1. Introduction
This article examines, from a comprehensive and professional perspective, the normative framework governing maritime trade in Türkiye and the principal institutions in practice. The study analyzes -on an application-oriented basis and in light of legislation and case law- the allocation of risk and liability, the preservation of evidence, security/assurance mechanisms, and dispute-resolution avenues, and aims to provide decision-makers and practitioners with a practical roadmap.
2. Liability in Maritime Casualties
(i) Collision
Articles 1286 and the following articles of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”) regulate the liability regime applicable in cases of collision, defined as the contact between two or more vessels. Under this regime, the principal rule is liability based on fault. Accordingly, if the collision arises from the fault of the owner or crew of one of the vessels, the damages shall be compensated by the owner of that vessel. In cases where no party is at fault or the cause of the collision remains unknown, each party shall bear its own losses.
In instances of contributory fault where multiple vessels are at fault, damages to cargo on board the vessels shall be apportioned among the owners in proportion to their respective fault, and no joint and several liability shall be imposed towards third parties. However, with respect to bodily injury or death, the owners shall be jointly and severally liable towards third parties, with recourse among themselves in accordance with their degree of fault.
(ii) Grounding and Wreck Removal
In major maritime casualties such as grounding, issues concerning the salvage of the vessel and the removal of wrecks arise. Although Türkiye is not a party to the 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, similar obligations have been established under national legislation. The Ports Law No. 618 and the relevant regulations (such as the Turkish Straits Maritime Traffic Regulations and the Port Regulation) impose the responsibility for the removal of wrecks within territorial waters or port areas upon the shipowner or the master of the vessel.
(iii) Marine Pollution
The prevention of and sanctions against ship-sourced pollution are comprehensively regulated under Turkish law. Article 56 of the Constitution imposes the duty to protect the environment on both the State and its citizens, while Articles 1320 and the following articles of the TCC recognize environmental damage as a maritime claim with priority status. Furthermore, under the Environmental Law No. 2872, the discharge of waste from ships is subject to severe administrative fines, the amount of which varies according to the tonnage of the vessel, the type of waste, and the nature of the pollution; in certain cases, even forfeiture of property is envisaged. In addition, administrative sanctions such as seizure of the vessel and prohibition of entry into ports may also be imposed.
3. Competent Authority in Maritime Casualties
The Transportation Safety Investigation Center, operating under the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, is the principal authority responsible for investigating maritime casualties in accordance with international standards. Pursuant to the Regulation on the Investigation of Marine Accidents and Incidents, the investigation and examination of such accidents and incidents fall within the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the Center. In the event of a maritime casualty, the relevant port authority within whose area of responsibility the incident occurs is obliged to promptly report the accident.
4. Preservation of Evidence
Under the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, parties may request the preservation of evidence from the courts prior to the initiation of legal proceedings. In maritime casualties in particular, the aggrieved party may promptly seek the preservation of evidence (such as parts of the vessel, cargo remnants, logbooks, radar records, etc.) to ensure their availability for later examination. The court, when assessing such a request through unilateral (non-contentious) proceedings, takes into account the applicant’s legal interest as well as the risk that the evidence may be lost.
5. Cargo Claims and the Carrier’s Liability
The provisions of the TCC relating to maritime carriage (Articles 1138 and the following) are largely of a mandatory nature and comprehensively regulate the rights and obligations between the carrier and the cargo interests. As a rule, the carrier is obliged to deliver the cargo entrusted to it at the port of destination intact and on time. With respect to loss of or damage to cargo, the carrier is subject to a liability regime approaching strict liability. In cases of total or partial loss or damage, the carrier cannot be exonerated unless it proves that the event causing the loss did not result from the intent or negligence of the carrier or its servants.
Article 1182 of the TCC sets out eight circumstances under which the carrier may be relieved of liability. These include perils and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters; acts of war, civil commotion, and insurrection; acts of public enemies; orders of competent authorities or quarantine restrictions; acts of courts or seizures; strikes, lockouts, or other labor disturbances; acts or omissions of the shipper, consignor, owner of the goods or their agents; natural shrinkage in volume or weight, latent defects or inherent characteristics of the goods; inadequacy of packaging; and insufficiency of marks. Such grounds are recognized as circumstances exonerating the carrier from liability.
Furthermore, the carrier’s liability for delay in delivery is also regulated under the TCC. Cargo is deemed to have been delivered late if it is not delivered at the port of discharge within the expressly agreed period under the charterparty, or, in the absence of such express agreement, within a period that a prudent carrier could reasonably be expected to complete the delivery under the circumstances. Any person entitled to claim compensation on the grounds of loss of cargo may treat the cargo as lost if it has not been delivered within sixty consecutive days following the expiry of the delivery period.
It should also be noted that in maritime carriage, consignor or charterer bears responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to the carrier regarding the cargo. Pursuant to Article 1145 of the TCC, the consignor and the charterer are obliged to provide full and accurate information concerning the type, quantity, and dangerous nature of the goods; in case of breach, they shall indemnify the carrier for all losses arising from inaccurate declarations. For instance, where the nature of dangerous goods (explosive, flammable, toxic, etc.) is concealed or misdeclared, the consignor or charterer shall be held liable for any damage thereby caused to the vessel, other cargo, or the environment, irrespective of fault.
6. Maritime Claims and Ship Arrest
The only form of provisional legal protection specifically provided for in the TCC with respect to vessels is precautionary arrest. The arrest of a vessel is permissible solely in respect of claims expressly enumerated under Article 1352 of the TCC and classified as “maritime claims.” In other words, a vessel may only be subject to precautionary arrest for claims falling within the definition of maritime claims under the TCC. Accordingly, a creditor holding a claim not deemed a maritime claim may seek the precautionary attachment of assets other than the vessel belonging to the shipowner, in accordance with the general provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”).
As a rule, precautionary arrest orders are granted in respect of matured claims. The creditor is required, at first glance, to demonstrate the amount of the claim and to establish that such claim qualifies as a maritime claim under Article 1352 of the TCC. However, pursuant to Article 257 of the EBL, where the debtor engages in fraudulent transactions with the intent to evade obligations, prepares to abscond, or actually absconds, a precautionary arrest order may also be granted in respect of unmatured claims.
7. Security
The TCC and the relevant legislation regulate the provision of security both by the creditor requesting a precautionary arrest and by the debtor seeking the release of the arrested vessel. Accordingly, a creditor applying for a precautionary arrest in order to secure a maritime claim is, as a rule, required to provide security in the amount of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR). However, claims of crew members relating to wages and other entitlements arising from their employment on board the vessel, including repatriation costs and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf, are exempt from this requirement.
In order to secure the release of an arrested vessel, the debtor may also furnish security. This is not an obligation but a right afforded to the debtor to enable the continuation of the vessel’s commercial operations. The debtor or shipowner may secure the release of the vessel by providing security, the amount of which depends on the value of the claim and the vessel. Where the maritime claim exceeds the value of the vessel, security in the amount of the vessel’s value is required; where the claim is less than the vessel’s value, security equivalent to the amount of the claim suffices. In such cases, the precautionary arrest is lifted, and the security provided substitutes the vessel as the object of attachment.
8. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
The most common disputes in the field of maritime commerce arise from delays in the delivery of cargo under charterparty agreements, non-payment of freight, and damage to cargo carried; from maritime casualties and marine pollution including collisions, loss of cargo, compensation claims arising from pollution, and disputes concerning the allocation of liability among the master, the shipowner, or the insurer; from breaches of ship sale and financing agreements, ship mortgages and related financial issues; and from disagreements concerning the scope of marine insurance and indemnity procedures.
Maritime disputes in Türkiye are adjudicated before the Commercial Courts of First Instance. Judicial proceedings provide the advantage of state authority, decisions that are public and serve as precedents, and the availability of appellate review; however, such proceedings are often protracted and may present difficulties in the international enforcement of judgments.
Arbitration, by contrast, is a private adjudicatory method whereby parties resolve disputes through independent arbitrators. Leading institutions in this field in Istanbul is Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC). Arbitration offers advantages such as speed, party autonomy in the selection of arbitrators, international enforceability of awards under the New York Convention, and confidentiality. Its disadvantages include limited grounds for appeal and the potential for significant costs due to arbitrators’ fees.
9. Conclusion
Turkish maritime law, through both national legislation and international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, comprehensively safeguards the principles of safety, predictability, and environmental protection in maritime commerce. The detailed liability regime governing collision, grounding, marine pollution, cargo damage, and maritime claims clearly delineates the obligations of shipowners and carriers, while dispute resolution mechanisms provide alternative avenues through courts and arbitration suited to differing interests. In this regard, the Turkish legal framework constitutes not only a system for resolving private law disputes between parties but also a comprehensive and binding regime aimed at protecting public order, environmental security, and Türkiye’s strategic position in international maritime trade.