Download here the chapter on Norway from the last edition of our Ship Arrests in Practice publication.
The law is stated as at December 1st 2011.

1. Please give an overview of ship arrest practice in your country.

In Norwegian law, arrest is a remedy to secure a monetary claim. The rules are general in nature, with certain special rules that apply to ships. Arresting a ship in Norway can be arranged quickly without large costs and can be an efficient tool to secure a maritime claim against a ship owner.
In order to arrest a ship, the claimant must submit an application to the District Court. Pursuant to the Dispute Act section 32-4, the claimant can either submit the application to the court in the judicial district where the defendant resides in Norway, or to the court in the judicial district where the ship is currently located or is expected to be located in the near future.
In order to arrest a ship, the claimant must prove the probability of the maritime claim, that a “ground for arrest” exists, and that the other conditions for an arrest are fulfilled.
As a general rule, the “ground for arrest” is an essential condition for arrest. The Dispute Act provides that an arrest can only be decided by the courts when the behaviour of the debtor gives reason to fear that the enforcement of a claim otherwise will be made impossible or made substantially more difficult, or if enforcement has to take place outside Norway.
However, if the situation is especially precarious, the ship can sometimes be arrested without a “ground for arrest”.
The courts will usually consider the application on the basis of written material without a hearing, as time will often be of major importance.  If the application succeeds, the courts will notify the enforcement authorities. This secures that the ship does not leave the harbour, and that the arrest is correctly reported to the ship register.

2. Which International Convention applies to arrest of ships in your country?

Norway is a party to the 1952 Arrest Convention, which is incorporated in the Maritime Code and in the Dispute Act. Norway has reserved its rights as provided by Art 10 (b). Norway has signed but not ratified the 1999 Arrest Convention.

3. Is there any other way to arrest a ship in your jurisdiction?

There is really no alternative to the normal procedures for arrest as such. However, once a ship has successfully been arrested, the claimant can request the arrest to be registered as a legal right in the ship register, but without keeping the ship in detention. An arrest will also be registered in the ship register as part of the normal enforcement procedure. The advantage of a register arrest without detention, however, is that the claimant is less exposed to liability if the arrest is subsequently found to be wrongful.

4. Are there alternatives e.g. saisie conservatoire or freezing order?

A vessel may serve as legal security for a claim in other ways than arrest. One possibility is the ordinary rules on liens and mortgages, under which the claim is secured by a right in the ship. This gives the creditor the right to force a sale of the ship. Such security can be based on contract, order of the enforcement authorities or statute. The creditor’s right of retention, which can be based on contract or statute, may also give security. This is a passive right to retain the ship, but does not give the creditor a right to enforce its claim through forced sale.

5. For which types of claims can you arrest a ship?

According to the Maritime Code section 92, a ship can only be arrested if the claim is a maritime claim. Section 92 defines “maritime claim” in detail.  In addition, section 93 (1) provides that the claim must be related to the ship, with some exceptions for sister ships.

6. Can you arrest a ship irrespectively of her flag?

Yes.

7. Can you arrest a ship irrespectively of the debtor?

No. According to the Maritime Code section 93 (4), the ship can only be arrested if it can serve as an object for enforcement of the claim in question. As a consequence, the debtor has to be the owner of the ship.

8. What is the position as regards sister ships and ships in associated ownership?

As mentioned above, the main rule is that the claim must be related to the ship. However, some important exceptions from this are made in the Maritime Code section 93.

9. What is the position as regards Bareboat and Time-Chartered vessels?

The power of arrest in Norwegian law is narrower than the power in the 1952 Arrest Convention. This is due to the requirement in the Maritime Code section 93 (4), which establishes that an arrest can only be granted where the debtor is the owner of the ship. Where a bare boat or time-chartered vessel causes damage, it is normally the bare boat charterer or time charterer who will be liable, and not the owner. Accordingly, it will not be possible to arrest the vessel in these cases according to general law. However, there are some important exceptions from this as regards maritime liens.

10. Do your Courts require counter-security in order to arrest a ship?

Section 33-3 of the Dispute Act provides that the court can require the claimant to deposit securities as a condition for the implementation of the arrest. The security is fixed at the courts discretion.

11. Is there any difference in respect to arresting a ship for a maritime claim and a maritime lien?

Section 92 (2)(q) of the Maritime Code exempts maritime liens from the definition of a maritime claim. However, as a general rule, a maritime lien will fall within the other categories of the definition in section 92 (2). Consequently, there is usually no difference in respect to arresting a ship for a maritime claim and a maritime lien.

12. Does you country recognise maritime liens?  Under which International Convention, if any?

Yes, maritime liens are recognized under Norwegian law. The provisions on maritime liens are found in the Maritime Code section 51. However, the 1967 Maritime Lien Convention is not effective in Norway.

13. What lapse of time is required in order to arrest a ship since the moment the file arrives to your law firm?

Kluge law firm recognize the need for swift action in cases regarding arrest of ships, and we will normally be able to arrange for arrest of a vessel in any Norwegian port within 24 hours after receiving necessary documentation.

14. Do you need to provide a POA, or any other documents of the claim to the Court?

No. It is advisable and sometimes even required that the claimant appoints legal counsel to represent him with the claim. According to the law, an application for an arrest can be submitted orally to the courts, but this is more theoretical than practical and it is normal procedure to issue a written petition signed by either the claimant or his legal counsel.

15. What original documents are required, what documents can be filed electronically, what documents require notarisation and/or apostille, and when are they needed?

There are no formal requirements as to what documents can be presented to the courts. However, it is advisable to submit any documentation relevant to the substantive claim together with the petition. This increases the chance of a successful arrest, as in most cases the claimant must prove the substantive claim on a balance of probabilities.

16. Will your Courts accept jurisdiction over the substantive claim once a vessel has been arrested?

Yes. Subject to any agreements on venue or arbitration, legal proceedings regarding the substantive claim can be instituted in the courts of the judicial district where the ship has been arrested.

17. Which period of time will be granted by the Courts in order for the claimants to take legal action on the merits?

The defendant can request the courts to fix a time-limit by which the claimant must institute legal proceedings. If no such time-limit has been fixed by the court, the period will be one year from the issue of the arrest order. If proceedings are not instituted within the time-limit, the arrest order will be quashed. The courts can, at their own discretion, extend the one-year time limit if a request is submitted within the time-limit.

18. Do the Courts of your country acknowledge wrongful arrest?

Yes. Section 32-11 of the Dispute Act imposes on the claimant a wide-ranging duty to indemnify the defendant for any economic loss he has suffered if the claim did not exist at the time of the arrest. The same applies if the claimant by negligence or intent has given wrongful or misleading information regarding the “ground for arrest”.

19. Do the Courts of your country acknowledge the piercing and lifting of the corporate veil?

As a general rule, the shareholders of a company with limited liability will not be personally liable for the obligations of the company.
 
However, the courts will make an overall evaluation and, in exceptional circumstances, the possibility of piercing and lifting the corporate veil cannot be ruled out. Important factors in the overall evaluation will be whether it would be unreasonable towards the creditor to uphold the corporate veil in the particular situation, or whether the companies have been mixed in such a way that the upholding of the corporate veil does not deserve preservation from the courts.

20. Is it possible to have a ship sold pendente lite; if so how long does it take?

When a ship has been arrested, the effect of the arrest is that the owner looses his complete control over the ship. This means that the owner cannot decide to sell the ship as long as the arrest is upheld.
An arrest does not give the claimant the right to a compulsory fulfilment. Such sale would require an enforcement ground. The claim is considered to be pendente lite until a legally binding judgement has been delivered by the courts. As a consequence, the claimant cannot demand that the ship is sold pendente lite. However, the courts can permit this if the arrest holder requests it, and it is necessary to avoid substantial decrease in value.

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Porsgrunn

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Porsgrunn

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Legal Framework

Norway is party to several international conventions within the maritime field, including the 1952 Arrest Convention. Norway has also signed the 1999 Arrest Convention, but this convention has not been ratified by Norway – pending international acceptance of this convention.

Norway is a civil law country, like most European countries apart from the UK, and domestic law is to a much larger extent created through governmental legislation than by case law. International conventions are usually translated and incorporated into domestic legislation. For instance, the 1952 Arrest Convention (hereinafter referred to as the Arrest Convention”) has been incorporated into the Norwegian Maritime Code (NMC), and is mainly found in chapter 4 of the NMC.

Norway has also introduced additional requirements for arrest of ships (which are applicable to arrest of any property, not only ships), and such requirements are not found in the Arrest Convention. I will revert to this below, but the important requirement to note is that an arrest is not granted unless the claimant can show a probable cause for arrest. The mere existence of a maritime claim is not sufficient ground for an arrest in Norway.

It is possible to arrest for security only, and the claimant is not obliged to commence substantive proceedings in Norway regarding the claim itself. Arrest of ships are therefore made in Norway from time to time in order to obtain security where the main proceedings are being conducted elsewhere, e.g. in English arbitration. The Norwegian courts may, however, require the claimant to commence proceedings, in Norway or abroad, within a fixed time in order to maintain the arrest. In my experience, the courts seldom require substantive proceedings to be commenced. If the Courts do not fix a time limit, the arrest will lapse if legal steps are not taken within one year after the arrest decree was passed.

Arrest Procedure

Arresting a ship is a relatively straight forward matter under  Norwegian law, and can be arranged quickly at a reasonable cost.

The claimant must submit an application for arrest to the District Court of the port where the ship has called or is expected to arrive, alternatively to the District Court in the judicial district where the debtor (the owner of the vessel) resides if the ship owner is Norwegian. When dealing with arrest of ships, disputes are seldom taken beyond the District Court. The Appeal Court will normally not be able to hear any matter before a long time after an appeal is made, and by that time the ship has usually sailed and disputes are settled.

The application may be forwarded to the Court prior to the vessel entering the port, if one can present evidence showing that the vessel most likely will call a named port in the very near future. The application has to specify the claim, the size of the claim, the so-called “arrest ground” (see below) and provide for an outline of the allegations of the applicant. Documents supporting the allegations are not mandatory, but should ideally be submitted. A well presented case with supporting evidence increases the probability of obtaining an arrest award ex parte. The supporting documents should in principle be in a Scandinavian language, but the courts will, however, normally accept documen¬tation in English.

A ship arrest application will either be dealt with by the Court based on the written application or at an oral hearing. For all practical purposes, arrest of ships is always dealt with ex parte, as there seldom will be time to arrange a hearing before the vessel sails. The ship owner may, however, apply for a subsequent hearing to be held if he intends to dispute that the conditions for obtaining arrest are satisfied. Such a hearing will normally be scheduled within a few days.   

If the District Court accepts the application for arrest, the court will issue an arrest order. The decision is usually issued within twenty-four hours after receipt of the application. The arrest order is then served upon the Master of the vessel by the Bailiff (usually the local police), and the ship’s certificates are then detained by the Bailiff. The vessel will then be under an obligation to stay in port.

It is not necessary for the claimant to issue any formal Power of Attorney when instructing legal counsel in Norway in connection with the arrest application. In some jurisdictions such Power of Attorney must be submitted to the court, duly notarized and legalized. This may be a time critical factor when preparing for an arrest.

There are no substantial fees payable to the court in connection with an arrest, only a minor fee in the region of NOK 2,000 – 3,000 (approx. EUR 250-350). The claimant may, however, be requested to post security. I will address the question of security separately below.

Claims in respect of which a ship may be arrested
 
All maritime claims as listed in Article 1 (1) of the Arrest Convention, with the addition of compensation for wreck removal, may be the basis for an arrest of the ship. These different maritime claims are listed in the section 92 of the NMC:

Section 92 Maritime Claims
A ship can only be arrested to secure a maritime claim.
A maritime claim means a claim based on one or more of the following circumstances:
a) damage caused by a ship in a collision or otherwise,
b) loss of life or personal injury caused by a ship or occurring in connection with the operation of a ship,
c) salvage and the removal of wrecks,
d) a charterparty or other agreement for the use or hire of a ship,
e) a charterparty or other agreement for the carriage of goods by ship,
f) loss of or damage to goods, including luggage, carried by ship,
g) general average,
h) bottomry,
i) towage,
j) pilotage,
k) goods or materials delivered anywhere to a ship for use in its operation and maintenance,
l) the building, repair or fitting out of a ship and costs and fees payable for docking,
m) wages and other remuneration due to the master and other employees on board in respect of their service on the ship,
n) a master’s disbursements, including disbursements by shippers, charterers or agents on behalf of the ship or its owner,
o) a dispute as to the ownership of a ship,
p) a dispute between co-owners of a ship concerning its ownership, possession or use or the revenues from it,
q) any mortgage on or security in a ship, except for a maritime lien.

There has been a discussion in Norway whether this closed list of claims should be expanded, in particular to include different types of environmental compensation claims. With the exception of claims arising out of wreck removal, Norway has kept to the list of maritime claims as found in the Arrest Convention. As mentioned above, Norway has signed the 1999 Arrest Convention, and if this convention ever comes into force, Norway will most likely ratify the convention. The list of claims will then be expanded in accordance with the 1999 Convention, and costs relating to salvage operations in order to protect the environment, insurance premiums and broker/agency fees, ship sale and purchase disputes may then be added to the list.

In order to arrest a ship in Norway, the claim for which the creditor is seeking security need to fall within the scope of section 92 of the NMC as listed above. If the claim falls outside the scope of section 92, and is thus not regarded as maritime claim, it is still possible to arrest other objects than the vessel, e.g. the bunkers onboard to secure a claim for hire payment, claim for insurance proceeds and bank accounts. From a practical viewpoint, an arrest of the vessel’s bunkers may be as effective as arresting the vessel itself, and may often lead to security being put up for claims which are not maritime claims under the NMC and the Arrest Convention. The bunkers must, however, be owned by the debtor, and it is important to keep in mind that under a time charterparty, the bunkers are normally owned by the Charterers, not the Owners.

If the vessel in question is flying Norwegian flag, it might also be possible to make a so called “register arrest”. This is practical if the claim is not a maritime one, as this is not an arrest of the vessel as such, and section 92 of the NMC is not applicable. A “register arrest” means that instead of physically seizing the vessel, the arrest order is registered by the Norwegian Ship Registry (NIS – The Norwegian International Ship Register or NOR- The Norwegian Ship Register). If a creditor fears that the vessel may be sold, and thereby he loses the only object that may provide security for the claim, this can be an effective alternative to arresting the vessel. A register arrest prevents a sale of the vessel but may not provide an offer of immediate security.

The additional requirement – “arrest ground”

In addition to the main requirement for a “maritime claim”, the applicant must prove upon a balance of probability that he has an “arrest ground“ (in Norwegian: “sikrings¬grunn”). As mentioned above, this is a requirement which is not found in the Arrest Convention, and it is a requirement imposed by domestic law in addition to the rules of the Arrest Convention.

This requirement is set out in the Norwegian Dispute Act, which contains different rules regarding arrest in general, rules which apply both to arrest of ships and other assets. The relevant rule is found in section 33-2 (1), which reads as follows:
 
“Arrest of assets of economic value can be decreed when the behavior of the debtor gives reason to fear that the enforcement of the claim otherwise will either be made impossible or made substantially more difficult, or has to take place outside the Kingdom”  

In short, this means that the Norwegian Courts are provided with discretion as regards whether or not an arrest shall be granted. On this point, Norwegian law deviates from the Arrest Convention.

As opposed to arrest in most other jurisdictions, an arrest in Norway may only be granted if the debtor’s conduct gives reason to assume that enforcement of the claim will either be impossible or significantly more burdensome if an arrest is not granted, or that any enforcement will otherwise have to be made abroad. (This latter alternative is, however, applied very strictly, and is not applicable purely when the debtor is a foreign entity). If it may be proven that the debtor has tried to dissipate his assets (e.g. by transferring assets to other companies), an arrest will most certainly be granted. The same will generally apply if his course of business indicates that there will probably not be any money left unless an arrest is granted. Also, it may prove sufficient if he has failed to settle or respond to an undisputed claim after a number of reminders. It should, however, be noted that it is the actions of the debtor that is relevant; the fact that a debtor is financially weak does not in itself constitute a ground for arrest.
 
In my opinion, this additional requirement means that Norway in fact has not adopted the Arrest Convention in the way it was meant to work. One of the advantages of the closed list of maritime claims in Article 1 of the Convention is that if the claim falls within the scope of maritime claims, one knows that an arrest will be granted. This is how the convention works in many jurisdictions, e.g. the UK. The Norwegian approach means that it is more difficult to predict in advance whether the courts will grant an arrest, as the Norwegian Courts have been provided with a discretion they are not meant to have under the Arrest Convention. However, in practice the Courts seldom apply this additional requirement very strictly, and an arrest of the ship is often made without this requirement being a major obstacle. The Claimant is usually able to produce some kind of evidence showing a disloyal behavior on the part of the Owner, e.g. several reminders which have not been answered.
 
There is, however, one important exemption from this additional requirement; a claimant whose claim is secured by a mortgage or lien on the vessel can arrest the vessel without showing any other cause for an arrest if the secured claim has fallen due. This rule is set out in section 33-2(3) of the Dispute Act. In practice, there are two different categories of claims that may be secured this way. Firstly, claimants with loans secured by a registered mortgage on the vessel can arrest the vessel without any additional reason for arrest, other than the claim is due. The claimant would usually be a bank, acting as lender and mortgagee.

Secondly, a claim secured by a maritime lien will also be entitled to arrest without this additional requirement. Maritime liens are recognized under Norwegian law, and the list of maritime liens in the section 51 of the NMC corresponds with the list in the 1967 Maritime Lien Convention article 4 no 1. Norway is however not a signatory to the 1967 Convention. The following claims will be secured by a maritime lien in Norway:
1) wages and other sums due to the master and other persons employed on board in respect of their employment on the vessel;
2) port, canal and other waterway dues and pilotage dues;
3) damages in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring in direct connection with the operation of the ship;
4) damages in respect of loss of or damage to property, occurring in direct connection with the operation of the ship, provided the claim is not capable of being based on contract;
5) salvage reward, compensation for wreck removal, and general average contribution.

Ownership of vessel – arrest of sister ship

In contrast to some jurisdictions, Norwegian law is strict on the fact that the debtor/defendant must be the owner of the vessel that is being arrested. Claims against time or bareboat charterers do not give the right of arresting the vessel, as the vessel is not owned by the charterers. Norwegian legislators have deviated from the Arrest Convention on this point, as claims against bareboat charterers are subject to arrest pursuant to article 3(4) of the Convention. However, under a time charter, arresting the bunkers onboard may still be a possibility, as the bunkers usually are owned by the charterers.

The legal principle that the debtor has to be the owner of the ship is set out in section 93(4) of the NMC:
“Arrest can only be effected if the ship can serve as an object for the enforcement of a claim according to the general provisions of the Enforcement of Claims Act”.

Turning to the Enforcement of Claims Act, sections 11-4 and 7-1, it is clearly said that the debtor must be the legal owner of the asset that is being arrested.

In principle, the only ship that may be arrested is the one out of which the claim arises. However, in accordance with the Arrest Convention, Norwegian law recognizes the right of sister ship arrest. If vessel A and B are owned by the same legal entity, and this legal entity is the debtor for the claim, either of the vessels may be arrested, even if the claim only arises out of vessel A. It should be noted that both vessels in principle must be owned by the same legal entity in order to enable an arrest of the sister ship. If the ownership of vessels is organized with a holding company and single purpose companies as the registered owner of each vessel, arrest of a sister ship will in principle not be possible under Norwegian law.

Piercing the corporate veil may in theory be possible under Norwegian law, but we have very few court cases on the subject, and the principle has not been litigated with respect to arrest of a sister ship. I think it is fair to say that one should anticipate that the Norwegian courts will accept the structure of companies, and is not likely to pierce the corporate veil in connection with arresting sister ships.

The Norwegian rule on arrest of sister ships is set out in section 93(1) of the NMC: 
“Arrests can only be effected against a) the ship to which the maritime claim relates, or b) if the owner of the ship to which the maritime claim relates is personally liable for the claim: other ships owned by that person at the time when the claim arose.”

Security

When arresting a vessel in Norway, the question of security may arise in three different situations:

1) The claimant may be asked to put up counter security in order for the arrest to be granted.
2) The claimant may be asked to raise security for port dues that are being incurred during the arrest period.
3) The debtor may arrange for the release of the vessel by posting security.

Counter security

Starting with the question of counter security, the Court may in its sole discretion make the arrest order conditional upon the claimant providing security for wrongful arrest in a fixed amount. If such request is issued, the claimant must in accordance with the Enforcement of Claims Act raise security in way of cash deposit with the court or a bank guarantee from a Norwegian bank.

It is very difficult to say in advance whether the Court will request counter security, as it varies from judge to judge and from case to case. I think it is fair to say that the Court is more likely to request counter security if in doubt about whether the claimant has a probable maritime claim and sufficient cause for arrest. In my experience, the Courts seldom requests counter security. However, a few years ago, a large number of arrest attempts were made on Russian fishing vessels discharging their cargoes in the Northern parts of Norway. One particular Court, which was the recipient of the majority of arrest applications, then requested counter security on a regular basis. The requested security could be substantial, and the question of the size of the security did also arise. The security is meant to cover liability for wrongful arrest, which usually would be the loss of hire due to the arrest.

One might ask whether the claimant in any case may be held responsible for any loss of hire suffered if the arrest is deemed wrongful. The question is to my knowledge still not finally resolved, but I am of the opinion that one could argue that the loss of hire should not be recoverable for a longer period that one would expect the debtor to arrange for security and the release of the vessel, which is normally a few days. As a comparison, it could be mentioned that under Danish law, such security is, by statutory legislation, limited to five days loss of hire.

Port dues

The claimant may be requested to provide security for the port dues; if the vessel is arrested while berthed at port facilities owned/operated by the municipal port authorities (the same applies if the vessel later is shifted to such port facilities while under arrest). According to section 97 of the NMC, the claimant must, within one week after the arrest order has been handed down, arrange for security for the port dues. If such security is not posted, the arrest may be lifted upon request from the port authorities. The security needed must cover the port dues for a period of minimum fourteen days and should, in accordance with the Enforcement of Claims Act, be established either by way of a cash deposit or bank guarantee from a Norwegian bank.  The port dues are not of any substantial amount, but incur on a daily basis, and a lengthy arrest may lead to a substantial liability towards the port authorities.

Release of vessel

If an arrest is granted, the debtor may arrange for the release of the vessel by putting up security. If the parties are unable to reach an amicable settlement, a commercial ship owner will of course raise security in order to have the vessel back in a working condition as quickly as possible. Most P&I Clubs will issue a Letter of Undertaking (Club Letter), and this is very often commercially acceptable as a guarantee in order to lift an arrest. It should, however, be noted that in accordance with the Norwegian Enforcement of Claims Act, this is not a security recognized by law. In most cases the arrestor will accept a Club Letter from a reputable P&I Club, and the vessel will then be released according to such mutual agreement. However, if the claimant sticks firmly to Norwegian procedural requirements, the debtor may be forced to make a cash deposit or arrange for a bank guarantee from a Norwegian bank to be established.

Liability for wrongful arrest

In principle, section 32-11 of the Dispute Act imposes a strict liability on the arrestor for the loss of the defendant if the claim did not exist at the time the arrest was granted. This means that if the Courts later find that the claimant did not have a maritime claim (a claim which falls within the scope of section 92 of the NMC), the claimant can be held liable for the economic loss the debtor may have suffered due to the arrest, regardless of whether the claimant is to blame for giving misleading information or not. The liability is a strict one.

Such strict liability is only applicable in case the claimant does not have any maritime claim against the debtor at all. If the Court later overturns an arrest issued ex parte due to the lack of sufficient ground for arrest, the claimant does not have any strict liability. However, he may in principle be held liable if he has given wrongful or misleading information about the arrest ground and by such misrepresentation is deemed to have acted negligently.

Even if the Norwegian rules are quite strict and may impose a liability for wrongful arrest on the claimant, it is quite rare to see these rules coming into play. The number of court cases where the claimant has been held liable is not many.

Judicial sale proceedings

An arrest in Norway will not give an automatic right to initiate judicial sale proceedings of the vessel. An arrest in Norway only provides security, and judicial sale proceedings are conditional upon the claimant having an enforceable claim in accordance with the rules of the Enforcement Act. In practice, this means that the claimant can proceed with the sale of the vessel only when a final and binding court decision on the claim itself (the main proceedings) has been issued. A creditor with a registered mortgage can proceed on basis of the mortgage itself (see above).

In case of Norwegian jurisdiction, this would be a final judgment from Norwegian courts, but it may also be a foreign judgment. Being a member of the EEA-area, Norway has ratified the Lugano Convention (identical to the Brussels Convention within the EU) regarding acknowledgment and enforcement of foreign judgments. This means that a final court decision from a country within the EU may be enforceable in Norway. Norway is also a party to the New York Convention regarding enforcement of arbitration awards, and a foreign arbitration award is enforceable in Norway in accordance with provisions of this convention.

I should mention that under Norwegian law, the proceeds from a sale will be divided between the creditors in accordance with certain rules of priority. After having deducted all costs in connection with the judicial sale proceedings, claims secured with a maritime lien or a mortgage in the vessel will be paid first. Any balance thereafter will be divided between the other creditors, where the time of registering the claim and obtaining an execution lien in the vessel is the decisive factor. This means that it may be important to quickly obtain a final judgment in the main proceedings, and thereafter register the claim in the vessel as an execution lien. What is important with a ship arrest in Norway is that one holds priority from the time of the arrest, even if the final judgment and the execution lien are established later (save for the fact that the arrest will lapse after one year if sale proceedings have not been commenced within that time). Arrest of the vessel may therefore be an important measure to a creditor whose claim is in competition with other creditors and the ship owner is financially weak. Under this scenario, It is good advice to act quickly in order to secure a claim with a best possible priority.

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Bergen

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Bergen

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Haugesund

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Haugesund

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Stavanger

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Stavanger

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Kristiansand

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Kristiansand

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Drammen

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Drammen

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions

Advokatfirmaet Vogt & Wiig AS

Kluge Advokatfirma DA

INFO Port of Oslo

About Ship Arrests / Releases in Oslo

About Ship’s management, ownership or port detentions