Suchergebnisse

В статье рассматриваются вопросы, относящиеся к важнейшему условию договора фрахтования морского судна (чартеру) безопасному порту. Формулируется самое понятие безопасного порта и требования (условия), которым он должен отвечать, навигационные, санитарные, политические и правовые. Как правило, оговорка о безопасном порте («safe port») включается в условия договора фрахтования. Она близка, но не совпадает с другими смежными оговорками этого договора «так близко, как судно может безопасно подойти», «всегда на плаву», «не всегда на плаву, но безопасно на грунте». Фрахтовщик вправе не выполнять распоряжение другой стороны договора фрахтователя о направлении судна в небезопасный порт. Условие о безопасном порте рассматривается английским правом как гарантия безопасного порта. Это означает, что нарушение фрахтователем такой гарантии влечет для фрахтователя во всех случаях причинение ущерба судну. Он может быть освобожден от ответственности лишь тогда, когда капитан судна, выполняя распоряжение фрахтователя, допускает небрежность («novus actus intervieniens»). По российскому праву ответственность фрахтователя за направление судна в небезопасный порт представляет собой вид договорной ответственности, построенной на принципе вины. ; The artickle tackles the issues of a key term of contract between the owner of a vessel and the charterer for the use of a vessel (charter party) a safe port. The concept of a safe port and requirements (terms) which it is to meet nautical, sanitary, political and legal have been worded. A safe port clause tends to be a requisite of contract of affreightment. It is very close but it does not dovetail other related clauses of this contract «as close as the vessel can approach safely», «always afloat», «not always afloat, but safe on the bottom». Shipowner has a right not to implement the requiement of the other party merchant on directing the ship to a safe port. The safe port term is treated as a guarantee of a free port under English law. This means that the breach of guarantee by the merchant entails damage to the vessel for the merchant in any case. The merchant may be indemnified only if the vessel's captain performing the merchant's order breaks the chain («novus actus intervieniens»). Under Russian law, the liability of the merchant for directing the vessel to an unsafe port is a contractual liability based on the principle of guilt.

The SEUTE DEERN is one of the last surviving historic wooden cargo sailing vessels, not only in Germany, but in all of Europe. It is the flagship and outstanding attraction of the museum harbour of the German Maritime Museum (DSM) and has become the trademark of Bremerhaven. As a museum ship and floating restaurant, the windjammer has been berthed in the Old Harbour - the oldest harbour of Bremerhaven and the site of the city's origin - since 1966. The barque SEUTE DEERN was the inaugural object of Germany's first open-air maritime museum, from which the DSM developed. Furthermore, the wooden sailing ship represents the local shipbuilding tradition, within whose framework over 250 deep-water sailing vessels were built - initially of wood, later of steel - in the shipyards on the Geeste, particularly Rickmers and Tecklenborg. Finally, the present-day flagship of the DSM demonstrates the international character of sailship construction and navigation. Originally the four-masted schooner ELIZABETH BANDI, this ship was built in 1919 in the American gulf port near the mouth of the Mississippi for the transport of wood. From 1931 she sailed under Finnish flag until being acquired by the Hamburg shipowner John T. Essberger in 1938. In 1939, Essberger had the schooner altered to a barque by the Hamburg shipyard Blohm & Voss; now she was to serve as a cargocarrying training ship for junior nautical officers. By 1944 she had made many a journey on the Baltic Sea and the end of the war found her berthed in her winter quarters in Lübeck. Following alterations carried out in Travemünde (1946-47) the SEUTE DEERN operated until 1954 as a hotel ship in Hamburg. Subsequently, until 1964, she rode at anchor under Dutch flag in Delfzijl, now as the youth hostel ship PIETER A. KOERTS. Following a short stay in Emden, the ship reached Bremerhaven. The SEUTE DEERN has been at her present berth in the museum harbour in front of the main building of the DSM since 1975. Due to severe damages to the main deck and hull, the floating cultural monument is being restored in 2001-2002. The DSM is undertaking every effort to preserve for posterity one of the last existing wooden cargo sailing ships in Europe as a living testimony to our maritime cultural heritage.

30 páginas ; El derecho del transporte de mercancías por mar evolucionó desde un marco de libertad absoluta a un sistema donde hay límites para las partes en los contratos de transporte. Legislación reciente en derecho continental y en el common law (como la Ley de Transporte Marítimo de 1949 en España y el Código de Comercio en Colombia) establecen límites a las partes cuando celebran contratos de transporte marítimo. Tratados internacionales, como las Reglas de La Haya Visby, las Reglas de Hamburgo y las Reglas de Rotterdam, también regulan la materia siguiendo este propósito. Soluciones dadas por derechos nacionales, provenientes del common law y del derecho continental, debe ser aplicadas teniendo en cuenta el propósito de uniformidad del derecho marítimo. La regulación española del contrato de fletamento-transporte debe ser aplicada considerando una única y fundamental obligación de transporte de mercancías en vez de cualquier otra naturaleza de arrendamiento. La obligación de transporte debe ser entendida como compleja. Existen distintos deberes, como la custodia y entrega de la mercancía, que el deudor debe realizar a fin de alcanzar el propósito final del contrato.Palabras clave: Contratos de transporte de mercancías por mar, obligaciones del porteador en el transporte marítimo, Ley de Transporte Marítimo española, Código de Comercio colombiano, Reglas de La Haya Visby, Reglas de Hamburgo, Reglas de Rotterdam. ; The law of carriage of goods by sea has evolved from an absolute freedom framework into a system where there are limits for parties in transportation contracts. In the continental and common law recent legislations (like the Maritime Transportation Act 1949 in Spain and Commercial Code in Colombia) have been established limits to parties when they perform maritime transportation agreements. The International treaties, like the Hague Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules, regulated the matter following this purpose. Solutions given by national law, in common law and continental law, must be applied taking into account the uniformity purpose of maritime regulations. The Spanish regulation of the affreighment - transportation contract must be applied considering a fundamental and unique obligation to transport goods instead of any other rental nature. Carriage obligation must be understood as a complex duty from shipowner. There are several duties, such care and delivery of transported goods, that the debtor must perform in order to achieve the final purpose of the contract.Key words: Carriage of goods by sea contracts, carrier obligations in maritime transportation, Spanish Maritime Transportation Act, Colombian Commercial Code, Hague Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules

The Effect of the Arbitration Clause Incorporated in a Bill of Lading to Third Persons -- Regime Interaction and GAIRS -- Maritime Rules for Rail Carriage: China's Initiative to Incorporate Rules from the Road to the Belt -- A Critical Analysis of Carriage of Passengers by Sea: Uniformity Through International and Regional Approaches -- Occupational Hazards in the Light of the Maritime Migration Challenge -- Governance of International Shipping in the Era of Decarbonisation: New Challenges for the IMO? -- Good Faith in Maritime Law Contracts -- Legal Aspects of Green Shipping Finance: Insights from the European Investment Bank's Schemes -- When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism and the Development of Maritime Law -- Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal Framework for Maritime Security -- Compensation for Cargo Damage in International Maritime Transportation: Chinese Law Perspective -- Innocent Passage Under UNCLOS: An Exploration of the Tenets, Trials, and Tribulations -- What Challenges Lie Ahead for Maritime Law? -- Sanctions Compliance Risks in International Shipping: Closure of Five Crimean Ports, the Sanctions Regime in Respect of Ukraine/Russia and Related Compliance Challenges -- Shipowner's Implied Obligations in a Charterparty Relating to Lien on Cargo: English and Chinese Law Perspectives -- An Exposé of Canadian "Abandoned Vessels & Derelicts" Through a Legal Analysis of Doctrinal Silos -- Korean Collision Avoidance Rules and Apportionment of Liability -- The Application of Human Rights and Ethics Principles to Self-protection Measures by the Ship Against Pirates and Armed Robbers -- Blockchain and Bills of Lading: Legal Issues in Perspective -- Environmental Challenge in Port Development: The Legal Perspective in Cross-Disciplinary Research -- Taxation and Ship Management: A Canadian Case Study -- The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in International Law -- Coastal, Flag and Port State Jurisdictions: Powers and Other Considerations Under UNCLOS -- Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Port State Control -- A Century of Piracy Treaties: An Overview for the Future -- Windfall in the Law of Subrogation: Marine Insurance in Motion -- Ship Nationality, Flag States and the Eradication of Substandard Ships: A Critical Analysis -- Pedagogies and Strategies in International Maritime Business -- Cyber Risks Insurance in the Maritime Sector: Growing Pains and Legal Problems -- The Legal Concept and Significance of Clean Shipping Transport Documents -- Liability Insurer's Right to Limit Liability for Maritime Claims: English and Chinese Law Perspectives -- Shipowner Protection in the Wake of the Collapse of O.W. Bunker: The Second Circuit Approval of Interpleader Actions in Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC -- The International Legal Regime Governing Shipboard LNG -- Intelligent Ships -- The United Kingdom Tonnage Tax Regime: Compatibility with Relevant European Union Tax Law and Policy -- Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as a Full Court: Legal Basis and Limits -- Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of Rules Governing Carriage of Goods by Sea.

On 10 December 2007 Minister-President Kris Peeters and Minister Patricia Ceysens disclosed the plans of the Flemish Government to build a new research vessel to replace the current vessel RV Zeeleeuw . The Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) will be responsible for the scientific programme and management of the research equipment. DAB Vloot (MDK) will ensure the good operation of the new coastal vessel. The ship was named Simon Stevin after a Flemish intellectual jack-of-all-trades (°1548, Bruges) with numerous maritime and hydraulic achievements.By constructing this new research vessel Flanders not only undertakes to provide a successor for the oceanographic vessel RV Zeeleeuw but also wants to stress that it continues to invest in scientific and technological innovations as an engine for a sustainable society.Since 2001 marine researchers have been able to board the Zeeleeuw to carry out scientific samplings in the North Sea and the Scheldt Estuary. Constructed in 1977, the Zeeleeuw was converted from a pilot vessel into a research vessel for this purpose in 2000. In recent years it has become clear how this investment has resulted in better and more multidisciplinary marine scientific top research in our region and to training opportunities for marine scientists.A recent poll and feasibility study among the over 500 marine scientists in Flanders confirmed that there is a great need for logistic support of their research. Within this context priority needs to be given to a modern and well equipped vessel with a shallow draught and swift access to the shallow coastal waters of the southern bight of the North Sea and the adjacent river estuaries.By building this new vessel Minister Patricia Ceysens wants to continue along the path of innovation in the field of research and technology. The new ship will meet the established need to spend time on board within the scope of research of monitoring and will keep Flemish scientists in the European lead. The new research vessel will furthermore be able to actively contribute to international marine management obligations and to substantiating the Flemish policy on fishing and port accessibility. The ship will also be used for training and educational purposes and as a test platform for new maritime technologies.In its capacity as multifunctional shipowner on behalf of the Flemish Government the DAB Vloot (Agency for Maritime and Coastal Services) will use its nautical and technical expertise to ensure good operation of the vessel. The Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) will be responsible for the scientific programme of the voyages and the management of the research equipment. As a result of this major step in the support of marine scientific research the VLIZ will be able to fulfil its role as a facilitator of marine scientific knowledge development and as a marine focal point for the international community even better in the future.Minister Ceysens also announced the purchase of additional land-based facilities. These facilities are located within walking distance of the VLIZ and are part of the InnovOcean site, the central site for oceanographic initiatives on the east bank in Ostend. Minister-President Peeters has undertaken to ensure that the vessel is manned and maintained by DAB Vloot and leaves port daily for research purposes.

Kolodin A. Regarding certain issues of classifying voyage charter and time charter agreements to the contract of sea transportation in Ukraine The proposed article defines that maritime transport has traditionallybeen one of the key tools for the development of the world economy and trade. According to a specializedagency of the United Nations – the International Maritime Organization, currently, more than 80 percent ofworld trade is provided by shipping. Shipping is the most efficient and cost-effective method of internationaltransportation of most goods. In turn, one of the most popular ways to implement sea freight is ship chartering. Court chartering agreements are called charters, sometimes using the term charter-party. In its most general form, a charter is an "agreement between a shipowner and a charterer under which the rights to a vessel, depending on the type of chartering, are transferred in whole or in part to the charterer."The Civil Code of Ukraine (Article 912 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) indicates only the general outlines of the charter agreement and contains a reference to a special law (in this case – Code of Merchant Shipping(CMS) of Ukraine), according to which, in particular, the form of the charter agreement is established. However, the legislator did not specify what is meant by the form of a charter agreement. On the one hand,it can be assumed that the forms of chartering agreement are voyage charter, time charter, bareboat charter, and demise charter, although, rather, these are types of chartering agreement. On the other hand, pay attention to Art. 204 CMS of Ukraine establishes that the charter agreement (chartering) has to be concluded in writing form. Thus, the form of a charter agreement (charter) can be understood as its written or oral expression. Finally, the form of a charter agreement may include a sublease agreement (Article 206 ofthe CMS of Ukraine). ; У статті визначається, що морський транспорт традиційно виступає одним із ключових інструментів розвитку світової економіки та торгівлі. За даними спеціалізованої установи ООН – Міжнародної морської організації, натепер більше 80 відсотків світової торгівлі забезпечується за допомогою судноплавства. Судноплавство є найбільш ефективним і рентабельним методом здійснення міжнародних перевезень більшості товарів. Своєю чергою, одним із найбільш затребуваних способів реалізації морської перевезення вантажу виступає фрахтування суден. Договори фрахтування суден називають чартерами, іноді використовують і термін чартер-партія (charter-party). У найзагальнішому вигляді чартер – це «договір між судновласником і фрахтувальником, за яким права на судно залежно від виду фрахтування повністю або частково переходять до фрахтувальника». У Цивільному кодексі України (ст. 912 ЦК України) позначені лише загальні контури договору фрахтування та міститься відсилання до спеціального закону(у вказаному випадку – до Кодексу торговельного мореплавства України), відповідно до якого, зокрема, встановлюється форма договору фрахтування.Проте законодавець не уточнив, що називається формою договору фрахтування. З одного боку, можна припустити, що формами договору фрахтування є рейсовий чартер, тайм-чартер, бербоут-чартер і димайз-чартер. хоча, скоріше, це види договору фрахтування. З іншого боку, звернемо увагу на ст. 204 Кодексу торговельного мореплавства України, яка встановлює, що договір чартеру (фрахтування) повинен бути укладений у письмовій формі. Таким чином, форму договору фрахтування (чартеру) можна трактувати як його письмове або усне вираження. І нарешті, форма договору фрахтування може тлумачитися зокрема й як договір суборенди (ст. 206 Кодексу торговельного мореплавства України).

В представленной работе автор проводит исследование важного коммерческого условия договора морской перевозки груза – мореходности судна. В настоящее время, в связи с широким распространением различных договорных форм, применяемых для юридического оформления разнообразных отношений, возникающих при перевозке грузов во внешнем и внутреннем мореплавании, возникает необходимость пересмотра сущности и значения отдельных договорных условий, издавна используемых в договорах морской перевозки. Автором ставится и решается задача выработки рекомендаций к пониманию условия о мореходности судна для сторон договора и суда, в случае возникновении спора. Приводятся основные проблемы, возникающие при согласовании данного условия сторонами договора, а также определяются их права и обязанности. В своих исследованиях автор применяет комбинацию общих и специальных методов научного анализа исторического, аналогии, абстрагирования и сравнительного правоведения, посредством которых исследует историю развития понятия мореходности, положения правовой теории, действующее морское законодательство РФ и ряда зарубежных стран, правоприменительную практику. Затронутая в рамках данной статьи тема, безусловно, весьма широка, может заинтересовать и побудить к исследованию упомянутых проблем других исследователей. Новым и одновременно не лишенных логики представляется ряд высказанных автором мнений, в частности, о том, что признать судно немореходным можно только в том случае, если судно невозможно соотнести по предъявленным судовладельцем характеристикам судна и его описанию. Приведенное мнение, а также другие мнения автора, высказанные в рамках данной статьи, хотя и не направлены на нормативное закрепление понятия мореходности, однако тем самым подчеркивают его сугубо договорное регулирование. Выводы, сделанные автором и особенности предложенного им подхода, заслуживают внимания, причём не только в плане последующего научного анализа, обсуждения и возможности правоприменения, а также в использовании их при составлении учебников и учебных пособий по предмету «Гражданское право», «Международное частное право», «Морское право». ; The article considers the commercial term of the contract of carriage by sea. The major problems arising while negotiating this term by the parties are discussed. Currently, due to the wide spread of various contractual forms used for legal registration of various relationships arising in the carriage of goods in external and internal navigation, it is necessary to review the nature and significance of individual contractual terms and conditions, long used in the contract of carriage. Author pose and solve the problem to make recommendations to the understanding of the conditions of seaworthiness for parties to the contract and the court, in the case of a dispute. The basic problems in agreeing this condition parties to the contract, as well as their rights and responsibilities. In their studies, the author uses a combination of general and specific methods of scientific analysis historical, analogy, abstraction and comparative law, by which explores the history of the concept of seaworthiness provisions legal theory, existing maritime legislation of the Russian Federation and foreign countries, law enforcement practices. Affected under the topic of this article is definitely very broad, and may be of interest to encourage the study of the problems mentioned by other researchers. New and at the same time not without logic seems a number of opinions expressed by the author, in particular, that can recognize unseaworthy vessel only if the vessel is not possible to correlate the characteristics of the charges by the shipowner of the ship and its description. The opinions expressed, as well as other author's opinions expressed in this article, although not focused on regulatory consolidation concept of seaworthiness, but thus emphasize its purely contractual regulation. Conclusions made by the author and features of the proposed approach them, deserve attention, not only in terms of subsequent scientific analysis, discussion and enforcement capacity, as well as to use them in the preparation of textbooks and manuals on the subject of "Civil Law", "Private International Law", "Law of the Sea."

The article is devoted to the study of violations of the rights of seafarers, both workers and quarantined, caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Uncertainty related to the quarantine or state of emergency has only exacerbated the difficult situation for maritime workers, which has also affected the economic sector of our country and other countries. This justifies the importance of ensuring the work of the crews of the commercial fleet from the standpoint of protection of fundamental human rights. It also provides some examples of violations of seafarers' rights and abuses by shipowners are also given. As a result of the analysis of the norms of the current legislation, it was concluded that the right to timely rotation / cancellation of a seafarer in quarantine conditions was not guaranteed, due to the absence of a special international document. Attention is paid to the question of the inability of the shipowner to ensure compliance with the terms of the employment contract with the employee. It is concluded that the restriction of a rotation of crew members established during the quarantine period is considered a means of protection against COVID-19, but to ensure that international requirements are properly met, the timely replacement of crew members is a necessary component of maritime safety and of a safe maritime transport process organization. The content of this article proves the limitations of the important need for personal contact with people for seafarers, as shipping companies tend to keep their employees away from the land. Another pressing problem today is that many countries require not just vaccinations but vaccinations with certain drugs, which deprives them of the right to choose and complicates the work of seafarers. In this case, the legal regulation of the activities of the subjects of maritime law in quarantine should be carried out from the standpoint of protection of both fundamental human rights and from the standpoint of ensuring the economic component of the activities of states. The introduction of restrictions for members of the commercial fleet in the future may lead to a crisis associated with the lack of necessary and critical cargo and goods in the country. The problem has become global and needs immediate and detailed research. ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню питань порушення прав моряків, як працівників, так і особистостей в умовах карантину, викликаного пандемією Коронавірусу COVID-19. Невизначеність, пов'язана з оголошенням карантину або надзвичайного стану, лише посилила скрутну ситуацію для робітників морської сфери, що також відобразилось на економічному секторі нашої та інших держав. Вона обґрунтовує важливість необхідності забезпечення роботи екіпажів морського комерційного флоту з позиції захисту основоположних прав людини. Також в ній наведено деякі приклади порушень прав моряків та зловживань судновласниками. У результаті аналізу норм чинного законодавства зроблено висновок, що право на своєчасну ротацію/відмову моряка в умовах карантину не гарантується, через відсутність спеціального міжнародного документа. Приділено увагу питанню про неможливість судновласника забезпечити виконання умов трудового договору з працівником. Зроблено висновок, що обмеження ротації членів екіпажу, встановлене в період карантину, вважається засобом захисту від COVID19, але для забезпечення належного дотримання міжнародних вимог своєчасна заміна членів екіпажу є необхідною складовою морського транспорту, безпеки та організації процесу безпечного морського транспорту. Зміст даної статті доводить обмеження важливої потреби в особистому людському контакті для моряків, адже морські компанії схильні до тримання своїх працівників подалі від суші. Актуальною проблемою сьогодення виступає ще те, що багато держав вимагають не просто вакцинацію, а вакцинацію певними препаратами, позбавляючи права вибору та ускладнюючи роботу мореплавцям. При цьому правове регулювання діяльності суб'єктів морського права в умовах карантину має здійснюватися з позиції захисту як основоположних прав людини, так і з позиції забезпечення економічного складника діяльності держав. Введення обмежень для учасників комерційного флоту у подальшому може призвести до кризи, пов'язаної з відсутністю у країнах необхідних і критично важливих вантажів та товарів. Проблема набула глобального масштабу і потребує негайного та детального дослідження.

Dmytrenko D. O. The concept and legal regulation of overtime work in Ukraine and countries ofScandinavian legal model. – Article.The article is devoted to the comparative legal analysis of the legal regulation of overtime work inDenmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Ukraine. Author examines definition of the term"overtime work" under the legislation of Ukraine and countries of Scandinavian legal model. It wasdetermined that maximum annual working hours including overtime work is set only in the labor legislationof Iceland, Norway, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden. In Denmark this issue is regulated exclusively by collectiveagreements. It was established that the maximum duration of overtime work in Ukraine should not exceed120 hours in one calendar year, in Sweden – 150 hours per year, in Norway – 200 hours per 26 weeks,in Iceland – 48 hours per week for 12 months, and 48 hours per week in four months in Finland. Authordetermined that only labor legislation of Ukraine contains provisions concerning prohibition of engagingcertain categories of workers in overtime work. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Swedenemployer can engage employees to work overtime only after their voluntary consent. In Scandinaviancountries, in contrast to Ukraine, the overtime work of employees on their own initiative without theconsent of employers is considered overtime and is compensated equally to the overtime hours withemployer's initiative. Author also considered the issue of legal regulation of overtime work of seafarersand transport workers and ascertained that the Regulation "On working hours and rest time of floatingsea and river transport of Ukraine" does not comply with modern norms of international conventions andrecommendations on the regulation of labor in maritime shipping, in view of the fact that Regulation doesnot contain procedure of appeal in case of violation of employees' right to normal working hours, monetarycompensation of overtime work and provisions regarding sanctions against improper observance of labornorms and standards by the captain and shipowner. the ; Дмитренко Д. О. Поняття та правове регулювання надурочних робіт в Україні й країнахскандинавської правової моделі. – Стаття.Стаття присвячена порівняльно-правовому аналізу правового регулювання надурочних робітв Україні, Данії, Ісландії, Норвегії, Фінляндії та Швеції. Досліджено визначення поняття «надурочніроботи» за законодавством України й країн скандинавської правової моделі. Визначено, що макси-мальна тривалість надурочних годин встановлена лише в трудовому законодавстві Ісландії, Норвегії,України, Фінляндії, Швеції, а в Данії питання регулюється виключно колективними договорами.Установлено, що максимальна тривалість надурочних робіт в Україні не повинна перевищувати120 годин протягом одного календарного року, у Швеції – 150 годин на рік, у Норвегії – 200 годин про-тягом 26 тижнів, в Ісландії – 48 годин на тиждень протягом 12 місяців і 48 годин на тиждень протягомчотирьох місяців у Фінляндії. Зроблено висновок, що лише трудове законодавство України міститьположення щодо заборони залучення окремих категорій працівників до надурочних робіт. У країнахскандинавської правової моделі надурочні роботи виконуються лише за добровільною згодою праців-ників. У скандинавських країнах на відміну від України, де робота працівників за власною ініціа-тивою без погодження з роботодавцем не вважається надурочною, розрізняються надурочні роботиз ініціативи працівника в межах покладених на нього обов'язків і робота з ініціативи роботодавця.Автором було також розглянуто питання правового регулювання надурочних робіт моряків і праців-ників транспорту. Установлено, що Положення «Про робочий час і час відпочинку плаваючого складуморського й річкового транспорту України» не відповідає сучасним нормам міжнародних конвенційі рекомендацій щодо регулювання праці в морському судноплавстві. У положенні відсутні санкції заненалежне дотримання капітаном і судновласником норм і стандартів праці й процедури звернення досуду моряків у разі порушення їх права на нормальну тривалість робочого часу, а також забороненакомпенсація за надурочні роботи у вигляді доплати. З метою розв'язання проблем автором було запро-поновано: закріпити норми щодо юридичної відповідальності роботодавця за неналежне фіксуванняфактично відпрацьованого часу працівниками; викласти параграф 1 статті 62 Кодексу законів пропрацю України в такій редакції: «Надурочні роботи, як правило, не допускаються. Надурочними вва-жаються роботи понад встановлену тривалість робочого дня за їх добровільною згодою»; ратифікуватиКонвенцію про працю в морському судноплавстві 2006 року й створити окремий закон, який регулюєпрацю моряків і буде поширюватись як на українських моряків, так і на моряків-іноземців.Ключові слова: робочий час, надурочні роботи, аварійні роботи, неповнолітні працівники, моряки,працівники транспортної галузі.

The proposed article defines that business development, expansion of international relations require mobility and speed of travel participants, which is not always provided by regular air services. All this led to the development of the charter segment. The contract of chartering of a vessel is referred to as the contract of carriage of goods, passengers, luggage, if it is concluded with the condition of providing for the carriage of the whole vessel or individual ship premises, and the lease agreement of the vessel with or without crew. Attention is drawn to the fact that the charter agreement (charter) is bilateral and paid, the content of which lies in the right of the charterer to reserve allthe contract stipulated by the vessel, another vehicle (part of its capacity) for transportation for payment for one or more flights stipulated by this contract and cargo luggage, and the charterer - to receive for the provided vehicle (part of its capacity) a fee fixed by agreement of the parties (named in maritime law by freight). It is proposed to distinguish the following features of linear navigation: 1) the regularity of the notification and the availability of the timetable; 2) transportation of expensive general cargo; 3) loading the ship with the loads of many consignors; 4) payment of transportation at linear tariffs; 5) carrying out loading and unloading operations by the carrier; 6) the public nature of the carrier's services. In both cases, the parties may be called the same - "charterer (shipowner)" and "charterer", the subject of the contract -the movement of certain stipulated objects (cargo, passengers, luggage) may be the same. At the same time, Ukrainian law applies the concept of "chartering contract" exclusively to the carriage of goods, passengers, luggage. All other forms of exploitation of vessels are a lease agreement for a vessel as a vehicle. The charter is usually designed for the carriage of large lots of bulk cargo, so its condition is to provide the whole ship, part or certain ship's premises. It can be noted that although the chartering relationship in the maritime law is regulated in detail at the legislative level, at the same time the current legislation of Ukraine in this area is not perfect. ; У запропонованій статті визначається, що розвиток бізнесу, розширення міжнародних відносин вимагають від учасників мобільності й оперативності пересування, що не завжди забезпечується регулярним повітряним сполученням. Все це зумовило розвиток сегменту чартерних перевезень. Договором фрахтування судна називають як договір перевезення вантажів, пасажирів, багажу, якщо він укладений з умовою надання для перевезення всього судна або окремих суднових приміщень, так і договір оренди судна з екіпажем або без нього. І в тому, і в іншому випадку сторони можуть називатися однаково -«фрахтувальник (судновласник)» і «фрахтувальник», предмет договору - переміщення певних обумовлених об'єктів (вантажів, пасажирів, багажу) може бути один і той самий. Акцентується увага на тому, що договір фрахтування (чартер) є двостороннім і оплатним, зміст якого полягає у праві фрахтувальника зарезервувати все обумовлене договором судно, інший транспортний засіб (частину його місткості) для перевезення за плату протягом одного або декількох рейсів, передбачених цим договором вантажів, пасажирів і багажу, а фрахтувальника - отримати за наданий транспортний засіб (частину його місткості) встановлену угодою сторін плату (іменовану в морському праві фрахтом). Пропонується виділяти такі ознаки лінійного судноплавства: 1) регулярність повідомлення і наявність розкладу судів; 2) перевезення дорогих генеральних вантажів; 3) завантаження судна вантажами багатьох вантажовідправників; 4) оплата перевезення за лінійними тарифами; 5) здійснення вантажно-розвантажувальних операцій перевізником; 6) публічний характер послуг перевізника. Водночас українське право застосовує поняття «договір фрахтування» виключно до перевезення вантажів, пасажирів, багажу. Всі інші форми експлуатації суден є договором оренди судна як транспортного засобу. Чартер зазвичай розрахований на перевезення великих партій масових вантажів, тому її умовою виступає надання всього судна, його частини або певних суднових приміщень. Звертається увага на те, що, хоча відносини фрахтування (чартеру) в морському праві детально регламентовані на законодавчому рівні, чинне законодавство України в цій сфері не є досконалим.

El presente trabajo analiza la regulación del CTM (2006) en materia de repatriación, a través del estudio del largo proceso conducente a su adopción y a través del análisis de los Convenios OIT anteriores en esta materia. El CTM (2006) consagra el derecho de la gente del mar a ser repatriada sin coste para ella y dispone igualmente una obligación para los miembros relativa a la necesidad de que exijan garantías financieras a los armadores de buques que enarbolan su pabellón para asegurar que la gente del mar sea debidamente repatriada conforme a lo que dispone el propio Código. Son derechos y obligaciones que deben cumplirse de acuerdo con lo previsto en el Código, buena parte de cuya regulación se recoge en la parte no obligatoria en la idea de flexibilizar al máximo su contenido en aras a lograr el máximo posible de ratificaciones. El trabajo analiza detenidamente la totalidad de la regulación del CTM (2006): las distintas causas en las que nace el derecho a la repatriación, entre las que se incluye el «abandono» aunque curiosamente no aparece esta expresión en ningún momento y las obligaciones .normativas y aplicativas. que surgen para los Miembros que lo ratifiquen pues los destinatarios de las disposiciones del CTM (2006) son los Miembros, quienes deben dar pleno efecto a sus disposiciones mediante disposiciones normativas (ley, reglamento, convenio colectivo o cualquier otra medida de aplicación) si bien esta obligación alcanza únicamente al Reglamento (Reglas) y a la parte obligatoria del Código (Parte A) mientras que, por lo que respecta a la Parte B, los Miembros únicamente deben tenerla en consideración en el cumplimiento de dichas obligaciones, sin que se encuentren obligados finalmente a adoptar dichas medidas concretas. En este sentido, se analiza el grado de adecuación de la normativa española en la materia pues no hay que olvidar que España tiene ratificados tanto el Convenio OIT núm. 23 (en 23-2-1931) como el Convenio OIT núm. 166 (en 3-7-1990), por lo que, en principio, su normativa debe cumplir con lo dispuesto en el Convenio OIT núm. 166 (1987). Especialmente importante es la regulación del régimen de responsabilidades en materia de repatriación pues, junto a la responsabilidad principal del armador, el CTM establece una cadena de responsabilidades. Estas responsabilidades se caracterizan por su carácter subsidiario respecto de la obligación del armador; por su naturaleza sucesiva o «en cadena », y además, por el grado distinto de obligatoriedad de los eventuales responsables, pues mientras en unos casos, es obligatoria, en otros es meramente potestativa. Surge así, en primer lugar, la responsabilidad del Estado del Pabellón, a quien se le reconoce, además, el derecho a recuperar los gastos incluso autorizando la inmovilización de los buques del armador interesado hasta su reembolso, en la introducción de una previsión o mandato que constituye un hito por su coercitividad en una norma de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. Con carácter subsidiario, se contempla, como mera posibilidad y con derecho a recuperar el coste de la repatriación .en este caso del Estado del Pabellón., dos eventuales responsables: el Estado del Puerto o el Estado del cual sea nacional el marino a repatriar. También se analiza por su importancia en esta materia, pues el propio CTM (2006) reconoce su carácter incompleto en esta materia [III Resolución adoptada por la Conferencia Internacional del Trabajo en su 94ª reunión (Marítima), de 22 de febrero de 2006] no obstante consagrar la necesidad de que los Miembros exijan a los buques que enarbolan su pabellón el aporte de garantías financieras para asegurar el derecho a la repatriación en los términos contemplados en el Código, la Resolución Conjunta de la Organización Marí- tima Internacional (OMI) y de la OIT (Consejo de Administración) núm. A.930 (22) que establece Directrices para la provisión de garantía financiera para los casos de abandono de la gente de mar. Finalmente, también se exponen brevemente la regulación de esta materia en el ámbito de la Unión Europea en cuyo ámbito se ha aprobado recientemente un conjunto importante de normativa siendo especialmente importantes dos normas: la Directiva 2009/13/CE de 23 de abril, por la que se aplica el acuerdo suscrito por los agentes Sociales europeos (ECSA y ETF) relativo al Convenio de Trabajo Marítimo, 2006; y la Directiva 2009/16/CE, de 23 de abril, relativa al control por el Estado del Puerto ; This work analyses the regulation of the MLC (2006) on the subject of repatriation, through a study of the long process leading to its adoption and through the analysis of the previous ILO Conventions on this matter. The MLC (2006) grants seafarers the right to be repatriated at no cost to themselves; it also states that Members shall require the owners of ships that carry their flag to provide financial security to ensure that seafarers are duly repatriated in accordance with the Code. These rights and obligations must be complied with in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Most of the regulations of this code are included in the non-mandatory part, with the aim of achieving the highest degree of flexibility in its content and thereby having it ratified by as many states as possible. The work performs an in-depth analysis of the whole of the MLC (2006) regulation, that is, the different causes that give rise to the right to repatriation, including "abandonment", although interestingly this expression does not appear in the text, and the normative and applicative obligations that arise for the Members that have ratified it, since the MLC (2006) is addressed to the Members, who must give its terms full effect through regulatory provisions (law, regulations, collective agreements or other implementing measures); this obligation, however, extends only to the Regulations (Rules) and the mandatory part of the Code (Part A), whereas Part B should only been taken into consideration by Members in the fulfilment of these duties, but without finally being forced to take such specific measures. In this regard, the article also analyses the extent to which the Spanish regulations embrace the subject because it must be borne in mind that Spain has ratified both ILO Convention no. 23 (on 23/02/31) and ILO Convention no. 166 (on 03/07/1990), and consequently its regulations must comply with the provisions of ILO Convention no. 166 (1987). One especially important point is the regulation of the regimen of responsibilities concerning the subject of repatriation because, together with the main responsibility of the shipowner, the MLC also establishes a chain of responsibilities. These responsibilities are characterised by their subsidiary nature with respect to the shipowner's obligations; by their nature as a succession or as forming a "chain", and also by the different degree of obligation of those who might be held liable, since in some cases it is mandatory while in others it is merely elective. First of all, then, there is the liability of the Flag State, which is also recognised as having the right to recover the expenses even by authorising the detention of ships belonging to the shipowner concerned until the reimbursement has been made, by the introduction of a provision or mandate that is a landmark due to its coerciveness within a standard of the International Labour Organisation. As mere subsidiaries and as just a possible course of action, there also exists the possibility of being reimbursed with the cost of repatriation, in this case from the Flag State, from two possible authorities: the Port State or the State of which the seafarer to be repatriated is a national. Due to its importance in this field it is also analysed, since the MLC (2006) itself recognises it is incomplete as regards this subject [Resolution III adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 94th (Maritime) Session, on February 22nd 2006], yet it establishes the need for Members to require that ships that carry their flag provide financial security to ensure the right to repatriation in the terms covered by the Code, the Joint Resolution of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the ILO (Council of Administration) no. A.930 (22), which establishes Directives for provisioning financial securities for cases of seafarers' abandonment. Finally, the European Union regulations on this subject are also outlined; in this respect the European authorities recently approved an important set of regulations, two of the most important of which are: Directive 2009/13/CE, dated 23rd April, by virtue of which the agreement signed by the European Social Agents (ECSA and ETF) referring to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, was applied; and Directive 2009/16/CE, dated 23rd April, concerning control by the Port State

Maritime shipping is considered as the most eco-friendly and fuel-efficient method of transport in ton-miles terms and moves about 90% of the worldwide trade (UNCTAD, 2020) [1]. The third GHG study (IMO, 2014) [2] estimates that shipping accounts for approximately 2.2% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, addressing a 0.5% decrease from the second GHG study measures (IMO, 2009) [3]. However, the sector has seen increasing pressure, through new guidelines to improve its environmental performance, especially considering its commitment to harmful contamination emissions on human wellbeing. Sea transport represents 5–8% of the worldwide SOx emissions (Eyring et al., 2005) [4], and around 15% for NOx (Corbett et al., 2007) [5], while PM emissions from transportation close to coastlines and ports have been connected to fatalities attributed to respiratory health issues. The IMO is regulating the greatest sulfur limits in fuel through the changed MARPOL Annex VI, which additionally assigned sulfur emission control areas (SECA) where more tight limits apply. Current SECAs incorporate the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North American Emission control area (ECA) that broadens 200NM from the US and Canadian coasts, and the US Caribbean ECA. The last two ECAs have likewise set limitations on PM and NOx emissions. The first results of the SECAs on emissions limitation show critical enhancements. In relevant literature, there has been no recent update on the portion of sea transport in SOx emissions, and the most recent solid estimate is in the previously mentioned investigation of Eyring et al., back in 2005. On a later publication, Zis and Psaraftis (2018) [6] utilized information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on its part nations and assessed those SOx emissions from all transportation modes represented 3.5% in 2015. Taking into account that road transport represented 0.48%, the portion of maritime transportation in SOx emissions has been radically diminished since 2005. Notwithstanding the introduction of SECAs, as of January 2010 the European Union (EU) set a sulphur limit of 0.1% for ships berth in EU ports with stays longer than 2 h, as well as when sailing on inland waterways [7]. European Commission has advanced the further arrangement of shorepower to its part states through an authority suggestion [8]. Port authorities all throughout the planet have launched initiatives that advance utilization of low-sulfur fuel in their proximity, with the port of Singapore being a notable example under the Green Ship and Green Port programs offering monetary incentives for clean practices that reduce CO2 and SOx emissions. At last, the ports of Los Angeles and of Long Beach have presented voluntary speed reduction programs (VSRP) in their proximity in return for a decrease of port disbursements accounts and are moving towards making the use of shorepower for ocean going ships mandatory. Concerning guidelines focusing on sulfur outflows, ship owners can consent by one or the other changing to ultra-low sulphur fuels like Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or investing in scrubber systems that treat the exhaust gases to remove SOx and PM emissions hence permitting the utilization of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO). Additionally, to adapt to guidelines on emissions at ports a vessel can either utilize cleaner fuel or, on the other hand, be retrofitted to get shorepower if the port has cold ironing facilities. Thusly, to address ecological regulation the shipowners have to pay to obtain abatement technology or increase their operating costs by utilizing cleaner yet more expensive fuel. Which option of the above mentioned is more cost-effective for the shipowner depends on various factors, including ship type, ship size, regulations affecting the waters in which the ship sails, and ports of call. Simultaneously, the choice of a port to put resources into innovations that permit the arrangement of shorepower relies upon a few variables, which stem from emissions decrease strategies, and the entrance pace of the innovation in the calling ships. The last decades the demand of energy is being increased continuously. The massive use of different types of non-renewable sources of energy has led to very important problems in the earth, as global warming, by the production of big amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) [52]. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are some of the elements that are being produced by the burning process of marine diesel engines and pollute the atmosphere. This fact is a result of the use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) in vessels' engines which is preferred by the shipowners especially for economy reasons [53]. New technologies concerning alternative sources of energy have started to provide new environmental standards by reducing the emissions of harmful for the environment gases as CO2. More than the 80% of the harmful emissions in the atmosphere are related to carbon [54]. Consequently, decarbonization constitutes on of the biggest environmental problems and despite the fact that the efficiency in terms of energy in the maritime transport has been increased significantly, shipping industry has the responsibility of almost 940 million tons of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere per year. Taking into consideration the continuously increase of the global fleet we can easily understand that these emissions are going to reach a higher level in the next few years [55]. The use of alternative fuels seems to be the only solution for the environment and European Union has already include in her White Paper on Transport their introduction [56]. More specifically, in 2016, European Union has already released a «Strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage» in order to highlight the advantages and the potential of the use of LNG to all members of the Union. Moreover, in October 2014, the executive committee of the European Union obliged 139 ports in Europe to act appropriate in order to have the possibility to offer bunkering facilities for LNG until 2020 [59]. Additionally, the effort to control the pollution emissions was strengthen by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through the introduction of new regulations. More specifically, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was embraced by the IMO which also adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.203 (62)) through the introduction of an energy efficiency design index in order to reduce the CO2 emissions [54, 61]. This paper discusses the possibility of different types of fuels or technological investments to be used as marine fuels from the perspective of shipowners, terminal operators, and regulatory bodies while considering the extent of ecological improvement that can provide. The first section of this paper presents a concise literature review of relevant research in port emissions as well as regulations that are used nowadays, which are imposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The subsequent section presents an analysis and evaluation of different types of fuels which should appraise the new ecological equilibrium following the established environmental and safety regulations. In the last part, the benefits and drawbacks of its kind of fuel are widely expressed.

Chapter 1: Lianqi Development Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Baoye Group Corp., Ltd., Sakai SIO International(Guangzhou)Co., Ltd. et al. (Appeal against Jurisdictional Objection in Dispute over Infringement of Patent for Invention): The Principle of "Two Conveniences" and the Mechanism of Leapfrog Appeal shall be Fully Considered when Confirming the Jurisdiction of Non-infringement and Infringement of Patent -- Chapter 2: Shanxi Coal International Energy Group Jincheng Co., Ltd. v. China CITIC Bank Co., Ltd. Xi'an Branch, Shaanxi Petroleum & Chemical Corporation Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Contract): In a Confirming Warehouse Transaction Without Real Trade Background, the Real Legal Relationship Among the Buyer, Seller, and the Bank Shall be Found to be the Relationship of Loan and Guaranty Contract -- Chapter 3: Xinjiang Longmei Energy Co. Ltd. v. Zheng X (Dispute over Equity Transfer Contract): Changed Circumstances Shall not Be Claimed to Rescind the Contract Concluded When a Party Clearly Knowing the Risk -- Chapter 4: Ping An Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch, and Beijing Gold Exchange Co., Ltd. et al v. Hainan Jinfenghuang Hotspring Resort Co., Ltd., Beijing Xinyupeng Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Co., Ltd. et al (Dispute over Loan Contract): The Effect of Issuing a Blank Guaranty Contract Stamped with the Official Seal, and the Issue That a Guaranty Provider May Be Exempted Within the Scope of the Pledge Waived by Its Pledgee -- Chapter 5: China Nonferrous Metal Industry's Construction Co., Ltd. v. Hengfeng Bank Co., Ltd. Ningbo Branch and defendants in the first instance, Ningbo Zhong Ren Hong Electronics Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Gang Di Trade Co., Ltd. et al. (Disputes over the Issuing of Letter of Credit and the Right of Recourse) : Instruments Debtors Shall not Protest Against the Pledgee on the Ground of Protesting Against the Pledgor -- Chapter 6: Xinjiang Hua Cheng An Ju Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. China Railway Construction Bridge Engineering Bureau Group Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Contract for the Undertaking of Construction Projects): on Application of Good Faith Principle in Finding the Validity of Contract -- Chapter 7: LC Securities Co., Ltd. and Eastern Gold Jade Co., Ltd. v. Yunnan Xinglong Industry Co., Ltd. and Zhao X et al. (Dispute over a Suretyship Contract): The Scope of Security Liability Assumed by the Security Provider Shall be Limited to the Scope of the Principal Obligation -- Chapter 8: Bank of DaLian Co., Ltd. v. Dalian Branch of China Railway Modern Logistics Technology Co., Ltd. and Jinzhou Zuoyuan Sugar Foods Co., Ltd. et al. (Dispute over a Loan Contract): Pledge in Movable Property May not be Created by Possession Reformulation -- Chapter 9: Sichuan Zhongding Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Zhu X and Natural Resources Bureau of Wulan County (Dispute over Contract for the Undertaking of Construction Projects): In a De Facto Juristic Relation, the Actual Builder May Claim Project Payments Directly with the Party Offering the Contract -- Chapter 10: Fujian Tinghu Real Estate Group Co., Ltd. v. Natural Resources Bureau of Xianyou County (Dispute over a Contract for Transfer of State-owned Construction Land Use Right): In Case of Breach of Contract due to Objective Reasons, the Liquidated Damages Clause Shall be Applied Primarily to Cover the Loss -- Chapter 11: Wang X V. Bazhou Sairui Machinery & Equipment Installation Co., Cao X(A) (Dispute over Change of Registration): The Claim of the Resigned Legal Representative for the Registration of the Change of the Legal Representative of Company Shall, Absent Other Remedies, Be Accepted by the Court -- Chapter 12: Peng X V. Chengdu Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. Cuqiao Subbranch, Chen X, et al. (Dispute over Suretyship agreement): Impact on the Liability of Other Guarantors Involved of Creditor's Waiver in Mixed Security of Security in Rem as Provided by Debtor -- Chapter 13: Hubei YAS Commercial Chain Co., Ltd. V. Danyang Yongsheng Motor Transport Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Tort Liability): Criteria for the Determination of Erroneous Application for Property Preservation -- Chapter 14: Jiang X, Chen X, el al. V. Lin X, Weng X(A)., et al. (Dispute over Objection to the Enforcement of Judgment): Determination on the Time When the Seizure Ruling and the Notice of Assistance in Execution Take Effect -- Chapter 15: Huang X V. Xiamen Shuangrun Investment Management Co., Fenghe (China) Co. (the third party in the first instance), Hui'an County Rural Credit Cooperative (Dispute over the Objection by an Outsider to the Enforcement): The Requirements for the Valid Objection to the Execution by the Transferee of Equity -- Chapter 16: Guilin Zhangtai Industry Group Co., Ltd., Guangxi Lichengdong Investment Co., Ltd. et al (Enforcement Reconsideration of Dispute over Recovery of Financial Distressed Debt): Identification of Interest in Cases of Enforcement against Dispute over Recovery of Financial Distressed Debt -- Chapter 17: Zhou X v. Xiamen Baixiang Shouli E-Business Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Online Shopping Contract): Determination of the Basis for the Adjustment of Agreed Punitive Liquidated Damages. - Chapter 18: Yunnan Copper Co., Ltd. v. Kunming Wanbao Jiyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Yunnan Zhongheng Innovation Investment Co., Ltd. etc (Dispute over Sale Contract): Identification of the Nature and Validity of Closed-loop Sale Contracts -- Chapter 19: Zhongkong Guorong New Energy Development Co., Ltd. v. Fuzhou Dade Industry Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Sale Contract): Determination and Application of Deposit-related Penalty Rules for Partial Performance of Contracts -- Chapter 20: Zhongrong Hengsheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd.(Beijing)v. Crosplus (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Mengyang Furniture Sales Center (Dispute over Copyright Infringement): Elements for Copyright Protection of Works of Applied Art -- Chapter 21: JDB (China) Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Wanglaoji Health Industry Co., Ltd. (Dispute over False Advertising): Identification of False Advertising -- Chapter 22: Shandong Bittel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd (Bittel) v. Jiangsu Zhongxun Digital Electronics Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Tortious Liability for Damages Arising from Malicious Prosecution in Intellectual Property Litigation): Standard for Assessing the Subjective Fault in Disputes over Damages Arising from Malicious Prosecution in Intellectual Property Litigation -- Chapter 23: Lacoste Company Limited v. Cartelo Pty Ltd. and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (Administrative Dispute over Trademark Disputes): Impact of Offshore Co-existence Agreements on Determining the Trademark Similarity -- Chapter 24: Xiamen Meetyou Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kangzhilesi Network Technology Co., Ltd. and China National Intellectual Property Administration (Administrative Dispute over Request for Declaration of Trademark Invalidity): Whether the Trademark at Issue is the Sign "Not to be Used as Trademark" Falls within the Jurisdiction of People's Court to Review the Administrative Act or Conduct in Affirming and Authorizing the Trademark -- Chapter 25: Xiao X v. Seno LED Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Infringement of Patent for Invention): The Role of Interpretations of the Recorded Technical Effect upon the Patent Claims and Impact on the Principle of Equivalence -- Chapter 26: Medacor (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sunshine (Tianjin) Group Co., Ltd., and Defendants in the First Instance, Wang A, Zhang A, et al. (Dispute over Infringement of Trade Secrets): How to Determine whether the Customer List Constitutes the Trade Secrets -- Chapter 27: Ningbo Beworth Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Cixing Company Limited (Dispute over License Contract for Technological Secrets): Handling of Cases involved both Criminal and Civil Proceedings related to Trade Secrets -- Chapter 28: VMI Holland B.V. and Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd. v. Safe-run Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Confirmation of Patent Non-infringement): Prerequisites for Confirming Patent Non-infringement -- Chapter 29: Alfa Laval Corporate A B v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and SWEP International A B (the Third Party in the First Instance) (Administrative Dispute over Invalid Patent for Invention): Determination of Modification of Patent Claims beyond Scope in Invalidity Declaration Proceedings -- Chapter 30: Shimano v. Sensah Smart Sports Equipment Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Infringement of Patent for Invention): Determination of Protection Scope of Functional Features -- Chapter 31: Shenzhen Jiedian Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Infringement of Patent for Utility Models): Classification and Identification Standards of Technical Features in Patent Claims -- Chapter 32: Wartsila Finland Oy and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Yingqin Engine (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Tort dispute over the sale and purchase of marine equipment): Mere interest in the performance of a contract does not in principle fall within the scope of application of the law of tort liability -- Chapter 33: Shanghai Salvage Company under the Ministry of Transport v. Provence Shipowner 2008-1 Ltd, CMA CGM SA, et. al (Dispute over salvage at sea and ship pollution damage liabilities): How to distinguish the costs of preventive measures and the costs of salvage measures, determine the subject avoiding liability in ship collision and oil spill pollution incidents, and identify restricted and unrestricted maritime compensation claims -- Chapter 34: Bank of China Limited, Henan Branch v. UBAF (Hong Kong) Ltd. (Dispute over independent guarantee): How to determine independent guarantee fraud by a prima facie complying demand due to abuse of claim for payment -- Chapter 35: Evergreen Marine (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. .