The plaintiff / shipyard terminated a shipbuilding contract due to the buyer’s / defendant’s repudiatory breach which the shipyard accepted and brought the contract to an end in May 2015. Since the ...contract was governed by English law and disputes thereunder were to be referred to LMAA arbitration, the shipyard commenced arbitration in London against the buyer, claiming, inter alia, damages. The arbitral tribunal made its decision in June 2016 in favour of the shipyard and ordered the buyer, inter alia, to compensate the shipyard for damages in an amount which was to be decided at a separate hearing, unless the parties settled in the meantime. The shipyard’s attempts to settle the claim were without success. The buyer is also the owner of a cruise vessel under the flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines. The vessel arrived in the port of Bergen, Norway, in June 2019. Since the shipyard did not have any security for its maritime claim it made an application to the Bergen District Court (Bergen Tingrett) to arrest the cruise vessel whilst in the port of Bergen as security for the shipyard’s claim.The court arrested the vessel.
This paper deals with a well-established English law principle known as the “prevention principle“ in the context of shipbuilding contracts. Under the principle, no party to a contract should benefit ...from its own failure to perform. In the context of shipbuilding contracts, this principle should give protection to a shipyard in the event of delays in delivery of the vessel that are caused by the buyer, and no liquidated damages should be payable by the shipyard, and the contractual delivery date should be replaced by a time reasonably required to complete the vessel. In other words, where the buyer’s default (such as delay in the buyer’s supplies, interfering with agreed modifications, failure to promptly provide and approve the vessel’s design and drawings, late payments of the contract price, etc.) affect the build schedule which results in a delay in construction and in the delivery of the vessel. Such actions by the buyer might represent an act of prevention. In consequence, the delivery date set out in the shipbuilding contract should not be further binding on the builder and the contractual time for delivery of the vessel should become time at large.On the other hand, it is equally common that most shipbuilding contracts contain extension of time clauses granting shipyards an extension of the delivery period in certain events. However, pursuant to a number of English court cases, the prevention principle does not apply where the shipbuilding contract contains extension of time clauses governing permissible delays, and the liquidated damages shall still be payable, subject to extension of time clauses.This paper deals with a difficult question: if the shipyard fails (or is time barred) to claim the application of the extension of time clauses for delays caused by the buyer’s default(s), does the prevention principle still apply?
Koncesije otvaraju vrlo osjetljiva politička, ekonomska i pravna pitanja u mnogim
državama svijeta. Samo definiranje pojma koncesije često je komplicirana i
ne sasvim jasna zadaća. OECD je prihvatila ...definiciju koncesije kao: ’’davanje
prava privatnom trgovačkom društvu da može gospodarski upravljati određenom
infrastrukturnim uslugama i za to zarađivati naknadu. Koncesionar dobija u posjed
određene objekte (ali vlasništvo na tim objektima ostaje u rukama države) te
ih koristi u svrhu obavljanja određene djelatnosti ili usluge sukladno odredbama
ugovora’’.2
Hrvatsko pravo definira koncesije načelno kao pravo stečeno temeljem ugovora
o koncesiji, a sukladno uvjetima sadržanim u odluci o davanju koncesije (koju je
donijelo odgovarajuće upravno tijelo), a u odnosu na pomorsko dobro, specifično,
kao pravo državne vlasti da može dio pomorskog dobra, koje je inače dobro izvan
pravnog prometa (res extra commercium), isključiti iz opće uporabe bilo dijelom ili
u cijelosti, i dati ga fizičkoj ili pravnoj osobi na gospodarsko korištenje sukladno
određenim prostornim planovima. Građevine i drugi objekti izgrađeni na pomorskom
dobru čine njegov sastavni dio.
Zakonom je jasno određeno da nikakva stvarna prava nisu dopuštena na pomorskom
dobru, uključivo i na objektima izgrađenima na njemu.
Projekti na pomorskom dobru često uključuju velike infrastrukturne projekte,
razvoje luka i marina, koji iziskuju značajna financijska sredstva. Banke koje financiraju takve projekte zahtijevaju organiziran i transparentan
zakonski okvir koncesija, slobodu ugovaranja, pravnu zaštitu svih strana uključenih
u projekt (uključivo i mogućnost međunarodne arbitraže).
Takvi se projekti uobičajeno financiraju putem modela projektnih financiranja
koja zahtijevaju značajni ulog kapitala i uključuju veliki broj sudionika kao što
su banke, građevinske firme, investitori, upravitelji projekata, razni dostavljači i
izvršitelji raznih usluga, javni sektor, itd. Projektna finaciranja ovise u cijelosti o
prihodu kojeg ostvaruje sam projekt, a koji prihod je jedini izvor otplate kredita, te
o ‘’dostupnosti za banku prihvatljivih instrumenata osiguranja na bazi imovine i
prihoda koncesionara, uključivo i pravo ‘step-in’, te mogućnosti državnih jamstava
za uredno ispunjenje obveza preuzetih od strane davatelja koncesije’’.
Svrha instrumenata osiguranja (uključivo i cesije prava koncesionara iz raznih
projektnih ugovora) za ispunjenje koncesionarevih kreditnih obveza je da u
slučaju neispunjenja koncesijskih obveza banka može ‘’uskočiti’’ u projekt i preuzeti
kontrolu nad njime kako bi ga dovela do kraja (umjesto ovrhe instrumenata
osiguranja). Zbog toga su projektni ugovori, uključivo ugovor o koncesiji, na prvom
mjestu, od izuzetne važnosti za banku.
Uobičajeno je da instrumenti osiguranja ne imovini koncesionara ne uključuju
hipoteku na objektima projekta izgrađenima na pomorskom dobru. Hrvatsko
pravo ne dopušta zasnivanje hipoteke na pomorskom dobru. Međutim, to nije prepreka
bankama da financiraju projekte na pomorskom dobru. S aspekta projektnih
financiranja nije potrebno mijenjati zakon da bi se dopustilo osnivanja hipoteke na
pomorskom dobru. Drugi, naprijed navedeni instrumenti osiguranja osnovani u
korist banaka, uključivo i izravni ugovori, dovoljni su bankama da bi učinkovito
kontrolirale projekt k ojega financiraju.
Under English law, it is entirely up to the contract parties to agree on “force majeure” events
that are beyond the builder’s control. Under an old English law principle known as the “prevention
...principle”, no party to a contract should be allowed to benefit from its own failure to
perform. In the context of shipbuilding contracts, this principle should give protection to a
shipyard in the case of delays in the delivery of a vessel that are caused by the buyer’s defaults.
It is the builder’s fundamental duty to deliver the vessel to the buyer on the delivery date set out
in the shipbuilding contract. If the builder demands to be released from that duty, it will have
to follow certain requirements imposed by English law.
Pitanje je u kojoj mjeri Brexit utječe na pomorsko pravo i pomorsku industriju Europske unije. Trgovački sud u Londonu stoljećima rješava meðunarodne sporove nastale iz prijevoza stvari morem. ...Približno 80 % svih sporova pred tim sudom, kao i Sudom za pomorske sporove, i danas su pomorski sporovi nastali iz pomorskih osiguranja i brodograðevnih sporova. Oko 70 % takvih sporova meðunarodnog su karaktera. Velika većina sudaca engleskog Trgovačkog suda, Žalbenog suda, Vrhovnog suda i Suda za pomorske sporove, kao i veliki broj specijaliziranih odvjetnika i vještaka, imaju iskustva u pomorskim sporovima. Sve to upućuje na zaključak kako je London bio i ostao dominantna jurisdikcija za rješavanje meðunarodnih pomorskih sporova. Pragmatičan pristup pitanju odgovornosti i alokaciji rizika pomorskih pothvata, kao i detaljna analiza specifičnih okolnosti svakog slučaja, meðu ostalim, krase englesku sudsku praksu. Nakon završetka tzv. tranzicijskog razdoblja pregovora o izlasku Velike Britanije iz Europske unije, 31. prosinca 2020. godine, u Velikoj Britaniji prestale su važiti Uredba Europske unije Bruxelles I (preinaka), Luganska konvencija iz 2007. godine i tzv. Uredbe Rim I i Rim II. Navedeni propisi reguliraju pitanja nadležnosti, priznanja i izvršenja sudskih odluka u graðanskim i trgovačkim sporovima meðu državama članicama Europske unije, kao i izbor mjerodavnog prava. Prestankom važenja potonjih propisa prestao je dotadašnji postupak automatskog priznanja i ovrhe presuda engleskih sudova u graðanskim i trgovačkim sporovima meðu državama članicama Europske unije (i obratno). U tim se okolnostima postavlja pitanje, hoće li brodarske kuće, osiguravajuća društva, brodograditelji i drugi dionici pomorske industrije Europske unije i dalje s povjerenjem ugovarati primjenu engleskog prava i nadležnost engleskih sudova. Smatramo kako hoće jer englesko pomorsko pravo i sudska praksa nude jedinstveno visok stupanj izvjesnosti, jasnoće i predvidljivosti, kao i visoku razinu razumijevanja specifičnosti pomorske industrije koje London već više od stoljeća pruža pomorskim kompanijama Europske unije i ostatku svijeta.
Ovaj rad razmatra općeprihvaćeno načelo engleskoga prava poznato kao "načelo zabrane sprječavanja ispunjenja" u kontekstu ugovora o gradnji broda. Sukladno tome načelu, ni jedna ugovorna strana ne bi ...trebala uživati plodove neispunjenja svoje ugovorne obveze. U kontekstu ugovora o gradnji broda ovo načelo bi trebalo zaštititi brodograditelja u slučaju njegovog kašnjenja s isporukom broda, a koje kašnjenje je prouzročio sam naručitelj, te brodograditelj ne bi trebao plaćati ugovornu kaznu uslijed takvoga kašnjenja. Nadalje, u takvim okolnostima ugovoreni rok isporuke broda prestaje biti relevantan, a umjesto njega rok isporuke postaje razuman period vremena koji je potreban za izgradnju i isporuku broda. Drugim riječima, kada naručitelj ne ispunjava svoje ugovorne obveze (npr. kasni s dostavom svoje opreme i materijala, zahtijeva nepotrebne izmjene u projektu broda, ne dostavlja ili ne odobrava na vrijeme projektnu i radioničku dokumentaciju, kasni s plaćanjem ugovorne cijene i dr.) on time utječe na plan gradnje broda, a što za posljedicu može imati kašnjenje isporuke broda. Takvo postupanje naručitelja može se tumačiti kao sprječavanje brodograditelja u ispunjenju njegovih obveza. Uslijed takvoga postupanja ugovoreni rok isporuke više ne bi obvezivao brodograditelja te bi bio bez pravnog učinka. S druge, pak, strane uobičajeno je da ugovori o gradnji broda sadržavaju odredbe temeljem kojih se, uslijed određenih okolnosti, ugovoreni rok isporuke može odgoditi. Međutim, značajan broj odluka engleskih sudova upućuje na zaključak da se načelo zabrane sprječavanja ispunjenja neće primijeniti u slučajevima kada sam ugovor sadržava odredbe o produljenju roka Tada će se odredbe o ugovornoj kazni i dalje primjenjivati, ovisno o odredbama o produljenju roka isporuke. U ovome se radu razmatra složeno pitanje: ako brodograditelj propusti (ili je u zastari) primijeniti ugovorne odredbe o produljenju roka isporuke broda, do kojeg produljenja je došlo uslijed propusta naručitelja, može li se načelo o zabrani sprječavanja ispunjenja primijeniti ili ne?
The plaintiff / shipyard terminated a shipbuilding contract due to the buyer's / defendant's repudiatory breach which the shipyard accepted and brought the contract to an end in May 2015. Since the ...contract was governed by English law and disputes thereunder were to be referred to LMAA arbitration, the shipyard commenced arbitration in London against the buyer, claiming, inter alia, damages. The arbitral tribunal made its decision in June 2016 in favour of the shipyard and ordered the buyer, inter alia, to compensate the shipyard for damages in an amount which was to be decided at a separate hearing, unless the parties settled in the meantime. The shipyard's attempts to settle the claim were without success. The buyer is also the owner of a cruise vessel under the flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines. The vessel arrived in the port of Bergen, Norway, in June 2019. Since the shipyard did not have any security for its maritime claim it made an application to the Bergen District Court (Bergen Tingrett) to arrest the cruise vessel whilst in the port of Bergen as security for the shipyard's claim. The court arrested the vessel.
Concessions rise very sensitive political, economic and legal issues in many countries worldwide. Even defining the term ‘’concession’’ can be a complicated and not very straightforward exercise. ...OECD accepted definition of a concession as: “a grant to a private firm of the right to operate a defined infrastructure service and to receive revenues deriving from it. The concessionaire takes possession of the relevant assets (but ownership usually remains with the government) and uses them to provide the relevant product or service according to the terms of the contract.’’Croatian law defines concession generally as a right acquired pursuant to a concession contract subject to terms set out in the decision on concession (granted by a relevant authority) and, in respect of maritime domain, more specifically, as a right (of the Government authority) to exclude a part of maritime domain from the public use, either partly or completely, and to grant it to individuals or corporations for their commercial use subject to the relevant area planning. Buildings and other units erected on a maritime domain form its integral part.The law makes it clear that no property rights can be created on any part of maritime domain including buildings and units erected thereon. Projects developed on maritime domain often include large infrastructure projects,development of ports and marinas which require substantial financing. Banks that provide financing to such projects require organized and transparent concession laws and regulations, freedom of contract, legal protection of all parties involved (including a possibility of international arbitration). Projects of that kind are normally financed through project finance scheme which requires high level of capital and involves a substantial number of participants such as banks, contractors, investors, project managers, service suppliers, public sector, etc. Project finance scheme depends entirely on income generated by the project itself which income is the only source of repayment of financing and on ‘’the availability of reliable security instruments on the assets and cash flow of the concessionaire in favour of lenders,including ‘step-in’ rights and the possibility of government financial support or the guarantee by the contracting authority of proper fulfilment of its obligations. ’’The purpose of having security instruments (including assignment of concessionaire’s rights under the project contracts) for the concessionaire’s loan obligations, is that in the event of the concessionaire’s default the bank can ‘’step-in’’ and take full control over the project (instead of enforcing the securities) and make sure that the project is completed.That is why the project contracts, including concession contract in the first place, are of paramount importance for the banks. Normally, the security instruments on the concessionaire’s assets do not include mortgage on the project buildings and other units developed on the maritime domain. Croatian law does not allow for creation of a mortgage on maritime domain. That, however,is not an obstacle for the banks to provide financing for projects developed on maritime domain. From project finance banks’ point of view it is not necessary to change the law in order to allow creation of mortgage on maritime domain. Other security instruments created in favour of the banks providing project finance, including direct agreements, are normally sufficient for the banks to control the project.
Concessions rise very sensitive political, economic and legal issues in many countries worldwide. Even defining the term ‘’concession’’ can be a complicated and not very straightforward exercise. ...OECD accepted definition of a concession as: “a grant to a private firm of the right to operate a defined infrastructure service and to receive revenues deriving from it. The concessionaire takes possession of the relevant assets (but ownership usually remains with the government) and uses them to provide the relevant product or service according to the terms of the contract.’’ Croatian law defines concession generally as a right acquired pursuant to a concession contract subject to terms set out in the decision on concession (granted by a relevant authority) and, in respect of maritime domain, more specifically, as a right (of the Government authority) to exclude a part of maritime domain from the public use, either partly or completely, and to grant it to individuals or corporations for their commercial use subject to the relevant area planning. Buildings and other units erected on a maritime domain form its integral part. The law makes it clear that no property rights can be created on any part of maritime domain including buildings and units erected thereon. Projects developed on maritime domain often include large infrastructure projects, development of ports and marinas which require substantial financing. Banks that provide financing to such projects require organised and transparent concession laws and regulations, freedom of contract, legal protection of all parties involved (including a possibility of international arbitration). Projects of that kind are normally financed through project finance scheme which requires high level of capital and involves a substantial number of participants such as banks, contractors, investors, project managers, service suppliers, public sector, etc. Project finance scheme depends entirely on income generated by the project itself which income is the only source of repayment of financing and on ‘’the availability of reliable security instruments on the assets and cash flow of the concessionaire in favour of lenders, including ‘step-in’ rights and the possibility of government financial support or the guarantee by the contracting authority of proper fulfilment of its obligations.’’ The purpose of having security instruments (including assignment of concessionaire’s rights under the project contracts) for the concessionaire’s loan obligations, is that in the event of the concessionaire’s default the bank can ‘’step-in’’ and take full control over the project (instead of enforcing the securities) and make sure that the project is completed. That is why the project contracts, including concession contract in the first place, are of paramount importance for the banks. Normally, the security instruments on the concessionaire’s assets do not include mortgage on the project buildings and other units developed on the maritime domain. Croatian law does not allow for creation of a mortgage on maritime domain. That, however, is not an obstacle for the banks to provide financing for projects developed on maritime domain. From project finance banks’ point of view it is not necessary to change the law in order to allow creation of mortgage on maritime domain. Other security instruments created in favour of the banks providing project finance, including direct agreements, are normally sufficient for the banks to control the project.
Autor iznosi neke pravne aspekte gradnje i isporuke broda, osvrćući se pri tome ne samo na neke aspekte hrvatskoga prava, već i na prisustvo engleskoga prava u ugovorima o gradnji broda kako ...hrvatskih, tako i svjetskih brodogradilišta. Mada se radi o izuzetno složenoj pravnoj problematici, autor nastoji približiti neke od bitnih odredaba ugovora o gradnji broda, temeljna prava i obveze ugovornih strana, posljedice neispunjenja ugovornih obveza, pravne aspekte isporuke broda, ulogu klasifikacijskih društava.
PDF
