编者按：2015年2月28日，《最高人民法院关于扣押与拍卖船舶适用法律若干问题的规定》发布，该项新解释已于2015年3月1日生效。对于这一新的规定，全球最大的船东保障及赔偿协会（互保协会）Gard 撰文独家授权分享。

最高人民法院发布关于扣押与拍卖船舶的新司法解释

China’s Supreme Court issues new judicial interpretation on ship arrest and judicial sale of ships

中国并非传统上常见的船舶扣押管辖区。然而，Gard的会员和客户凡有船舶停靠中国港口的，都应注意该项新司法解释。该项司法解释旨在阐明中国海事法院扣押和拍卖船舶的具体程序，并可能导致在中国扣押船舶日趋频繁。

China is not traditionally a popular jurisdiction for ship arrest. However, Members and clients with ships calling at ports in China should be aware of this development. This guidance is aimed at clarifying ship arrest and sale procedure in the Chinese maritime courts which could lead to more frequent vessel arrests in China.

本文系对中国最高人民法院颁布的新司法解释[1]《最高人民法院关于扣押与拍卖船舶适用法律若干问题的规定》（下称“新解释”）的一个简要解析。该项新解释已于2015年3月1日生效，涵盖了有关船舶扣押与拍卖的一系列问题。

This Insight is a brief commentary on a new judicial interpretation1 issued by China’s Supreme Court. It covers a number of issues relating to ship arrest and the judicial sale of ships (the Interpretation) that came into force on 1 March 2015.

申请扣船的反担保

Provision of counter-security for arrest

海事请求人在中国申请扣押船舶时通常须提供反担保。1999年《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》（下称“SMPL1999”）[2] 第七十六条规定，海事请求人提供的反担保的金额应相当于因其扣押船舶可能给被请求人造成的损失。多年来，中国海事法院对反担保金额的要求因各案件事实情况的不同以及各法官采取方法的不同而异。在某些案件中，反担保的金额相当于被扣船舶30天的租金，但在另一些案件中，反担保的金额又相当于被扣船舶所涉的索赔金额。

It is normal practice for a claimant to provide counter-security when arresting in China. Article 76 of the Special Maritime Procedure Law 1999 (SMPL 1999)2 provides that the amount of counter-security should be equivalent to the probable loss the arrest would cause to the party whose vessel is arrested. Over the years, the practice of the Chinese maritime courts has varied depending on the facts of the case and different approaches by individual judges. In some cases, the counter-security amount was equivalent to 30 days’ hire of the vessel, whilst in others an amount equal to the claim in respect of which the vessel was arrested.

新解释于第五条确立了反担保金额的计算标准应为下列各项之和：

•船舶扣押期间可能产生的各项维持费用与支出

•因扣押造成的船期损失

•被请求人为使船舶解除扣押而提供担保所支出的费用

The Interpretation sets out in Article 5 a mechanism to calculate the security amount based on the aggregate of:

•the maintenance expenses of the vessel during the period of arrest

•the loss of use resulting from the arrest

•the cost to the party whose vessel had been arrested (the respondent) to provide security to release the vessel.

该种计算方式与2003年《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》[3] 第二十四条中关于申请扣押船舶错误所造成损失的计算方式一致。

This is the same formula used for assessing the losses resulting from wrongful arrest, as set out in Article 24 of the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation of 2003 relating to application of the SMPL 1999.3

然而，该条款仍存在着一些不明确的因素，诸如：

•船舶扣押期间应采取的维持措施的水准

•船舶扣押期间应适用的租金费率

•被请求人提供担保所支出费用的范围 — 实践中，海事法院通常只支持被请求人为提供银行担保而支出的佣金

A number of factors remain unclear, however, such as:

•the level of maintenance to be carried out during the arrest period

•the applicable rate of hire while under arrest

•the scope of security costs – in practice, the maritime courts have generally only included the commission payable by the respondent to provide a bank guarantee.

此外，当扣船申请已提交-反担保金额已确定时，被请求人基本没有机会去证实或质疑用以证明维持费用、租金以及为提供担保所支出费用的证据。尽管如此，当反担保已提供且船舶已被扣押时，如果船东能证明请求人所提供的反担保不足以弥补错误扣船可能对其造成的损失，船东仍可要求提高反担保的金额。

Furthermore, at the time the arrest application is made – and counter-security is assessed – the respondent will not have an opportunity to substantiate or challenge the evidence submitted relating to maintenance, hire and security costs. That said, once counter security has been provided following the vessel’s arrest, the owners may apply for the amount of security to be increased in the event it can be shown that the original amount is insufficient to cover the owners’ likely losses if the arrest proves wrongful.

尽管新解释第五条还存在一些未决问题，但至少它已设立了一条可供遵循的标准。

Although Article 5 still leaves some open questions, at least it sets out a formula to be followed.

新解释第四条进一步明确了有关反担保的一些问题。该条款规定，海事法院对于因海上及通海水域人身损害赔偿纠纷、船员劳务合同纠纷引起的船舶扣押申请是否可以不提供反担保，有自由裁量权。

A further clarification relating to counter-security is set out in Article 4. This provides that the maritime courts have a discretion not to request counter-security if the arrest relates to a claim for personal injury at sea or a claim arising under a crew service contract.

对同一条船舶的多次扣押

Multiple arrests of the same vessel

新解释第二条允许多个海事请求人对同一条船舶进行扣押以作为各自债权的担保。此外，先申请扣押船舶的海事请求人未申请拍卖船舶的，后申请扣押船舶的海事请求人可以依据SMPL1999第二十八条的规定申请拍卖船舶。

然而，新解释却未明确，是否每个申请扣押船舶的海事请求人均须为其各自索赔提供全额反担保。

Article 2 of the Interpretation allows multiple claimants to arrest the same vessel as security for their respective claims. Further, if a claimant has made an arrest application but not applied for a judicial sale, then any subsequent claimant making an arrest application may apply for judicial sale of the vessel according to Article 28 of SMPL 1999.

The Interpretation does not, however, tackle the issue of whether each claimant having arrested the vessel must provide counter-security to the full extent of their respective claims.

船舶拍卖及相关程序

Judicial sale and procedure

新解释中有数条规定与船舶的司法拍卖有关，包括如下：

•第十一条规定，拍卖船舶由拍卖船舶委员会实施（根据SMPL1999第三十四条规定，拍卖船舶委员会由法官、拍卖师、验船师组成，通常为三人或者五人）。

•第十三条规定，对经过两次拍卖仍然流拍的船舶，可以进行变卖，但变卖价格不得低于评估价的百分之五十。

•第十四条规定，若船舶经过变卖仍未成交的，经已受理登记债权三分之二以上份额的债权人同意，可以低于评估价百分之五十的价格进行变卖处理。仍未成交的，海事法院可以解除船舶扣押。

•第十六条要求债权人自法院就船舶第一次拍卖发布公告之日起六十天内申请债权登记。

There are several provisions relating to the judicial sale of vessels:

•Article 11 provides that the judicial sale of a vessel is to be organized by a ship auction committee (comprising judges, auctioneers and surveyors, normally three or five persons, as per Article 34 SMPL 1999)

•Article 13 states that in the event of two failed judicial auctions, the sale price of a ship can be reduced – but not to less than 50 per cent of its assessed value

•Article 14 provides that if a ship has still not been sold after a price reduction, the court may lower the price below 50 per cent of its assessed value provided consent is given by creditors representing two thirds or more of the registered creditors’ claims. In the event a sale is still unsuccessful, the court may release the vessel from arrest

•Article 16 requires creditors to register their claims within 60 days after the court’s announcement for the first judicial auction.

解除反担保

Release of counter-security

中国海事法院对于解除或返还反担保的司法实践一度是海事请求人关心的问题。新解释出台之前，鉴于反担保系对被请求人之后可能提出的错误扣船索赔的担保，反担保可能在案件解决后两年内无法返还。

The practice of the Chinese maritime courts relating to release or return of counter-security has been a concern for claimants in the past. Counter-security could be held up to two years after the claim had been settled on the basis that it represented security for a possible, subsequent wrongful arrest claim brought by the respondent.

为此，新解释第六条无疑将受到海事请求人的欢迎。该条款规定了应直接向海事请求人返还反担保的情形，具体如下：

•被请求人同意返还，或

•请求人请求返还，且生效法律文书认定被请求人负有责任，且赔偿或给付金额与海事请求人要求被请求人提供担保的数额基本相当。

Article 6 of the Interpretation will no doubt be welcomed by claimants. It provides that counter-security should be returned to the claimant forthwith:

•if the respondent agrees, or

•if the claimant requests its return, supported by a valid judicial instrument affirming that the respondent is liable for the claim and the awarded amount is approximately equivalent to the amount of security.

此外，该条款还规定，案件终审后，海事请求人申请返还其所提供的反担保的，海事法院应将该申请告知被请求人，被请求人在三十日内未提起相关错误扣船索赔的，海事法院可以准许海事请求人返还反担保的申请。

In addition, when a claim has been finally concluded, the claimant can apply to the maritime court for return of the security. The court will notify the respondent and allow them to bring any wrongful arrest claim within 30 days, failing which the security will be returned to the claimant.

扣押及拍卖光租船舶

Arrest and judicial sale of bareboat chartered vessels

SMPL1999第二十三条允许海事请求人在船舶的光船承租人对海事请求负有责任，并且在实施扣押时是该船的光船承租人的情况下申请扣押该船。然而，该条款未就海事请求人是否能在扣押该船后申请拍卖该船作出明确规定。

Article 23 of SMPL 1999 allows a claimant to apply to arrest a vessel where its bareboat charterer may be liable for a maritime claim and the ship is under bareboat charter at the time of arrest. However, it has not been clear whether the claimant could apply for judicial sale of the vessel following the arrest.

现如今，这个问题在新解释第三条得以解决。新解释第三条规定，海事请求人有权（根据SMPL1999第二十九条）申请拍卖该船用以清偿光船承租人应予承担的索赔。

This is now resolved by Article 3 of the Interpretation, which provides that the claimant is entitled to apply (under Article 29 SMPL 1999) for a judicial sale of the vessel to recover a maritime claim for which the bareboat charterer is liable.

此条款可能导致船舶所有人在自身无过错的情况下仍面临其船舶被司法拍卖的风险。对于资助光船承租人购买船舶的船东，尤其需要关注该条款。

This provision is likely to expose head owners to the possibility of their vessel being subjected to a judicial sale through no fault of their own. This might be of significant interest to a shipowner who finances a bareboat charterer to purchase a vessel.

其他

Miscellaneous

新解释第七条规定，船舶扣押期间由船舶所有人或光船承租人负责管理。船舶所有人或光船承租人不履行船舶管理职责的，海事法院可委托第三人或者海事请求人代为管理，由此产生的费用由船舶所有人或光船承租人承担，或在拍卖船舶价款中优先拨付。

Article 7 provides that the shipowner or bareboat charterer is to remain in charge of management of the vessel while under arrest. Should they fail to do so, the maritime court may appoint the claimant or a third party to manage the ship. In which case, the management costs are to be borne by the shipowner or bareboat charterer, or to be paid out of the proceeds of a judicial sale of the vessel.

新解释第九条规定，扣押船舶裁定作出后因“客观原因”无法执行的，海事法院应当裁定终结执行。该条款并未明确定义何种情况构成“客观原因”，但其一可能是船舶已不在中国海事法院的管辖范围内，其二可能是船舶已全损。

Under Article 9, the maritime court must terminate the arrest order in the event that it is impossible to enforce the arrest for “objective reasons”. It has not been defined what amounts to “objective reasons”. One possibility could be that the vessel is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Chinese maritime courts, another that the vessel has become a total loss.

新解释可能导致中国海事法院对船舶的扣押和拍卖日渐普遍。虽然SMPL1999下的一些问题仍待解决，例如被扣船舶的船东破产是否应优先于船舶优先权，然而，可以预料到的是新解释势必受到海事法院和海事请求相关方的普遍欢迎。

The Interpretation should result in a more common approach to arrest and judicial sale by the Chinese maritime courts. However, some issues arising under the SMPL 1999 remain to be resolved, such as whether insolvency of an owner of an arrested ship should take priority over a maritime lien. Nevertheless it is expected that this Interpretation will be generally welcomed by the maritime courts and parties involved in maritime claims.

致谢：感谢敬海律师事务所允许我们使用其内部翻译团队对新解释进行的翻译，新解释的具体内容请见该翻译。

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Wang Jing & Co for use of their in-house English translation of the Interpretation, in which further details of the changes can found.

对于本文若有任何问题或意见的，可发送邮件至Gard Editorial Team (editor@gard.no)

Questions or comments concerning this Gard Insight article can be e-mailed to the Gard Editorial Team.

[1] 敬海律师事务所，《最高人民法院关于扣押与拍卖船舶适用法律若干问题的规定》 法释〔2015〕6号的内部翻译(http://www.gard.no/Content/20817700/Insight_China_SPC_20150301.pdf)

《最高人民法院关于扣押与拍卖船舶适用法律若干问题的规定》中文版链接(http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/02/id/148098.shtml)

[2] 1999年《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》中文版链接(http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/1999/12/id/36223.shtml)

[3] 2003年《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》中文版链接 (http://hnfy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2003/01/id/672659.shtml)

[1] Wang Jing & Co, inhouse translation of Interpretation No.6 (2015) Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in handling Ship Arrest and Judicial Sale. (http://www.gard.no/Content/20817700/Insight_China_SPC_20150301.pdf)

Link in Chinese to the Interpretation (http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/02/id/148098.shtml)

[2] Link in Chinese to SMPL 1999 (http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/1999/12/id/36223.shtml)

[3] Link in Chinese to the 2003 Interpretation on Several Issues regarding SMPL 1999 (http://hnfy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2003/01/id/672659.shtml)