo conseguir el mejor precio posible, aunque sustancialmente divergentes, no suelen ser obstáculo al reconocimiento.

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.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet