1. Introduction

This report contains an analysis of judicial decisions regarding recourse methods and the identification of responsible parties in cases such as the abandonment of ship personnel by the employer, non-payment of wages, and detention on board the vessel. The decisions examined reveal the conditions under which “abandonment” occurs, the legal mechanisms that ship personnel subjected to this situation can use within the framework of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) and the Maritime Labour Law, and who is responsible. The analysis summarizes the judicial perspective aimed at protecting the rights of seafarers, particularly by addressing situations such as non-payment of wages, failure to provide basic necessities (food, water, fuel), and the detention of the ship in port.

2. Key Findings

• Definition of “Abandonment”: Judicial decisions characterize situations such as non-payment of wages for months, the cessation of essential supplies (food, water, fuel) to the ship, or the ship being detained in a port due to legal issues as “abandonment”. This situation is considered a sufficient reason for the seafarer to terminate their employment contract with just cause.
• Identification of Responsible Parties: Responsibility is determined within the framework of the broadly defined concept of “employer” in the Maritime Labour Law. Judicial decisions consistently emphasize that both the “shipowner” (donatan) and the company commercially operating the ship on its own behalf and account (işleten) are jointly and severally liable.
• Basic Avenues for Claiming Rights: In such situations, ship personnel can first terminate their employment contract for just cause by sending a notice through a notary public. Subsequently, they can file a lawsuit in the Labor Court for unpaid wages, severance pay, overtime, and repatriation costs. Additionally, they have the right to claim non-pecuniary damages for emotional distress experienced.
• Securing Receivables: Seafarers’ receivables arising from their employment contract are considered “maritime claims” and “ship claims” under the TCC (Turkish Commercial Code). This status grants personnel two important rights:
1. Precautionary Attachment: To secure the collection of receivables, a precautionary attachment can be requested on a ship belonging to the responsible company (the ship on which the claim arose or another “sister ship” belonging to the same owner) and its sailing prohibited.
2. Statutory Lien Right: The “ship creditor’s right” establishes a statutory lien right over the ship. This right can be asserted against the new owner even if the ship is sold.
• Special Cases: It has been stated in court decisions that the seafarer cannot claim rights if they are at fault in the event that caused the ship’s detention (e.g., marine pollution). Furthermore, it has been emphasized that if the ship carries a foreign flag, the Maritime Labor Law cannot be applied, and the dispute will be resolved according to general provisions (Code of Obligations) in the Civil Court of First Instance or the Specialized Maritime Court.

3. Examination of Court Decisions

3.1. Occurrence of “Abandonment”

Court decisions define the state of “abandonment” through concrete cases. Non-payment of wages is the most fundamental and frequently encountered reason. However, situations where the employer goes further and forces personnel to abandon the ship are also considered within this scope. In a decision by the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, this situation was expressed as, “the debtor adopting a harsher stance against the personnel, stopping the supply of food, drinking water, and fuel to the ship, thereby causing the personnel to abandon the ship” (BAM-Istanbul 14th Civil Chamber, 2021/2135). Similarly, a ship being impounded or detained in a port due to legal issues, and personnel being stranded on board, is also considered abandonment (Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber, 2019/379).

Article 14 of the Maritime Labour Law constitutes the legal basis for such situations. According to the article of law referenced by the Supreme Court, situations such as “Non-payment of wages according to the provisions of the law or the service contract” and “The ship being taken out of service for more than 30 days for any reason” grant the seafarer the right to terminate their employment contract for just cause (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2022/11233).

3.2. Determination of Responsible Parties: Shipowner and Operator Liability

In the reviewed decisions, it has been clearly established who is responsible for the claims and grievances of seafarers. The definition in Article 2 of the Maritime Labour Law is taken as a basis: “The person who owns a ship or operates a ship that is not his own in his own name and for his own account is called an “employer”“ (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2010/48602). Based on this definition, the Supreme Court and Regional Courts of Justice rule that both the “owner” (donatan) who holds the ownership of the ship and the “operator” (işleten) company that actually operates the ship are jointly liable (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2017/1275; Regional Court of Justice-Adana 9th Civil Chamber, 2019/1839). Courts seek to identify the true owner and operator of the ship in cases, to correctly determine liability, and to direct the lawsuit towards these parties (Supreme Court 7th Civil Chamber, 2013/6772).

3.3. Avenues for Seeking Rights and Legal Mechanisms

There are various legal avenues that ship personnel can pursue in cases of abandonment:

• Termination of Employment Contract and Claim for Receivables: A seafarer whose wages are unpaid or who has been abandoned can terminate their employment contract for just cause and claim receivables such as severance pay, unpaid wages, annual leave pay, and overtime through a lawsuit filed in the Labor Court (Supreme Court 7th Civil Chamber, 2013/2307).
• Moral Damages: Especially in situations such as prolonged detention in a foreign port or living like a prisoner, the right to claim moral damages arises due to the psychological and physical distress experienced by the personnel. The Supreme Court has stated that moral damages can be awarded, acknowledging that the personal rights of the personnel are violated as a result of the employer’s breach of their duty of protection and care (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2016/35688; Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2014/31063).
• Repatriation: If the contract is terminated for a just cause abroad, the employer has the obligation to repatriate the seafarer to the vessel’s home port and cover mandatory expenses such as travel and subsistence during this process (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber, 2010/51135).
• Provisional Attachment and Maritime Claim: Seafarers’ wage claims qualify as “maritime claims” under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC). This grants personnel the right to place a provisional attachment on the vessel to secure their claims. In a decision by the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, this right was broadly interpreted, stating that “it is possible to provisionally attach another vessel (sister ship) belonging to the person liable for the maritime claim under Article 1369/2 of the TCC, even if it is not the vessel from which the maritime claim arose, as security for the claim” (Regional Court of Appeal – Istanbul 14th Civil Chamber, 2021/2135).
• Maritime Lien and Statutory Pledge: Since seafarers’ claims are also considered “maritime claims,” they give rise to a statutory lien on the vessel. This right is a strong security that can be enforced against a new owner even if the vessel’s ownership is transferred. In a decision, this situation was ruled as follows: “As the claim subject to the lawsuit is regulated as a maritime claim under Article 1320/1-a of the TCC, this claim grants the plaintiff a statutory lien on the … vessel subject to the lawsuit, in accordance with Article 1321 of the TCC.” (First Instance – Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2017/124).

3.4. Points to Consider

In the claim process, some important points stand out. If the seafarer is at fault in the incident that led to the ship’s detention, it may prevent a claim. In a first instance court decision, it was ruled that the chief engineer who caused marine pollution could not claim compensation for the damages resulting from this incident, as “in law, no one can claim a right in their favor due to a situation arising from their own fault”  (First Instance Court – Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/53).

Another important distinction is the ship’s flag. In disputes involving foreign-flagged vessels, the Maritime Labour Law cannot be applied, and cases are heard in the Civil Court of First Instance or the Specialized Maritime Court according to general provisions (Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 2015/13585; Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2016/9280).

4. Conclusion

Court decisions treat the abandonment of ship personnel by the employer as a serious violation of rights and provide extensive legal protection to affected personnel. Situations such as unpaid wages, unmet basic needs, or the detention of the ship in port grant personnel the right to terminate their employment contract with just cause, and to claim their receivables and compensations. Responsibility is jointly assigned to the ship owner (“donatan”) and the company operating the ship. The Turkish legal system offers a strong protection mechanism in this area, allowing seafarers to secure their claims directly against the ship itself, through special mechanisms such as “maritime lien” and “ship creditor’s right”.