Introduction
This article has been prepared to analyze the most debated items regarding whether a receivable qualifies as a “maritime claim” under the Turkish Commercial Code (Law No. 6102) and the judicial precedents on these matters, in light of the court decisions presented. The examined decisions indicate that the definition of a maritime claim, particularly the interpretation of Article 1352 of the TCC, leads to significant disputes in practice. These discussions directly affect not only the essence of the claim but also the applicability of interim legal protection measures such as provisional attachment, and most importantly, the determination of the competent court (whether a general commercial court of first instance or a specialized maritime court).
Maritime Claim : Debated Claim Items and Precedents
The analyzed decisions reveal intense debates regarding whether certain claim items qualify as a “maritime claim”. These items and related precedents are grouped thematically below.
1. Claims Arising from Service and Goods Supply
This category includes services that are essential for the ship’s operational activities but whose legal nature is open to debate.
Ship Maintenance, Repair, and Construction Claims: This item is one of the most prominent areas of dispute. In Article 1352/1-m of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), “the construction, reconstruction, repair, equipping of a ship” is listed as a maritime claim, yet in judicial practice, the nature of such relationships
prevails. Case law tends to establish that such disputes fall within the jurisdiction of general courts.Quote (Istanbul 17th Civil Court of Commerce, 2023/277-2023/497): “…similarly, there are numerous decisions by the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice stating that general commercial courts have jurisdiction over claims and compensation lawsuits arising from ship construction and repair contracts, which are in the nature of contracts for work.” This situation is an important distinction, showing that classifying a claim as a maritime claim does not automatically render a specialized maritime court competent for the merits of the case.
Ship Fuel (Bunker) Claims: The cost of fuel supplied to a ship is frequently a subject of dispute. Although first instance courts sometimes view this relationship as a simple sales contract, Regional Court of Justice case law emphasizes that fuel is an essential element for a ship’s “seaworthiness” and therefore, maritime trade provisions should be applied in resolving the dispute. (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber, 2022/536-2022/745): “…it was concluded that maritime trade provisions should also be taken into account in resolving the dispute, and therefore, the Specialized Maritime Court has jurisdiction in this case.”
Port and Pier Service Fees: There have been disagreements among courts regarding the nature of claims arising from pier usage services. However, the Regional Court of Justice settled the dispute by ruling that such claims are clearly maritime claims under Article 1352/1-n of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK).(Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 37th Civil Chamber, 2023/776-2023/2836): “When the provisions of TTK Article 1352/1-l) ‘operation of the ship…’ and n) ‘Port, canal, dock, pier, and quay….’ are evaluated together, the claimed receivable is a maritime claim.…”
Agency, Brokerage (Intermediation), and Other Services: There are decisions stating that claims arising from agency services are not considered “ship claims” (TTK Art. 1320). More indirect services, such as brokerage-intermediation, are less likely to be considered maritime claims. Courts emphasize that for a service to be considered a maritime claim, there must be a direct and substantial connection to maritime commerce.
2. Disputes Arising from Contracts of Carriage
Demurrage and Storage Fees: Demurrage and storage fees arising from the late return of containers are among the most frequently encountered and consistently recognized maritime claims. Case law has converged on the view that lawsuits arising from such claims must, without exception, be heard in specialized maritime courts.
Additional Expenses and Port Charges During Carriage: Local expenses arising within the scope of the carriage contract, such as “documentation fee, temporary acceptance fee, terminal security service, discharge supervision fee,” are frequently a subject of debate. Case law indicates that the claimability of these expenses depends on reasonableness, proof, and contractual terms. The fundamental principle is that if the main legal relationship is a carriage contract, then the ancillary expenses arising therefrom should also be evaluated within the scope of a maritime claim dispute.
3. Seafarer Claims
Seafarer claims are an area with unique rules and the most complex discussions.
Competent Court and Applicable Law: The most fundamental debate is whether Law No. 854 on Maritime Labor or general provisions (Turkish Code of Obligations) should be applied to the dispute. This distinction depends on the vessel’s tonnage, flag, and the number of employees. Quote (Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2020/5943-2021/7674): “…if the vessel carries a foreign flag, or even if the vessel is Turkish-flagged but not 100 gross tons, or if it does not meet the other specified exceptional conditions, the Maritime Labor Law cannot be applied to those working on this vessel.” In this case, the competent court may not be the Labor Court, but rather the Civil Court of First Instance or the Commercial Court.
Principal Employer-Subcontractor Liability: The Court of Cassation has established significant case law unity by ruling that the principal employer-subcontractor institution in Labor Law No. 4857 cannot be directly applied to employment relationships subject to the Maritime Labor Law. Therefore, the company from which services are procured does not have joint and several liability by law for seafarer’s claims, but the allegation of collusion (sham transaction) can always be raised.
Conclusion
In light of the judicial decisions presented, the most controversial items regarding whether they constitute a maritime claim have been identified as: claims arising from shipbuilding, repair, and maintenance services, agency and brokerage service fees and the attribution of liability in seafarer’s claims.
Case law shows the following trends in resolving these disputes:
Functional Approach: Courts analyze the nature of the underlying legal relationship (transport, service, work, employment contract, etc.) and its direct connection to maritime trade, rather than merely whether a claim is on a list.
Clarification of Jurisdictional Distinction: While claims directly related to voyages and ship operations, such as demurrage, fuel, and port services, are consistently heard within the jurisdiction of specialized maritime courts; there is a tendency for disputes that are in the nature of a work contract, such as shipbuilding/repair, or those subject to special laws, such as seafarer’s claims, to be heard in general courts.
The Decisive Role of Case Law: The general framework of TCC Article 1352 alone is insufficient to resolve complex and various legal relationships in practice; decisions by Regional Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation play a critical role in increasing legal predictability by filling gaps in the law and defining boundaries in contentious areas. Literature search suggestion.
Why is expert Tuzla lawyer support necessary?
Port regions in and around Istanbul, especially Tuzla, as well as Ambarlı, Pendik, Yalova, and Gebze; are among Turkey’s busiest trade centers in terms of shipbuilding, maintenance-repair, and maritime transport. Companies operating in these regions encounter numerous contracts and legal processes directly related to the “maritime claim” regime under the TCC in their daily operations.
Each claim item, such as ship construction, fuel supply, port services, carriage contracts, or seafarer claims, may have a distinct legal nature. The nature of the claim directly affects which court will have jurisdiction and the applicability of protective measures like precautionary attachment. Especially in time-sensitive transactions, accurately determining whether a claim constitutes a maritime claim is of great importance.
Therefore, for maritime companies operating in and around Istanbul, obtaining support from a lawyer who is knowledgeable in case law, familiar with the region, and understands the technical processes specific to maritime trade; is a vital necessity for the protection of commercial rights.
