1. Legal Nature of the Claim: Maritime Claim and Maritime Lien
In cases where a vessel moored in port is struck (allision) during a maneuver, or damage is caused without collision due to maneuvering errors, the claim of the owner of the damaged vessel is of the nature of a “maritime claim”. Pursuant to Article 1286/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102; the provisions regarding collision shall also apply in case a vessel causes damage to another vessel without collision while maneuvering or by not complying with navigation rules.
In court decisions, these types of claims have been characterized as follows:
Maritime Lien: Pursuant to Article 1320/1-e of the TCC, claims arising from material loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel and based on tort, grant their owners a “maritime lien”. This right ensures the establishment of a statutory lien on the vessel in accordance with TCC Articles 1321 and 1322 (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court – 2015/450 E. K).
Definition of Maritime Claim: Within the scope of Article 1352/1-h of the TCC, damages to goods carried on board the vessel and damages arising from the operation of the vessel are considered as “maritime claims” (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 37th Civil Chamber – 2024/2305 E. K).
2. Competent Court In such disputes, the competent court is exclusively the Maritime Specialized Courts.
Duty: Pursuant to Article 5/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), civil cases related to maritime trade and maritime insurance are heard in Maritime Specialized Courts. Within the administrative boundaries of Istanbul, this duty is carried out by the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (acting as a Maritime Specialized Court) (Istanbul 18th ATM – 2024/488 E. K).
Other Provinces: In places where there is no Maritime Specialized Court, pursuant to HSYK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) decisions, the 1st Commercial Court of First Instance, or failing that, the 1st Civil Court of First Instance, is responsible in this capacity (Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber – 2013/2228 E. K).
Venue: The lawsuit may be filed in the court of the place where the collision occurred, at the defendant’s domicile, or at the vessel’s home port.
3. Possible Lawsuits and Standing to Sue
The damaged vessel owner may resort to the following legal remedies:
Material Damages Lawsuit: Filed for the collection of direct damages, loss of value, and substitute vessel/loss of use damages resulting from a collision or faulty maneuver (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber – 2022/2199 E. K).
Lawsuit for Annulment of Objection: Filed if the debtor objects to the enforcement proceeding initiated for the collection of the receivable.
Determination of Statutory Lien: Based on the maritime lien holder’s right, the registration of a lien on the vessel can be requested (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court – 2015/359 M. K).
Defendants: The lawsuit can be filed jointly and severally against the owner of the faulty vessel, its captain (within the scope of tort liability), and, if any, its liability insurer (P&I) (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber – 2022/1705 M.
4. Periods for Filing a Lawsuit and Statute of Limitations
Statute of Limitations for Tortious Acts: In compensation claims based on collision and maneuvering fault, according to Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), a 2-year statute of limitations period is applied. This period also applies to interest claims (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court – 2020/159 M.
Maritime Lien Right: Maritime lien rights may lapse if not pursued within specified periods according to the TCC.
Period After Jurisdictional Incompetence Decision: In the event that the court issues a decision of jurisdictional incompetence, a request for the file to be sent to the competent court must be made within two weeks from the date the decision becomes final; otherwise, the lawsuit is deemed not to have been filed (Istanbul 18th Commercial Court – 2024/488 M. .
5. Precedent Decisions and Specific Application
Example of Erroneous Approach: Similar to the collision incident of the “Gagarin” vessel with the “Sea Mild” vessel; the damage resulting from the “Brother’s” boat being dragged and colliding with the moored “Mikado” boat has been accepted as a maritime claim subject to maritime commercial law provisions (Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber – 2013/18410 E. K).
Apportionment of Fault: In a collision incident that occurred in Bodrum, the court ruled for compensation by apportioning fault at a 60%-40% ratio between the parties who violated the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) (lookout and collision avoidance action) (Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 43rd Civil Chamber – 2020/624 E.).
Shipowner’s Liability: It was emphasized that even in maneuvers conducted with a pilot, the pilot is only in an advisory capacity, and the captain and the shipowner are responsible for the navigation and management of the vessel (Supreme Court Joint Civil Chambers – 1954/26 E. .).
6. Secondary Source Assessment The following additional points were emphasized in decisions considered as secondary sources:
Damage to Port Facilities: Damage caused by a vessel not only colliding with another vessel but also with fenders on the quay or the pier is also considered a maritime claim arising from the operation of the vessel, and specialized Maritime Courts are designated as competent (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court – 2015/21 E. ).
Proof Criterion: In port accidents, reporting damage to official authorities like the Bandırma Port Authority with a record is critically important for proof; unilateral records may be considered insufficient in proving the captain’s fault (Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber – 2018/3796 E. R).
Emergency Anchoring: In the event of a ship’s emergency anchoring in a prohibited area due to a malfunction, fault examination is meticulously carried out when collecting survey expenses claimed solely on the basis of risk, unless concrete damage has occurred (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court – 2023/302 E. R).
Conclusion: In the incident where the vessel “Gagarin” collided with the vessel “Sea Mild”, the aggrieved party, based on tort law and maritime trade provisions, may file a material compensation lawsuit against the shipowner and captain in the Istanbul Maritime Specialized Court within 2 years from the date of the incident. This claim grants a maritime lien, providing a statutory right of pledge over the vessel.
Limanda bağlı bir gemiye manevra sırasında verilen zarar deniz alacağı mıdır?
Evet. Bir geminin manevra sırasında veya seyir kurallarına aykırı hareket ederek başka bir gemiye çatma olmaksızın zarar vermesi hâlinde dahi, Türk Ticaret Kanunu uyarınca çatma hükümleri uygulanır. Bu tür zararlar, geminin işletilmesinden kaynaklandığı için deniz alacağı niteliğindedir ve zarar görene gemi alacaklısı hakkı sağlar.
Çatma olmadan verilen zararlar için de gemi üzerinde rehin hakkı doğar mı?
Evet. Manevra hatası sonucu meydana gelen ve haksız fiile dayanan maddi zararlar, TTK m.1320 kapsamında gemi alacaklısı hakkı doğurur. Bu hak, zarar gören tarafa gemi üzerinde kanuni rehin hakkı tanır ve gerektiğinde ihtiyati haciz yoluna başvurulmasına imkân verir.
Zarar gören hangi kişilere karşı dava açabilir?
Zarar gören gemi sahibi veya halef olan sigorta şirketi; kusurlu geminin donatanına, kaptanına (haksız fiil sorumluluğu kapsamında) ve varsa sorumluluk sigortacısına (P&I) karşı müştereken ve müteselsilen dava açabilir. Uygulamada tazminat ve itirazın iptali davaları en sık başvurulan yollardır.
Gemide kılavuz kaptan bulunarak seyir ve manevra yapılması halinde, meydana gelen çatma veya manevra zararlarından donatan ve kaptan sorumluluktan kurtulur mu?
Hayır. Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 16.03.1955 tarihli (E. 1954/26, K. 1955/4) bağlayıcı kararına göre, gemide kılavuz kaptan bulunması kural olarak donatanın ve kaptanın sorumluluğunu ortadan kaldırmaz. Kurul, bu konuda şu temel ayrımı net biçimde ortaya koymuştur: Mecburi kılavuzluk, sadece geminin kılavuz almasının zorunlu olması değildir. Gerçek anlamda mecburi kılavuzluktan söz edilebilmesi için iki şartın birlikte bulunması gerekir: Geminin kılavuz alma zorunluluğunun mevzuatla emredilmiş olması, Kaptanın geminin sevk ve idaresini kılavuza bırakmak zorunda olması ve kılavuzun fiilen gemiyi idare etmesi.
Türk mevzuatında (özellikle İstanbul ve Galata Limanı uygulamasında), kılavuz kaptan yalnızca kaptanın müşaviri konumundadır; geminin sevk ve idaresi kaptandan alınmamıştır. Bu nedenle bu tür kılavuzluk, Yargıtay’a göre “mecburi kılavuzluk” sayılmaz.
Bu sonuçla birlikte Yargıtay şu ilkeyi benimsemiştir: Kılavuz kaptan gemide bulunsa dahi, çatma veya manevra sırasında verilen zararlardan kaptan ve dolayısıyla donatan sorumludur. Sorumluluktan kurtuluş ancak, mevzuatın geminin sevk ve idaresini zorunlu olarak kılavuza devrettiği istisnai hallerde mümkündür.
Bu içtihat, hem Türk deniz ticareti hukukunda hem de uluslararası deniz hukuku teamülleriyle uyumlu olup, günümüzde de kılavuz kaptanın sorumluluğa etkisi bakımından temel referans karar niteliğindedir.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
Damages caused to vessels moored in port during maneuvering, although often regarded as “a simple collision”, legally constitute one of the most technical areas of maritime commercial law. In such incidents, for the dispute to be correctly;
whether it is a maritime claim or a general tort,
whether a maritime lien has arisen,
whether the competent court is the Maritime Specialized Court,
How the statute of limitations period will be determined
Lawsuits filed without proper determination may result in procedural dismissal or irreparable loss of rights.
Especially in port accidents, fault determination is carried out based on navigation and maneuvering rules, the Collision Regulations, the captain’s lookout duty, and technical expert reports. Improperly established parties, insufficient evidence, or erroneous court selection can prevent even the rightful party from recovering their receivables.
Furthermore, if a maritime lien is not asserted within the time limit, the statutory lien is forfeited, and the possibility of attachment and security over the ship is completely lost. For this reason, managing the process with the correct legal strategy from the outset is of great importance.
In this context, 2M Law Firm, with its practical experience in disputes occurring particularly in the ports of Istanbul, Izmir, Bodrum, Tuzla, and Aliağa, handles cases in a holistic and results-oriented manner in processes related to port maneuvering accidents, collisions and ship damages without collision, determination of maritime claims, maritime liens, and precautionary attachments.
Processes conducted without the support of an expert lawyer in maritime trade disputes often result in the loss of strong rights merely due to procedural errors.
