Took place 4-е meeting of board of the Nikolaev regional administrative court in the matter of JV Nibulon against the captain of the Nikolaev port P. Ryabchikov.
Meeting of board of court took place in the same structure: Ustinov (chairman), Mavorodiyeva and Zenkovsky.
As the third parties in process GP "The Delta — the Pilot", GP "Nikolaev Sea Trade Port" and the Ministry of Transport and communication of Ukraine acted.
The representative of the third party of process - GP "The Nikolaev sea trade port Alexander Novokhatsky gave the report concerning the point of view of the enterprise.
A. Novokhatsky told that after last year there was an experimental pilotage 225 m long to JSC SSP Nibulon mooring.
26 August, 2008 there passed meeting at which results of this experiment were analysed. In particular, the captain of DBMTP Authority (under the authority of whom then there was "Nibulon's" water area) made quite unambiguous conclusion.
Pilotage like CH-70 on 1 - му to a bend of the channel - is unsafe.
It is necessary to make the technical project for "Chenomorniiiproyekt" on development of the project of dredging works on 1 - m a knee the channel to the BDLK level (depth 11,2, width - 100м)
It is necessary to make the technical project for "Chenomorniiiproyekt" on development of the project of dredging works on "Nibulon's" water area to the BDLK level (depth 11,2)
Without carrying out these works carrying out vessels of this type - is inadmissible.
At meeting of that time there were "Nibulon's" same representatives who present to the joint venture in court now: A. Vasilyev and A.Volik.
Thus, according to A.Novokhatsky, "Nibulon" more than a year ago perfectly knew that experimental conducting proved an insecurity carrying out vessels of this type. Instead of its basic opportunity - as is told now by representatives of a grain trader.
After August action, by words And Novokhatstky, NMTP is consecutive, together with the obligations taken voluntary, carried out part of the arrangement with agricultural enterprise.
It was entrusted to "Chenomorniiiproyekt" to make the project of dredging works. The institute made this project.The project was properly agreed with all instances.
Resources on work were dug up. The returnable financial help to port it "Nibulona" became them.
Zemkaravan began carrying out dredging works.
And throughout, in all design documents it was repeatedly mentioned that the PURPOSE of this project is finishings of characteristics of hydraulic engineering constructions to level which in the FUTURE the passage of the vessels of the specified type will allow.
It isn't less well known to "Nibulon" and that these works are still far from the actual end. Without saying to that after physical completion of works his legal approval by numerous supervisory authorities still will follow.
Thus, "Nibulon" deliberately knowing that the works begun together with it on dredging I initiated history with attempt to get obviously unacceptable a vessel in the middle of the project, before its termination. "Nibulon" knew that to this vessel will be refused conducting before its giving of request for it - A.Novokhatsky draws a conclusion.
After that performances in business new turn began. The defendant's representative Sergey Panchenko made the petition for attraction to matter in quality of the third party of the shipowner of Preventer. The basis for such need the respondent sees threat to the rights of the shipowner owing to conducting of his property on the unadapted channel.
In other words, the owner of a vessel of concept sitting in far India has no that are going to ground the bulk carrier and if knew - that for certain would be against.
According to him, will establish such it was possible is the Telford Busines S.A company. (Mumbai, India).
It should be noted that "Nibulon" acted against given an initiative, considering that interests of the shipowner aren't infringed in this process. According to A. Vasilyev, interests of the shipowner are represented by the sea agent. On what NMTP answered - in the Code of trade navigation there is nothing about the right of agents to represent the shipowner in court. It is obvious not probably without special power of attorney from the shipowner. Unclear, whether he will want it to give to the agent - or will want to employ professional lawyers, for example.
Further between the parties and court rough discussion began - whether the Lloyd base the basis for decision-making by the Ukrainian court is considered, whether can represent the shipowner in court the captain of a vessel or the sea agent.The intermediate decision was made - to charge to establish to NMTP the shipowner officially and to contact it.
Before clarification of these circumstances the court declared a break till December 4.