How Did the Ship Charter Dispute in Kocaeli Begin?

The events summarized in the decision of the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers are as follows:

• The plaintiff company chartered a South Korean flagged vessel with a charter agreement dated 04.02.2010. The vessel was to be delivered to the charterer in Mersin and returned in India.
• The vessel experienced main engine failures in the Port of Novorossiysk. The charterer paid 158,025.13 USD for repairs.
• The vessel could not complete its voyage as it required towing. The charterer claimed to have paid 301,000 USD for fuel and 942,888.04 USD for other expenses.
• Since the vessel’s crew wages were not paid, the vessel was detained from sailing in Kocaeli and the cargo was transferred to another vessel.
• While the lawsuit was ongoing, on 01.06.2012, ownership of the vessel was transferred from the former shipowner to the defendant.

The charterer, reserving rights to any excess, requested the determination of a maritime lien and a statutory lien on the vessel for a claim of 695,173.58 USD in accordance with Articles 1235/7, 1236, and 1241 of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6762.

The defendant owner, on the other hand, argued that the vessel belonged to him, that South Korean law, as the flag state, should be applied according to Article 22 of the MÖHUK (Private International Law and Procedural Law), and that he had no debt. The former shipowner also stated that he transferred ownership on 01.06.2012 and that advance payments were made.

What Stages Did the Lawsuit Go Through in 16 Years?

Why Did the Court of First Instance Grant a Lien Right to the Charterer?

The Kocaeli Civil Court of Commerce first determined the applicable law and applied Turkish law, rejecting the defendant’s defense that South Korean law should be applied.

Regarding the merits, the court determined that the vessel became off-hire (off-charter) while the fuel supplied by a supplier in Novorossiysk Port to the charterer was still on board. Therefore, it accepted that the charterer had the right to claim the fuel cost of 231,300 USD. It rejected other items.

The judgment aimed for the recognition of this claim on the vessel, the application of the highest interest rate applied by public banks to USD deposits from the lawsuit date, and the determination of the statutory lien.

Why Did the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court Overturn the Decision in 2017?

The 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the judgment with its decision dated 21.03.2017, numbered E.2016/2840, K.2017/1693. First, it stated that the former owner had no right of appeal because this company was not a party to the lawsuit. It also found most of the plaintiff’s appeal objections unfounded.

The main reason for the reversal was this: According to the Chamber, the charterer’s payment of the fuel cost to the fuel supplier does not grant them a statutory lien on the vessel. Under the repealed Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762, the statutory lien due to goods or services provided to a vessel belongs only to the party providing the goods or rendering the service.

In other words, the Chamber viewed the right of lien as a right tied to the supplier. It accepted that the charterer who paid the cost could not exercise this right on their own behalf.

On What Grounds Did the Local Court Resist?

The Kocaeli 1st Civil Court of Commerce persisted in its previous ruling with its decision dated 04.03.2020, numbered E.2019/338, K.2020/140. Its basis was Article 1235/8 of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6762.

This sub-clause granted the right of a maritime lien holder to two distinct groups of claims:

1. Claims arising from legal transactions made by the captain not with a special power of attorney, but based on the statutory authority held solely in their capacity as captain,
2. Claims arising from the non-performance, incomplete performance, or poor performance of a contract made by the shipowner, the execution of which falls to the captain.

Based on this provision, the Court concluded that the charterer had the right of a maritime lien holder.

The ground for resistance is legally noteworthy. The second group can be directly linked to the performance of the charter agreement: The shipowner entered into the charter party, and the execution of the voyage falls to the captain. When the vessel breaks down and the voyage cannot be completed, the charterer’s claim regarding the fuel remaining on board arises from the non-performance of this contract. When read this way, the claim is not for “the cost of the supplier’s goods,” but rather the charterer’s contractual claim against the shipowner. The Special Chamber’s approach of “the right belongs only to the one who provided the goods” does not discuss this second branch.

Why Did the General Assembly of Civil Chambers Overturn the Decision on Grounds of Court Fees?

The case went to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (HGK) when the resistance decision was appealed. In its decision numbered 22.11.2023, E.2022/619, K.2023/1134, the HGK defined the dispute as follows: Is a legal right of lien recognized on a ship for a ship charterer who pays the fuel cost to the supplier?

However, the HGK did not answer this question and stopped at a preliminary issue. The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit valued at 695,173.58 USD, but had only paid a fixed fee of 17.15 TL in advance. The court had not remedied this deficiency.

• According to the HGK, in a lawsuit for the determination of a maritime lien and a legal right of pledge (lien), a proportional advance fee should be collected based on the value of the lawsuit.
• The collection of the fee is not left to the discretion of the parties; the court observes it ex officio. Subsequent proceedings cannot be carried out unless the fee is paid.
• The court must, in accordance with Articles 30 and 32 of the Fee Law No. 492, grant the plaintiff a definitive period with a warning, continue the proceedings if the fee is completed, and remove the case from the docket in accordance with Article 150 of the HMK if it is not completed.

The HGK unanimously overturned the resistance decision with this different reasoning. It also decided that there was “no room for examining the defendant’s counsel’s appeals regarding the merits for now.”

What is Known and Unknown About the 2026 Ratification Decision?

According to news reports in June 2026, the local court, after the General Assembly of Civil Chambers’ (HGK) reversal, remedied the deficiencies and again found the plaintiff in the right. Upon appeal of the decision, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation unanimously upheld the judgment, stating that there was no illegality in the local court’s assessment. Thus, the claim of 231,300 USD and the statutory lien right on the ship became final.

Does a Ship Charterer Acquire a Lien on the Ship for Fuel Paid?

The file shows that three different answers could be given to this question during the period of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762:

According to one view in the doctrine, claims arising from fuel purchases made to complete a voyage outside the port of registry gave rise to a maritime lien during the 6762 period. In the same view, it was also stated that a person who pays an official fee on behalf of the ship (for example, an agent) could rely on the statutory right of lien through subrogation.

In our opinion, the second approach is the most robust line for the charterer. In the concrete case, the cost of the fuel had already been paid to the supplier, and the fuel remained on board when the ship went off-hire. The charterer’s claim is not a continuation of the supplier’s claim, but their own claim arising against the shipowner due to the non-performance of the charter party. The Special Chamber’s ground for reversal does not address this characterization.

Would the Outcome Be Different If the Same Event Occurred Today?

Largely, yes. In this case, Law No. 6762 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), which was in force on the date of the incidents, was applied to the events of 2010. Law No. 6102 of the TTK, which came into force on July 1, 2012, significantly narrowed the list of claims giving rise to a maritime lien.

Therefore, the characterization of “precedent” in the news should be read carefully. The direct effect of the decision is limited to the small number of cases still pending and based on events prior to July 1, 2012.

What remedies does the charterer have today?

• Maritime claim and provisional arrest of a ship: Claims arising from contracts for the use or chartering of a ship and from fuel and supplies provided to the ship are maritime claims within the meaning of TTK Art. 1352. Even if this claim does not grant a maritime lien, it can be secured by way of provisional arrest while the ship is in a Turkish port.
• Contractual claim lawsuit: Claims regarding off-hire and fuel costs are asserted against the owner in accordance with the provisions of the charter party agreement.
• Payment of items under Article 1320, such as seafarer wages: If the charterer has paid an item granting a maritime lien (e.g., seafarer wages or port duties) instead of the owner, the argument of subrogation may still be raised today.

For detailed information on the collection of fuel and supply costs, please refer to our article titled what to do if provisions and fuel supplied to a ship are not paid for, and for the arrest process, you can refer to our provisional arrest of a ship page.

What Lessons Should Ship Charterers Learn from This Case?

1. Clarify the fuel clause in the contract: The ownership of the fuel belonging to the charterer, and how its cost will be paid in case of off-hire or early redelivery, must be clearly stated in the charter party agreement.
2. Keep the documents complete: Fuel delivery documents (bunker delivery note), payment receipts, off-hire notices, and records showing the amount of fuel on board are the backbone of the case. In this file, the lien was recognized only for the documented fuel item.
3. Act quickly while the ship is in port: It becomes difficult to obtain security after the ship leaves Turkish territorial waters. Precautionary attachment should be immediately considered for claims qualifying as maritime claims.
4. Pay the fee correctly: If the proportional fee is not paid in a lawsuit for the determination of a lien, the file may even be returned from the General Assembly of Civil Chambers.
5. Be prepared for the applicable law: For foreign-flagged vessels, the opposing party will request the application of the flag state’s law. The conflict of laws discussion should be structured from the outset.
6. Track ownership changes: In this file, the ship changed hands during the lawsuit, and the new owner became the defendant. Regular checks of the ship registry and proper party joinder are vital.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a maritime lien?

It is a right that grants a preferential security, in the nature of a legal maritime lien on the ship, for certain claims enumerated in the law. The creditor benefits from this security without the need for a contract or registration.

What decision was made in the Kocaeli case?

According to information reflected in the press, the charterer company’s fuel claim of 231,300 USD and the legal maritime lien on the ship for this claim became final with the Court of Cassation’s 11th Civil Chamber’s affirmation decision in 2026.

What had the Court of Cassation said in previous stages?

In 2017, the 11th Civil Chamber issued a reversal decision, stating that a lien right could not be granted to the charterer who paid the fuel cost, and that this right belonged only to the supplier who provided the goods. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers, however, reversed it in 2023 due to insufficient court fees without entering into the merits.

Will this decision set a precedent in today’s cases?

To a limited extent. The decision is based on the former Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762. Since Article 1320 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 does not enumerate fuel and supply costs among the claims giving rise to a maritime lien, the same outcome is not expected in incidents after July 1, 2012.

Does the fuel supplier have a lien right on the ship today?

Under the period of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, fuel cost does not confer a maritime lien right. However, since it is considered a maritime claim, the supplier can request an interim attachment on the ship, if the conditions are met.

Can the charterer have the ship attached for a charter claim?

Claims arising from contracts related to the use or chartering of a ship are maritime claims. When the legal conditions and security obligations are fulfilled, an interim attachment of the ship can be requested.

How is the fee calculated in a lawsuit for the determination of a right of lien?

According to the HGK, a proportional advance fee is collected based on the case value in these lawsuits. In a case filed with a fixed fee, the court is obliged to automatically complete any deficient fees.

What are the particulars of the affirmation decision?

The principal and decision numbers of the affirmation decision are not provided in the news. The verified particulars refer to the HGK’s decision dated 22.11.2023, numbered E.2022/619, K.2023/1134. The affirmation decision must be identified via UYAP.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

This case in Kocaeli clearly demonstrates how the correct characterization of a receivable determines the outcome in charter disputes. The same fuel cost was treated as a right belonging to the supplier at one stage, and as a contractual receivable of the charterer at another stage. Furthermore, a deficiency in court fees prolonged the case for years. The differences between maritime claims, the right of a ship’s creditor, statutory liens, and precautionary attachments, when not properly structured on the first day of the case, lead to losses that are difficult to compensate later.

2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Tuzla, operates in the field of maritime commercial law along the port line of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, and Maltepe on the Anatolian Side of Istanbul, and Gebze, Dilovası, Körfez, Derince, and İzmit in Kocaeli. We manage charter disputes, ship precautionary attachments, determination of the ship creditor’s right, and collection of maritime claims on behalf of ship charterers, shipowners, and fuel and supply providers.

If the ship you chartered broke down, if you are experiencing an off-hire dispute, or if the fuel and materials you supplied to the ship have not been paid for, you can request a consultation through our contact page to determine the nature of your claim and the available safeguards before the ship departs from the port.