Introduction
A maritime claim is one of the fundamental concepts of maritime commercial law and holds critical importance due to granting the creditor the significant authority to request the arrest of a vessel. The Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), based on the 1999 Geneva Convention, enumerates maritime claims in Article 1352 as 22 items, in a limited number (numerus clausus). The term maritime claim refers to the twenty-two claims specifically regulated in a limited number within the first paragraph of Article 1352 of the TCC. This principle of limited enumeration brings about various discussions regarding which claims can benefit from this special protection. This study aims to analyze the most debated items regarding whether they constitute a maritime claim, the conceptual differences from which these debates arise, and the direction in which doctrine and judicial precedents have been shaped, in light of the legal texts provided under the title Controversial Items and Jurisprudential Trends in the Concept of Maritime Claim.
Dual Meaning of the Concept: The term “maritime claim” is used to refer to both claims that allow for the provisional arrest of vessels (1999 Geneva Convention) and claims for which the shipowner’s liability can be limited (1976 LLMC). However, the claims in these two lists do not entirely overlap, which leads to confusion in practice.
Non-Monetary Maritime Claims: Especially the classification of claims related to the ownership and possession of a vessel as a “claim” is debatable within Continental European and Turkish legal systems.
Distinction between Maritime Lien and Maritime Claim: With the New Turkish Commercial Code, the reclassification of certain claims from the status of “maritime lien” (a privileged claim providing a statutory right of lien over a ship) to solely “maritime claim” has created a significant status change, particularly for claims arising from cargo and luggage damages.
Scope of Seafarer Claims: Whether all types of claims arising from a seafarer’s employment contract are considered maritime claims, especially regarding items such as wrongful termination compensation, is one of the most prominent areas of debate.
Limit of Damages Arising from Tort: While it is accepted that claims arising from tort are considered maritime claims, it is debatable whether indirect damages, environmental damages, and claims for non-pecuniary damages fall within this scope.
1. Conceptual Differences in Maritime Claims and Inconsistencies Arising from International Conventions
The most fundamental source of debate for the concept of maritime claim is its definition with different contents in international conventions that serve different purposes.
Provisional Attachment and Limitation of Liability Distinction: The term ‘maritime claim’ has two different meanings in maritime commercial law. On one hand, in systems adopting the shipowner’s limited liability, ‘maritime claim’ refers to claims for which limited liability can be invoked, and on the other hand, it indicates claims that enable ship arrest. The maritime claims specified in the 1976 International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims and the 1952 Brussels Convention are not entirely identical. This means that even if a claim is a “maritime claim” subject to the shipowner’s limited liability, it may not be a “maritime claim” that grants the right of provisional attachment, or vice versa. This duality is a factor that reduces legal predictability.
2. Change of Status from Ship Claim to Maritime Claim
“Maritime lien” (maritime lien), is a very powerful right that grants its owner a legal lien on the vessel and can be asserted regardless of who possesses the vessel. All maritime liens are also maritime claims. However, the new Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), unlike the old law, has abolished the privileged status of certain claims. This situation signifies a significant loss of rights, especially for cargo claimants. Claims arising from damages to goods and baggage carried on the vessel under a contract of carriage have not been granted the right of a maritime lien; these claims have only been included among maritime claims. Under former TTK article 1235, paragraph 1, subparagraph 7, claimants for compensation arising from cargo and baggage carriage were also granted the right of a maritime lien. With the new TTK regulation, the number of maritime liens has been reduced, and in parallel with international regulations, these claims have been removed from the category of maritime liens. This situation indicates that claims for cargo damage arising from a contract of carriage are now merely a “maritime claim,” and thus are deprived of the strong security provided by a maritime lien. This change is one of the most debated and criticized issues in doctrine.
3. Determination of the Limits of Seafarers’ Claims
According to Article 1352/1-(a) of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), claims arising from seamen’s employment contracts constitute a maritime claim. However, what the phrase “claim arising from an employment contract” encompasses is one of the most practical and debated issues. If it is determined that Turkish law applies to the employment contract, then all types of claims such as monthly wages, overtime pay, severance pay, notice pay, etc., arising under the Maritime Labour Law or the Turkish Code of Obligations, as the case may be, fall within the scope of this regulation. In contrast, termination compensation regulated in Article 434 of the Turkish Code of Obligations… and claims for material and moral damages should be considered outside the scope of maritime lien rights and maritime claim regulations. This is because these claims are not directly in the nature of consideration for a work performance. Likewise, penal clause arrangements stipulated in favor of the seaman in the employment contract should also not be considered within the scope of maritime lien rights and maritime claims. According to this interpretation, while wages and similar claims that are directly the consideration for a work performance are considered maritime claims, ancillary performances such as damages arising from the unfair termination of the contract or penal clauses are excluded from this scope. This distinction serves as a critical filter regarding which claims seamen can use to seize a vessel and is frequently a subject of dispute in practice.
4 Scope of Claims Arising from Torts
Claims for compensation for damages arising from torts related to the operation of a ship are also maritime claims. However, it is debatable which types of damages fall within this scope. The concept of damage here refers to direct material damages. Indirect damages, environmental damages, and moral damages are not included in this scope. This interpretation means that indirect economic losses, environmental rehabilitation costs, or claims for moral compensation arising particularly from major maritime accidents cannot benefit from the maritime claim protection under Article 1352 of the TCC. This situation creates a serious debate, especially with the development of environmental law and compensation law, regarding whether the letter of the law responds to current needs.
Conclusion
In light of the provided sources, it is observed that the concept of “maritime claim” is not static and clearly defined, but rather a dynamic and controversial area. At the core of the discussions lie: The fact that the concept carries different meanings in the context of provisional attachment and limited liability; the classification of non-monetary claims, which are foreign to the Turkish legal system, as “claims”; the legislator’s conscious choice to abolish the privileged “ship claim” status for some claims, designating them only as “maritime claims”; and the tendency to interpret narrowly the scope of items such as seafarer’s claims and tort compensation.
The tendency of case law and doctrine is to interpret the list in Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code strictly and narrowly, in accordance with the principle of numerus clausus (closed list). Especially in cases where the nature of the claim is doubtful, there is a tendency to exclude the demand from the scope of a maritime claim. This situation, while aiming to ensure credit and financing security in maritime trade on one hand, restricts the ability of some rights holders to secure their claims on the other. Therefore, whether a claim constitutes a maritime claim remains one of the most complex and contentious issues in maritime law, requiring meticulous evaluation according to the specific characteristics of each concrete case. An article suggestion.
Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?
A maritime claim holds great importance in maritime commercial law due to its recognition of the right to obtain a provisional attachment on a vessel. However, the scope of this type of claim, which is regulated by a limited number of provisions in the Turkish Commercial Code, frequently leads to disputes in practice. The concept of “maritime claim” refers to claims that can be subject to provisional attachment and also those for which the shipowner’s liability can be limited; careful legal interpretation is required as these two scopes do not always overlap. Differences between ship claims and maritime claims can lead to changes in status that may result in loss of rights in areas such as cargo damage and seafarer claims. Furthermore, it is debatable whether items such as environmental damages and moral compensation are considered maritime claims.
In such technical and open-to-interpretation matters, erroneous legal assessments can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, in regions where maritime law practices are intense, seeking professional support from lawyers specialized in commercial law, such as Tuzla lawyer, Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Çayırova lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Orhanlı and Tepeören lawyer, provides a great advantage in terms of both preventing loss of rights and ensuring that the process is carried out in accordance with the TCC.
