Miller Magazine Issue:114 June 2019

78 ARTICLE JUNE 2019 on in the year, and in summer transit carriage of goods from Ukraine to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan by road and rail were banned. COASTAL CARRIAGE Coastal carriage between the Ukrainian sea ports has become very common in recent years. According to statistical data, mutual trade between the Russian Bla- ck Sea Region and other Black Sea Region countries is insignificant. The turnover between the Krasnodar Re- gion and its neighbors in the Black Sea Region (Abkha- zia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania and Ukraine) in 2016 to 2017 amounted to only $495m and $576m respecti- vely. By comparison, the Russian Federation spent nearly the same amount (approximately $0.5bn) on fruit and vegetables alone in Egypt in 2017, while the Black Sea Region’s share in the aggregate turnover in Kuban dec- reased from 5.3 per cent to 4.9 per cent over the same period. Growth in throughput turnover between regio- nal exporters and non-Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries occurred first of all in the Middle East, and then in Mediterranean countries. According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, in 2017, Ukraine’s turnover in trade with Russia increased substantially: Moscow regained its status as one Kiev’s largest trade and economic partners, with goods supply increasing by 39.9 per cent compared to 2016. BLACK SEA REGION CASE STUDY Unfortunately, issues related to sanctions are too poli- ticized. The practice of applying UNCLOS, for instance, with regards to the regime of transit passage through straits used for international shipping, is a little bit dif- ferent from the standards set forth in this Convention. Ukraine, in turn, does not make it possible to provide security, since vessel detention does not imply this. Interlegal portfolio contains the following notable ca- ses: - case on m/v MEKHANIK POGODIN (IMO:9598397). For over 7 years, m/v MEKHANIK PO- GODIN (IMO:9598397) was owned and used by legal entity which was not subject to special economic and ot- her restrictions of Ukraine. But according to primary do- cuments submitted under vessel call at the sea port, the documentary vessel owner was subject to special econo- mic and other restrictions (sanctions) which resulted in immediate vessel detention. Today, case has been considered by the court of ap- peal. Both vessel arrest and detention have similar effe- cts: route restriction, i.e. it has been blocked at the sea port. Vessel has been detained by the Harbour Master in compliance with Award of the State Border Service of Ukraine. It has been operated under the Lease Agree- ment concluded in 2011 between OJSC “WEB Leasing”