In the event of damage, loss (zıya), or late delivery of cargo transported by sea, the interested party may claim compensation from the carrier. However, this right is subject to three strict conditions:

Notification (TCC Art. 1185): Obvious damage must be reported in writing at the time of delivery; hidden damage within 3 days from delivery; and damage from late delivery within 60 days from delivery.

Forfeiture Period (TCC Art. 1188): Any claim for compensation arising from loss, damage, or late delivery lapses if not brought before a court within 1 year; the judge takes this into account ex officio.

Proof: It must be proven with concrete evidence (survey report, assessment file, invoices) that the damage occurred while the cargo was under the carrier’s control and its amount.

Conversely, the carrier’s liability is limited to 666.67 SDR per package / 2 SDR per kilogram, and in the case of late delivery, to two and a half times the freight. The only way to exceed this limit is to prove the carrier’s intent or reckless conduct (TCC Art. 1187). The most effective means to secure the collection of a claim is the arrest of the ship (TCC Art. 1352 et seq.).

1. Why Are Maritime Transport Disputes So Technical?

Turkey is a country that carries out a large part of its foreign trade volume by sea. The natural consequence of this traffic, which runs through ports such as Ambarlı, Haydarpaşa, Tuzla, Pendik, Gemlik, Mersin, Kumport, and Marport, is the high intensity of disputes arising from cargo damage, delays, freight, and demurrage.

There are five features that distinguish maritime transport disputes from an ordinary claim or compensation lawsuit:

A special liability regime. The Fifth Book of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 establishes an independent system that deviates from general provisions, including exemptions and liability limits in favor of the carrier.

Short and unforgiving time limits. Claims are often subject not to statutes of limitation but to time bars; this period is observed ex officio by the judge and is not interrupted by the will of the parties.

Document-centric proof. Bill of lading, charter party, statement of facts, survey report, draft survey, seal records, and delivery order determine the outcome of the dispute.

Multipartism. In the same incident, the carrier, actual carrier, shipowner, agent, port operator, forwarder, and insurer come together; misdirection of the claim causes the case to be lost from the outset.

Foreign element. Foreign court and arbitration clauses on the reverse side of bills of lading directly affect the jurisdiction and authority of Turkish courts.

Therefore, in a cargo damage file, merely “being right” is not enough; the merits of the claim must be properly and timely presented. The following sections address each step of this path in order.

2. Parties to the Dispute: Against Whom and in What Capacity is a Lawsuit Filed?

The most common mistake in maritime transport lawsuits is directing the legal action to the wrong person. Who is responsible for a container getting wet cannot be answered without determining who the carrier is, who performed the actual carriage, and by whom the bill of lading was issued.

Judicial practice: The decision numbered 2023/341 E., 2024/2357 K. of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation is one of the decisions frequently referenced in practice for clarifying the distinction between carrier – actual carrier – shipowner – broker.
Source: open-source legal publications. Please verify via UYAP / Court of Cassation Decision Search before use.

In practice, the following three questions should be asked in order to determine the proper defendant:

Who appears as the carrier on the front of the bill of lading? (Stamp, signature block, “as agent for and on behalf of the Carrier” clause)

Who performed the actual carriage? Which shipowner does the vessel belong to? (Ship registry, IMO record, charter chain)

At which stage did the damage occur? (Land transport, port area, loading, voyage, unloading, post-delivery)

In lawsuits filed without answering these three questions, a dismissal decision is often rendered due to lack of proper defendant and in the meantime, the one-year forfeiture period also expires.

3. Legal Framework: TCC, Bill of Lading, Charter Party and International Rules

3.1. Turkish Commercial Code (Fifth Book)

The fundamental regulation regarding the carriage of goods by sea is found in the Fifth Book of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6102. This book, with the 2011 reform, incorporated solutions adopted from the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules into Turkish law.

The most frequently used provisions in dispute resolution practice are:

3.2. The Decisive Role of the Bill of Lading

If there is no separate written freight contract between the parties, the  bill of lading  frames the legal relationship. Therefore, the terms of carriage on the reverse side of the bill of lading — liability limitations, statute of limitations clauses, jurisdiction and arbitration clauses — are directly applicable in the resolution of disputes.

Judicial practice: In its decision numbered 2020/329 E., 2021/779 K., the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted that in the absence of a written freight contract between the carrier and the shipper, the bill of lading becomes decisive in the legal relationship.
The relationship between the bill of lading and the charter party is also important: if there is a reference to a charter party on the front of the bill of lading and an incorporation clause on the back such as “all terms and conditions of the charter party, including the governing law and arbitration clause, are hereby incorporated”, the arbitration clause in the charter party may also bind the bill of lading holder.

3.3. International sources

Hague / Hague-Visby Rules: These are the source of the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code regarding carrier’s liability; they are directly applicable in cases where foreign law is applied.

York-Antwerp Rules: Applied in general average calculations.

1952 and 1999 Conventions on the Arrest of Ships: These form the basis of the ship arrest regime in the Turkish Commercial Code.

PIL (Law No. 5718): It regulates the applicable law and jurisdiction issues in disputes involving a foreign element (click for the text).

4. The 12 Most Common Maritime Transport Disputes in Turkey

5. Loss and Damage to Cargo: Principles of Carrier’s Liability

5.1. Basic Rule: Period of Responsibility

According to Article 1178 of the TCC, the carrier is liable for damages arising from the loss, damage, or delayed delivery of the goods, provided that these events occurred while the goods were under its control/custody. The period of responsibility begins when the goods are taken over from the consignor and ends when they are delivered to the consignee or legally authorized authorities.

This rule is two-fold from the perspective of the cargo interest:

Favorable aspect: There is no need to prove in detail whether the damage occurred during transit or during loading; it is sufficient to show that it occurred within the period of responsibility.

Unfavorable aspect: If the defense is put forward that the damage occurred outside the period of responsibility (e.g., in a customs area, during inland transport after delivery), the discussion shifts to a technical ground.

5.2. Seaworthiness, Fitness for the Voyage and Cargoworthiness

Article 1179 of the TCC imposes upon the carrier an obligation to exercise the diligence expected from a prudent carrier to ensure the vessel is seaworthy, fit for the voyage, and cargoworthy at the beginning of the voyage. In cases such as leaking hatch covers, a faulty refrigeration (reefer) unit, or a non-functioning bilge system, a breach of this obligation arises, and it becomes difficult for the carrier to rely on exemption clauses.

5.3. Presumption of Fault and Distribution of the Burden of Proof

In practice, the burden of proof is distributed in the following order:

The cargo interest demonstrates, with a clean bill of lading (clean B/L), that the cargo was delivered sound to the carrier, and that it was found damaged upon delivery, as shown by the delivery report / survey report.

At this stage, the carrier’s fault is accepted as a presumption.

The carrier attempts to rebut the presumption by proving that one of the exemption cases in Articles 1180 and 1182 of the TCC applies or that it exercised the necessary diligence.

The cargo interest can show that, even if the exemption case is accepted, the carrier’s own fault contributed to the occurrence of the damage.

Judicial practice: In the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 25.02.2020, numbered 2018/4517 E., 2020/2010 K., it was noted that the duty of care and diligence, as stipulated in TCC Article 1178, forms the basis of the carrier’s liability regime.
Source: open-source legal publications (Erdem & Erdem knowledge base). Please confirm from UYAP.

5.4. Calculation of Compensation

According to TCC Article 1184, compensation is, as a rule, calculated based on the cargo’s value at the place of destination and at the time of discharge. In practice, this value is determined by commercial invoice, customs declaration, comparable market price, and, if necessary, an expert report. In case of partial damage, the difference between the undamaged value and the damaged value (depreciation) is calculated; if a salvage sale has been made, the amount obtained is deducted.

6. Cases Where the Carrier is Exempt from Liability

6.1. Technical fault and fire (TCC Article 1180)

The carrier is not responsible for the (technical) faults of the master, crew, and other personnel related to ship management and for fire on board — unless due to their own fault. This distinction is one of the most controversial areas of Turkish maritime law:

In practice, the same incident may involve elements of both technical and commercial fault; in such a case, the portion of the damage attributable to each fault is determined by expert examination.

6.2. Grounds for Exemption (Turkish Commercial Code Art. 1182)

The law enumerates a series of cases where the carrier is not liable. The main ones are:

Dangers of the sea and waterways, natural disaster (perils of the sea, act of God)

War, terrorism, uprising, seizure by public authority, quarantine

Strike, lockout and cessation of work

Acts and omissions of the sender or shipper

Insufficient packaging, lack or inaccuracy of marks

Inherent vice of the goods, their peculiar natural quality (wastage, decay, spontaneous heating)

Deviation from route for the purpose of saving life and property at sea (justified deviation)

Practical note: Most grounds for exemption are also a matter of proof. For example, against the defense of “insufficient packaging”, photographs taken before loading and a clean bill of lading (recording “apparent good order and condition”) constitute a strong response. Therefore, retaining documents and images from the loading stage can determine the outcome of the case.

6.3. Deck cargo

Carriage of cargo on deck is only possible if permitted by the shipper’s consent, trade custom, or legislation. In unauthorized deck carriage, the carrier’s liability is aggravated; in some cases, they cannot benefit from limited liability. Whether a pre-printed record on the bill of lading stating “shipped on deck at shipper’s risk” is sufficient on its own is assessed based on the specific case.

7. Late Delivery: Reasonable Time, 60-Day Presumption of Loss, and Compensation

7.1. When is there “late delivery”?

The carrier is obliged to deliver the goods within the period agreed in the contract of carriage; if no such period is agreed, within a reasonable time that would be expected from a diligent carrier, taking into account the circumstances. Therefore, in shipments where there is no explicit arrival date (ETA commitment) in the contract, the “reasonable time” criterion comes into play, and this criterion is determined based on the line schedule, number of transshipments, comparable voyages, and port conditions.

Court practice: In a decision by the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, it was emphasized that the carrier is liable for damages arising from the loss, damage, or late delivery of goods, provided that these occurred while the goods were under its control (2020/116).

7.2. Presumption of loss after sixty days

If the goods are not delivered within sixty consecutive days after the expiry of the delivery period, the goods are deemed to be lost. This is an extremely important opportunity for the cargo owner: instead of the narrow limits of delay compensation, claims can now be made according to the provisions on loss (and with higher ceilings).

7.3. Scope and proof of delay damages

Typical damage items arising from delay are as follows:

Delay penalty or discount applied by the buyer

Loss of profit incurred due to order cancellation

Costs of alternative transport (air cargo, emergency substitute supply)

Damages arising from the halt of the production line

Additional storage, demurrage, customs, and container waiting costs

Each of these items must be proven individually and with concrete evidence. Merely showing a drop in sales in commercial ledgers or an abstract claim of “loss of reputation” is not considered sufficient in practice. Furthermore, it is essential to establish a proper causal link between the delay and the damage.

Note: Delay compensation is subject to a different regime than loss and damage in terms of the carrier’s limits of liability. In case of late delivery, the ceiling is two and a half times the freight payable for the delayed goods and this amount cannot exceed the total freight amount payable under the contract of carriage. This means that in shipments where the freight is low, even production losses amounting to millions of liras can only be covered by a very limited amount. Therefore, the main strategy in late delivery cases is often the removal of limited liability.

8. Notification Obligation: He Who Misses the Deadline Forfeits Their Right

Article 1185 of the Turkish Commercial Code imposes a notification (ihbar) obligation on the party concerned with the goods. Violation of this obligation, in some cases, directly leads to forfeiture of rights, and in other cases, results in the burden of proof shifting against the party.

Practical recommendation: Notification must be made in writing and sent via a verifiable channel (notarized notice, KEP, registered letter with return receipt, or official email address stipulated in the contract). It is not enough to simply state “there is damage” in the notification;the bill of lading number, container and seal number, nature of the damage, estimated amount, and that the right to claim compensation is reserved must be clearly specified. Having the “damage assessment report” prepared when receiving the delivery order signed by the shipping agent or port operator’s official will be decisive in the subsequent stage.

Judicial practice: It has been emphasized in the decision of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance, numbered 2017/151 E., 2019/288 K., that proper written notification of damage to the carrier at the latest at the time of delivery (Turkish Commercial Code Article 1185) is a critical procedural condition to prevent loss of rights.

9. One-Year Forfeiture Period and Recourse Actions

9.1. Rule

Pursuant to Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code, against the carrier due to loss, damage, or late delivery of goods, all rights to claim compensation shall be forfeited if legal action is not taken within one year. The period begins to run on the date the goods were delivered; if they were not delivered at all, then on the date they should have been delivered.

This period has four characteristics:

It is a forfeiture period, not a statute of limitations. It does not interrupt, and generally does not suspend.

It is considered ex officio by the judge (on their own motion); the defendant does not need to raise an objection.

The carrier’s “your damages will be covered”-like delaying statements do not suspend the period.

After the damage occurs, the parties can agree to extend the period; however, prior shortenings are invalid.

Judicial practice: In the decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of Istanbul Regional Court of Justice numbered E. 2019/2344, it was found appropriate to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was not proven that the defendant delayed the plaintiff, and it was determined that the forfeiture period in Article 1188 of the TCC had passed.
Judicial practice: In another compilation in our office archive, in the decision of the 14th Civil Chamber of Istanbul Regional Court of Justice numbered 2022/2318, it was emphasized that if the one-year period is exceeded, the claim for compensation will lapse and this period will be observed ex officio by the court.

9.2. Additional period in recourse actions

In consecutive carriage (e.g., a forwarder making a payment to the cargo interest and seeking recourse against the actual carrier), the expiry of the one-year period does not, by itself, extinguish the right of recourse. According to the relevant paragraph of Article 1188 of the TCC, the person held liable may file a recourse action within an additional period running from the date they paid the compensation or from the date the lawsuit petition was served to them in the case filed against them. The length and commencement of this additional period must be meticulously calculated according to the specific course of the file.

9.3. Shortened period clauses in bills of lading

Clauses such as “liability ceases if a lawsuit is not filed within 9 months,” frequently found in foreign line bills of lading, are generally invalid when Turkish law is applied; however, they may be binding if foreign law is to be applied. Therefore, the law and jurisdiction clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading is one of the provisions that must be examined first.

10. Limits of Liability: 666.67 SDR, 2 SDR, and the Container Rule

10.1. Ceiling in Loss and Damage

According to Article 1186 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), the carrier’s liability, in case of loss of or damage to the goods, is limited to the higher of 666.67 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) per package or unit and 2 SDR per kilogram of the gross weight of the goods lost or damaged.

What is SDR? Special Drawing Right (SDR) is the accounting unit of the International Monetary Fund. Considering that the exchange rate changes daily, the date on which the compensation ceiling will be calculated based on the exchange rate (as a rule, the date of payment or decision) is a separate subject of dispute and must be explicitly requested in the lawsuit petition.

10.2. Container Rule

If goods are transported in a container, pallet, or similar transport unit, it is crucial whether the calculation will be made per container or based on the number of packages inside. The rule is as follows: If the number of packages/pieces inside the container is specified in the bill of lading, each package is counted as a separate unit. If not specified, the entire container is considered a single unit.

Millions of Liras difference: The difference between a container with 1,000 packages being shown as “1 x 40′ FCL” in the bill of lading versus “1 x 40′ FCL – 1,000 cartons” can change the compensation ceiling by up to 1,000 times. For exporters, the most practical and cheapest legal protective measure is to ensure that the number of packages is explicitly stated in the bill of lading instructions.

10.3. Ceiling for Late Delivery

In case of late delivery, the ceiling, as explained above, shall be two and a half times the freight payable for the delayed goods and shall not exceed the total freight payable under the contract of carriage.

10.4. Declaration of value (ad valorem)

If the shipper declares the type and value of the goods before loading and this is stated on the bill of lading, the limits of liability shall not apply; the declared value shall be taken as the basis. This is a method with a high premium but strong protection and should definitely be considered for high-value cargo.

11. Abrogation of Limited Liability: Intent and Reckless Conduct

Article 1187 of the TCC regulates the circumstances in which the limits of liability shall not apply: If the damage arises as a result of the carrier acting with intent to cause damage or recklessly (thoughtlessly) knowing that damage would probably result and despite this knowledge, the carrier cannot benefit from limited liability and shall be liable for the full extent of the damage.

11.1. How is recklessness proven?

Recklessness is a degree of fault more severe than gross negligence, approaching intent. In practice, the following facts are put forward as indicators of recklessness:

Forgetting the container at the transshipment port, keeping it waiting in the terminal area for weeks

Setting sail despite a known technical malfunction

Failure to intervene despite a temperature alarm from a reefer container (data logger records are decisive)

Carrying cargo on deck contrary to clear instructions

Changing the route without a valid reason (unjustifiable deviation)

Stowing dangerous cargo without segregation (violation of IMDG rules)

11.2. Sources of evidence

The allegation of recklessness often cannot be proven without accessing the carrier’s internal records. Therefore, the following evidence should be focused on at an early stage: ship’s log and engine log, container tracking records, terminal entry-exit records (gate-in/gate-out), reefer temperature logs, captain–agent–operation correspondence, surveyor reports, and class records. For some of these documents, discovery of evidence in accordance with HMK Art. 400 et seq. and the path of request for document production should be pursued.

Strategic note: The lifting of limited liability is the only argument that can completely change the outcome in late delivery cases. Therefore, the claim in the petition should be established graduated as “primarily on the basis of unlimited liability; otherwise, within the limits of TTK Art. 1186”.

12. Evidence Strategy: Survey, Action for Determination of Evidence, and Burden of Proof

The vast majority of maritime transport cases are won or lost at the evidence stage before legal assessment. According to HMK Art. 190, as a rule, everyone is obliged to prove their claim; in maritime transport, this burden is quite heavy for the cargo owner.

12.1. Independent survey (expertise)

As soon as the damage is noticed, an impartial surveyor should be appointed and, if possible, the carrier/agent should also be invited to the survey to conduct a joint survey. Reports prepared unilaterally often only serve as “initial written evidence” in court.

12.2. Action for determination of evidence

In the event of the container being unloaded, the cargo being disposed of, or the vessel departing from the port, the evidence is lost. Therefore, a request for determination of evidence in accordance with Article 400 et seq. of the HMK is the first step that should be taken in most cases. In the determination file, the nature, source, and amount of the damage are determined by an expert; this report constitutes a strong basis in the main lawsuit.

12.3. Document list

13. Freight, Demurrage and Carrier’s Lien

Disputes do not always flow from the cargo interest to the carrier. The carrier also has strong legal means regarding freight, demurrage, and expense claims.

13.1. Laytime and Demurrage

Laytime is the waiting period gratuitously granted by the carrier for loading or unloading. If this period is exceeded, a demurrage fee arises. Demurrage is an accessory performance tied to the freight contract. In practice, laytime calculations are performed based on the Statement of Facts and meteorological records.

Judicial practice: As examined in our firm’s article titled “How Are Laytime and Demurrage Disputes Calculated?“, in the decision no. 2022/655 E. of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 14th Civil Chamber, it was accepted that the laytime period commenced with draft measurement; conditions such as port congestion, waiting for instructions, precipitation, and fog were evaluated within the laytime period. However, in the decision no. 2015/8017 E. of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was stated that in contracts stipulating a “weather working” condition, the statement of facts signed directly by the master of the vessel in dispute should be taken as a basis, instead of records of comparable vessels.
Source: 2mhukuk.com. Please confirm from UYAP.

13.2. Container Demurrage and Detention Claims

In container shipping, demurrage (the waiting of the container at the terminal) and detention (holding of the container outside the terminal) charges constitute a separate set of disputes. For the validity of these claims, an agreement between the parties is primarily sought; however, even if no agreement is found, according to Article 1203 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), the consignee is deemed to have undertaken the debts arising from the bill of lading upon receiving the cargo, and these debts include the return of the container. If the cargo is not received at all, responsibility generally passes to the carrier (TCC Article 1207/1).

13.3. Right of Lien

Article 1201 of the TCC grants the carrier a right of lien over the goods for freight, demurrage, expenses, and other receivables. This right is limited to the last journey the goods accompanied and the amount sufficient to cover the receivable. For the right of lien to be converted into money, an inventory of the goods must be kept, and subsequently, enforcement proceedings must be initiated through the conversion of the pledge into money within a certain period.

Counter-strategy: For the cargo owner, the most effective way to counter the right of lien is to request a preliminary injunction from the court for the release of the cargo against security and simultaneously file a negative declaratory action. Otherwise, the demurrage and warehousing costs of the waiting cargo can quickly exceed the principal receivable.

For a detailed assessment regarding this topic, you can also review our articles titled “How are Disputes Resolved According to Freight Contract Types?” and “Freight Contracts“.

14. Delivery Without Bill of Lading, Delivery Order, and Wrong Delivery Liability

A bill of lading is a document of title in the nature of a negotiable instrument. The rule is clear: The carrier can only deliver the cargo upon presentation of the original bill of lading. Delivery made without presentation of the bill of lading (delivery without presentation of B\/L) gives rise to the carrier’s liability for breach of contract and tort.

14.1. Typical scenario

The exporter holds the bill of lading at the bank because payment has not been collected. The buyer, however, persuades the shipping agent — often against a letter of indemnity — to take delivery of the cargo. Payment is not made, and the exporter loses both the goods and the money.

14.2. Legal remedies

Claim for damages against the carrier and\/or agent (based on the value of the cargo at the destination)

Developing an argument that the carrier cannot benefit from limited liability in such deliveries

Applying for ship arrest if the claim qualifies as a maritime claim

Recourse and enforcement proceedings against the buyer who provided the LOI

14.3. Shipper’s Letter of Indemnity (LOI) and Clean Bill of Lading

It is common practice for a carrier, concerned about the condition of the cargo, to obtain an indemnity from the shipper in exchange for issuing a “clean on board” bill of lading. Article 1238 of the Turkish Commercial Code limits the validity of such indemnities in cases of fraud: If fraud is proven, the carrier remains bound by the contents of the bill of lading vis-à-vis third parties; however, they may have recourse against the shipper.

15. FIO/FIOS Clauses and Loading–Discharging Damages

The clauses FIO (Free In and Out) and FIOS (Free In and Out Stowed), frequently found in charter parties and bills of lading, regulate the cost and organizational responsibility for loading, discharging, and stowage operations. Although these clauses might at first glance appear to completely relieve the carrier of responsibility, their scope in practice is much narrower: these clauses define operational risk sharing; they do not eliminate the carrier’s fundamental statutory obligations.

Especially in technical maritime damages such as wetting of cargo, bilge or ballast leakage, or leaking hatch covers; the correct determination of whether the damage occurred within the carrier’s sphere of control or under the control of the cargo interest within the scope of FIO/FIOS is crucial. This determination cannot be made solely by examining the bill of lading clause; it requires a joint evaluation of actual operations, survey reports, the technical condition of the vessel, and established jurisprudence.

For our detailed analyses on this subject, you can refer to our articles titled “What is FIO or FIOS Clause? Its Effect on Carrier’s Liability and Practical Consequences” and “Who is Responsible for Cargo Damaged During Loading and Unloading? What is the Carrier’s Legal Liability?“.

Judicial practice: As mentioned in our article, claims arising from loss or damage to goods carried on board a ship or related to such goods are considered maritime claims according to Article 1352/1-h of the TCC (Turkish Commercial Code); this scope includes not only navigation but also port services such as loading and unloading, as stated in the decisions numbered 2024/308 E. of Istanbul 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance and 2022/891 E. of Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance. The liability of the port operator as the carrier’s “assistant party” for damage to a container that overturned in the port area was discussed in the decision numbered 2022/807 E. of Bursa 1st Commercial Court of First Instance.

16. Insurer’s Subrogation and Recourse Actions

If the cargo is insured, in practice, the lawsuit is often filed by the insurance company. To the extent of the compensation paid to the insured, the insurer is legally subrogated to the rights the insured has against the carrier. The practical consequences of this situation are as follows:

The insurer cannot have more rights than its insured: the insured missing the notification period or exceeding the forfeiture period also binds the insurer.

Whether the jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in the bill of lading bind the insurer is a frequently debated topic in practice.

The payment document (release/receipt) and policy must be submitted to the file to prove subrogation.

The insured must refrain from actions that would weaken the insurer’s right of recourse (e.g., a settlement with the carrier that includes a release); otherwise, the compensation payment may be incomplete.

Note for exporters and importers: Receiving insurance compensation does not mean that the right to sue the carrier has ceased. The direct right to sue for the part exceeding the insurance amount (deductible, underinsurance, loss of profit) continues, and this claim is also subject to the same one-year forfeiture period.

17. Competent and Authorized Court: Maritime Specialized Court

17.1. Jurisdiction

Disputes arising from maritime transportation are considered absolute commercial cases and Commercial Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction. In areas where maritime trade is intensive, these cases are heard by commercial courts of first instance designated as Maritime Specialized Courts. In Istanbul, this duty is carried out by specialized courts determined by the decisions of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors.

Update notice: Court numbers assigned as specialized maritime courts change periodically with HSK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) decisions. Before filing a lawsuit, the current assignment must be confirmed from UYAP (National Judiciary Informatics System) and courthouse announcements.

17.2. Jurisdiction

The general rule of jurisdiction is the court of the defendant’s domicile (CCP Art. 6). Additionally:

Court of the place of performance of the contract (CCP Art. 10) — the port of discharge can be considered within this scope

Place where the tort was committed or the damage occurred (CCP Art. 16)

Place where the branch is located (CCP Art. 14) — important in agency relationships

Valid jurisdiction agreement made between merchants (CCP Art. 17)

18. Are Foreign Court Jurisdiction Clauses and Arbitration Clauses Valid?

On the reverse side of foreign line bills of lading, almost without exception, clauses such as “Courts of London / Hamburg / Singapore have exclusive jurisdiction” or “disputes shall be resolved by arbitration in London” are found. Turkish courts evaluate these clauses based on the specific case.

18.1. Foreign court jurisdiction clause

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Private International Law and Procedural Law (MÖHUK), in cases where territorial jurisdiction is not exclusively determined, the parties may agree that disputes involving a foreign element and arising from contractual obligations be heard in a court of a foreign state. The main objections discussed in practice are:

Whether the clause is clear, definite and unequivocal

Whether the jurisdiction establishes exclusive or additional jurisdiction

The bill of lading was not signed by the insured or the consignee, and the clause constitutes a general term of business.

The successor insurer is not bound by the jurisdiction clause of a relationship to which it was not a party.

18.2. Arbitration Clause

If the bill of lading refers to a charter party and the charter party contains an arbitration clause, it is debatable whether the arbitration clause is binding on the holder of the bill of lading. In practice, if there is an explicit reference to the charter party on the front of the bill of lading and the phrase “including the governing law and arbitration clause” is included in the terms of carriage on the reverse side, it has been accepted that the arbitration clause is valid and the court must issue a decision of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Procedural rule: Objections to arbitration and jurisdiction are in the nature of preliminary objections and will not be heard if not raised in the statement of defence. If acting for the defendant, failure to make this objection within the time limit and with justification obliges one to defend the case on its merits. If acting for the plaintiff, the reverse side of the bill of lading must be examined before filing a lawsuit in Turkey; otherwise, the one-year forfeiture period may be exhausted amid discussions of lack of jurisdiction/competence.

19. Mandatory Mediation as a Condition Precedent to Litigation and its Impact on Time Limits

Pursuant to Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code, in commercial lawsuits concerning claims for receivables and compensation where the subject is the payment of a sum of money, applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit is a condition precedent to litigation. Lawsuits for cargo damage, delayed delivery compensation, freight, and demurrage claims arising from sea carriage are also within this scope.

19.1. Process

The application is made to the mediation office at the domicile of the opposing party or where the work was performed.

The mediator, in commercial disputes, concludes the process within six weeks from the date of their appointment; this period can be extended by a maximum of two weeks in mandatory cases.

If an agreement is reached, the agreement document becomes a document having the nature of a court judgment with an enforceability endorsement.

If an agreement is not reached, the original or a copy of the final report is attached to the petition; if not attached, the lawsuit is dismissed on procedural grounds.

19.2. Effect on Time Limits — Critical Point

The mediation period stops the forfeiture period. According to Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes, the statute of limitations stops and the forfeiture period does not run during the period from the application to the mediation office until the date the final report is drawn up. However, applying for mediation in the final days of the one-year period stipulated in Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) is extremely risky: it must be indisputably proven that the application date was before the expiration of the period. In practice, the safe way is to initiate the mediation process at least 2–3 months before the period expires.

Furthermore, the mediation requirement is not sought for requests for interim legal protection such as provisional attachment of ships, preliminary injunctions, and determination of evidence; these requests can always be directed directly to the court.

20. Ship Arrest: The Most Effective Way to Secure a Claim

In cases of damage caused by a foreign-flagged vessel, winning the lawsuit alone is not sufficient; the decision must be enforceable. In Turkish law, the most powerful tool to achieve this is the ship arrest, regulated under Article 1352 et seq. of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC).

20.1. Condition of Maritime Claim

Ship arrest can only be requested for maritime claims enumerated in the law. For cargo damage and loss, the basis is the provision that deems claims arising from loss of or damage to goods carried on the ship as maritime claims (TCC Art. 1352/1-h). Freight, demurrage, port and dock services, provisions, and fuel claims are also listed in separate paragraphs.

20.2. Procedure and Conditions

Prima facie evidence: The existence and amount of the claim must be approximately proven with invoices, contracts, survey reports, and damage assessment reports.

Security: Pursuant to TCC Art. 1363, the creditor requesting a ship arrest is, as a rule, obliged to deposit security in the amount of 10,000 SDR. Failure to deposit security is practically considered a ground for rejection.

Sister ship arrest: Arrest is also possible on other ships owned by the debtor.

Prohibition of sailing: The decision is enforced through the port authority and results in the prohibition of the ship’s sailing; this compels the debtor to quickly deposit cash security or settle.

Main lawsuit period: If a lawsuit on the merits is not filed or an enforcement proceeding is not initiated within the statutory period following the provisional attachment decision, the decision automatically lapses.

Judicial practice: As mentioned in our office’s article titled “How to Prepare a Provisional Attachment Application Petition for Ships?“, the decision numbered 2024/36 of the Denizli Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber accepted the non-deposit of the security stipulated in Article 1363 of the TCC as a reason for rejection.
Source: 2mhukuk.com. Please confirm from UYAP.

For detailed information, you can review our articles titled “Provisional Attachment of Ships” and “Provisional Attachment of Vessels“.

21. Table of Periods and 10 Critical Mistakes Made in Practice

21.1. Summary table of periods

21.2. 10 most common mistakes in practice

Failure to draw up a report when receiving the delivery order. If the delivery order is received without opening the container lid, it becomes very difficult to prove that damage discovered later occurred during transport.

Notifying via email with an undefined recipient. An informational email sent to the agent may not be considered a proper notification to the carrier.

Mistaking the one-year period for a statute of limitations. The idea that “we sent a warning notice, and the period was interrupted” is not valid in maritime transport.

Directing the claim against the agent. The agent’s liability is exceptional; the primary party liable is generally the carrier or shipowner.

Failure to read the back of the bill of lading. Jurisdiction and arbitration clauses can prevent the case from being heard in Turkey from the outset.

Failure to have the number of packages written on the bill of lading. It drastically reduces the liability limit.

Having the survey conducted unilaterally. If the opposing party is not invited, the evidential value of the report weakens.

Failure to document damage items. Abstract claims of loss of profit are not accepted.

Applying for mediation in the final days of the period. The suspension of the peremptory period becomes controversial.

Failure to pursue provisional attachment before the ship leaves the port. Once the ship leaves Turkish territorial waters, the strongest collection opportunity is lost.

22. Step-by-Step Dispute Roadmap

Why Is Expert Legal Assistance Needed?

Disputes arising from sea cargo transportation are one of the most technical areas of Turkish law. In a cargo damage file; each of these steps, such as the correct identification of the carrier, proper notification, not missing the one-year preclusive period, accurate calculation of the liability ceiling, and evaluation of the jurisdiction-arbitration clause in the bill of lading, can individually change the outcome of the case. An error in just one of these steps leads to the procedural dismissal of an essentially legitimate claim.

2M Law Office, with its Tuzla-based structure and field experience in the shipyard region; provides legal services in matters of cargo damage and loss cases, late delivery compensation, freight and demurrage claims, delivery without bill of lading, FIO/FIOS disputes, general average, ship arrest, and collection of maritime claims.

Areas and regions we serve: Istanbul maritime commercial law lawyer, Tuzla maritime commercial lawyer, Tuzla maritime law lawyer, Istanbul cargo damage lawyer, bill of lading disputes lawyer, ship arrest lawyer, freight and demurrage cases lawyer, maritime specialized court lawyer, shipyard lawyer, Istanbul seafarer lawyer — We operate in the regions of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Aydınlı, Tepeören, Orhanlı, Gebze, Darıca, Çayırova, Dilovası, and Kocaeli.

Legal consultancy in English, French, and Arabic is provided for foreign clients within our office. To find out if your case carries any time-related risk, you can contact our lawyer team.

Frequently Asked Questions

I noticed that my cargo was damaged a week after delivery. Can I still file a lawsuit?

Yes, your right to sue generally continues; however, your situation has become more difficult. According to Article 1185 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), hidden damages must be reported within three days from delivery. If this period is missed, a presumption arises that the goods were delivered as stated in the bill of lading, and the burden of proof that the damage occurred during transportation rests entirely on you. In this case, container seal numbers, terminal records, packaging photographs, and an independent survey report become decisive. The one-year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit continues to run separately.

The carrier says, “the delay is not our fault, there was port congestion.” Can I get compensation?

Port congestion alone does not relieve the carrier of responsibility. The carrier is obliged to prove that the delay resulted from a cause not attributable to them and that they took the precautions expected of a diligent carrier. In contrast, how port congestion and weather conditions will be evaluated in the calculation of laytime (starya) is determined according to the records in the contract and the Statement of Facts (SOF). Therefore, records documenting the cause and duration of the delay must be collected at an early stage.

My container had 800 packages, but the bill of lading states “1 container.” How is my compensation calculated?

This is one of the most costly mistakes in practice. If the number of packages or pieces in a container is not specified in the bill of lading, the entire container is considered a single unit for the purpose of liability limits. In this case, the limit remains far below the amount that would have been reachable if the number of packages had been stated. The only way out is to check whether the calculation based on kilograms yields a higher result and to request the lifting of limited liability by claiming that the carrier acted with intent or recklessness.

I received compensation from the insurer. Can I still sue the carrier separately?

The insurer is subrogated to your rights against the carrier to the extent of the amount paid to you; for that portion, the insurer will now file the lawsuit. However, your direct right to sue for damages exceeding the insurance amount (such as deductible amount, underinsurance, loss of profit outside the scope of insurance) continues. This claim is also subject to the same one-year prescriptive period. Additionally, care must be taken not to reach a settlement with the carrier that includes a release in a way that would weaken the insurer’s right of recourse.

The bill of lading states: “Disputes to be settled in London.” Can I not file a lawsuit in Turkey?

It doesn’t necessarily mean you cannot file one. It can be argued whether the clause is clear, definite, and exclusive; whether it constitutes a general term and condition; and whether you or the subrogated insurer are bound by this clause. Conversely, in cases where the bill of lading makes an explicit reference to a charter party and is structured to include an arbitration clause, courts may issue a decision of rejection for lack of jurisdiction or authority. Therefore, the reverse side of the bill of lading must be examined before determining the litigation strategy; furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the one-year prescriptive period continues to run while these discussions are ongoing.

The consignee received my goods without presenting the bill of lading and did not pay. What can I do?

A bill of lading is a document of title, and the carrier can only deliver the cargo upon presentation of the original copy. Delivery without a bill of lading gives rise to the carrier’s liability for breach of contract and tort. In this case, a compensation lawsuit can be filed against the carrier and, if applicable, the agent, based on the value of the cargo at the destination. Since your claim constitutes a maritime claim, applying for a provisional attachment of the ship when it calls at Turkish ports significantly increases your chances of collection.

Is mediation mandatory in a claim arising from maritime transport?

For claims for receivables and compensation involving a sum of money, recourse to a mediator is a prerequisite for commercial lawsuits. Cases involving cargo damage, late delivery compensation, freight, and demurrage claims fall within this scope. Conversely, mediation is not required for requests for temporary legal protection, such as ship provisional attachment, preliminary injunctions, and evidence determination. An important warning: although the mediation process stops the forfeiture period, applying in the final days of the one-year period carries significant risk.

The ship is about to depart from Turkey. How can I secure my claim?

This is a race against time. If your claim is one of the maritime claims listed in the law (cargo damage and loss are included), a provisional attachment order can be obtained from the competent court for the ship. The order is executed through the port authority and results in the ship being prevented from sailing. In practice, the debtor is obliged to deposit cash collateral or provide a letter of undertaking (LOU) from a P&I club to release the ship. The application requires approximate proof of the claim and, as a rule, a guarantee of 10,000 SDR.

Which courts handle maritime transport cases?

As disputes arising from maritime transport are inherently commercial cases, the Commercial Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction. In regions with high maritime trade activity, these cases are handled by Commercial Courts of First Instance designated as specialized Maritime Courts. Since these designations can change over time, it is necessary to confirm the current status before filing a lawsuit. Regarding jurisdiction, the decisive factors are the defendant’s place of residence, the place of performance of the contract, the place where the damage occurred, and any valid jurisdiction agreement, if applicable.

I made a payment after the one-year period expired. Can I seek recourse against the actual carrier?

Yes, it is possible under certain conditions. Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) stipulates that a liable person may file a recourse action even after the expiration of the one-year forfeiture period. However, this possibility is not unlimited: the right to file a recourse action must be exercised within the additional statutory period that begins to run from the date you paid the compensation or the date the lawsuit petition was served to you in the case filed against you. The commencement and duration of this additional period should be calculated according to the specific circumstances of the case file; the payment date and the service date must be documented.

Legal Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for general informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Each dispute should be evaluated within its specific circumstances. As legislation and judicial precedents may change, it is recommended to confirm the current situation and seek legal assistance from a lawyer before taking any action. © 2M Hukuk Avukatlık Bürosu