In maritime law, the phrase “one year” has three distinct meanings, and these three operate independently of each other. Confusing these three is one of the most common errors that leads to a loss of rights in practice. Even more controversially: does this period begin to run if the vessel has never entered Turkish waters?
In this article, we examine the peremptory period to which a maritime lien is subject, its difference from the period for an action against the carrier, the scope of the suspension provision in Article 1326/3 of the TCC, and the criticisms directed at the judicial interpretation based on this provision.
Contents
- Three Distinct Periods That Are Confused
- What is a maritime lien, and why is it subject to a time limit?
- TCC Art. 1326/1: the one-year period and its commencement dates
- Six months and sixty days in general average
- Interruption and suspension of the period: TCC Art. 1326/3
- Controversial interpretation: if the vessel has not entered Turkish waters
- Why is this interpretation considered dangerous?
- The situation is entirely different in cargo damage: TCC Art. 1188
- The only thing that suspends the period: provisional attachment and sale
- Practical table for seafarer claims
- Draft Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and proposed solution
- Checklist for practitioners
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. Three Distinct Periods That Are Confused
In a maritime claim file, three distinct periods run concurrently, commencing at different times and leading to different outcomes:
| Which right | Basis | Duration and Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Claim for compensation against the carrier (loss of cargo, damage, late delivery) | TCC Art. 1188 | If legal action is not taken within one year, the right lapses |
| Ship’s creditor’s right (statutory lien on the vessel) | TCC Art. 1326 | At the end of one year, the lien right lapses; the claim continues |
| The claim itself (based on contract or tort) | Relevant special provision or general statute of limitations | Varies according to the type of claim |
The most critical distinction: When the period in TCC Art. 1326 expires, your claim does not disappear — your lien right on the vessel disappears. This means you can continue to sue the debtor; but you are no longer a privileged creditor on the vessel and cannot take precedence over mortgage creditors in the priority list. In practice, this means the claim cannot actually be collected.
2. What is a Ship’s Creditor’s Right, and Why is it Subject to a Time Limit?
Pursuant to TCC Art. 1320, certain claims arising against the owner, charterer, manager, or operator of a vessel grant their holders a ship’s creditor’s right. These claims are enumerated in six paragraphs:
- (a) Wages and other amounts payable to seafarers for their employment on the ship — including repatriation expenses and social security contributions
- (b) Claims arising from loss of life or personal injury occurring on land or in water, directly related to the operation of the ship
- (c) Salvage remuneration
- (d) Dues payable for port, canal, other waterways, quarantine, and pilotage
- (e) Claims based on tort, arising from material loss or damage caused by the operation of the ship — excluding loss or damage to cargo, containers, and passengers’ effects carried on board the ship
- (f) Claims for general average contributions
According to Article 1321 of the TCC, this claim grants its owner a statutory maritime lien over the ship and its appurtenances. The lien also covers the shipowner’s claim for compensation against third parties due to the loss or damage of the ship; in contrast, insurance compensation is outside the scope of the lien.
So why is it time-limited? Because the maritime lien is not visible in the registry. A mortgage is registered in the ship registry and can be known by everyone; however, a maritime lien is not registered anywhere, yet it takes precedence over a mortgage. A right lacking publicity surviving indefinitely would harm the interests of mortgagees and the property rights of bona fide third parties. Article 1326 of the TCC was introduced precisely to establish this balance.
3. TCC Art. 1326/1: One-Year Period and Commencement Moments
The provision is clear: the lien right held by maritime claimants listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Article 1320/1, expires at the end of one year from the date the maritime claim arose; unless the ship has been preventively arrested and subsequently sold through forced execution before the expiry of this period.
The start of the period varies according to the type of claim:
| Claim | Start of Period |
|---|---|
| Seafarer wage claims — Art. 1320/1-(a) | Date of claimant’s departure from the ship |
| Loss of life and bodily injury, salvage remuneration, port and pilotage dues, material damage based on tort — Art. 1320/1-(b) to (e) | Date when the claims secured by statutory lien arose |
The starting point for seafarer claims is particularly noteworthy. The period runs not from the date the wages became due, but from the date the seafarer departed from the ship. This creates a single starting point for all accrued wage claims in long-term contracts and is in favor of the seafarer.
4. Six Months and Sixty Days in General Average
Claims for general average contributions (Art. 1320/1-f) are subject to a different regime. According to Article 1326/2 of the TCC, the lien right for these claims expires upon the lapse of the first of two separate periods:
- Six months: within six months from the date the ship arrives at the port of destination where the damage will be assessed and shared — or, if the ship does not arrive there, at the port where the voyage ended — provided that the ship has not been provisionally seized in a manner that would result in its sale through forced execution.
- Sixty days: at the end of sixty days from the date on which the buyer registered the ship in their name in accordance with the law of the place of registration, in the event that the ship is sold to a bona fide third party.
If both periods have begun to run, the right of lien expires at the end of the earlier period. It should be noted that in general average cases, the sixty-day period is often overlooked: the clock starts ticking the moment the ship changes hands and is registered in a new registry, and the creditor is often unaware of this.
Time may be running out for your maritime claim
The lapse of a maritime lien means that your claim becomes practically uncollectible.
5. Interruption and Suspension of Time Limits: Turkish Commercial Code Article 1326/3
This is the provision around which the entire discussion revolves. Turkish Commercial Code Article 1326/3 consists of two sentences, both of which are decisive:
First sentence: The period during which the provisional seizure of the ship is not legally permissible shall not be taken into account in the calculation of these periods.
Second sentence: The suspension or interruption of the period for other reasons is not possible.
The second sentence is extremely strict. Ordinary reasons that interrupt the statute of limitations in obligations law — acknowledgment of debt, filing a lawsuit, enforcement proceedings — do not apply here. No matter what the creditor does, the clock does not stop, except for one single exception.
The exception in the first sentence is narrowly defined: the period when the provisional attachment is not legally permissible. The criterion here is legal impossibility — not factual impossibility. For example, cases where the ship is used for non-commercial purposes in state service, or where there is legal protection preventing its attachment, can be evaluated within this scope.
6. Controversial Interpretation: If the Ship Has Not Entered Turkish Waters
The main question is this: Is the ship’s complete absence from Turkish territorial waters considered a “period when provisional attachment is not legally permissible”?
The reasoning for this seems understandable. Pursuant to Article 1355 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), a provisional attachment order for foreign-flagged vessels can only be issued by the court of the place where the ship is anchored, moored to a buoy or dolphin, berthed, or taken to dry dock. If the ship never comes to Turkey, there is no competent court in Turkey; and there is nothing the creditor can do.
In the seminar held on November 1, 2025, by the Istanbul Bar Association Maritime Law Commission and the Chamber of Shipping, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Cüneyt Süzel conveyed a Supreme Court decision regarding the receivables of foreign seafarers working on foreign-flagged vessels and characterized the following interpretation as a serious problem: if a foreign-flagged vessel cannot enter Turkish waters due to a precautionary attachment order, the one-year prescriptive period begins from the moment it enters. Süzel stated that he found this interpretation “very dangerous” (Istanbul Bar Association – CoS Seminar, 1.11.2025).
Süzel’s proposed solution is to add a provision to the Draft stating that: the absence of a competent court in Turkey to issue a precautionary attachment order for the vessel does not stop the prescriptive period. As justification, he referred to the preparatory work of the 1993 Geneva Convention and examples from around the world; he stated that such a ground for suspension does not exist (Istanbul Bar Association – CoS Seminar, 1.11.2025).
Note: The citation details of the aforementioned Supreme Court decision were not provided in the seminar presentation. If it is to be relied upon in a specific case, the decision should be confirmed through UYAP or case law databases.
7. Why is this Interpretation Considered Dangerous?
At first glance, this interpretation is in favor of the creditor: their right does not lapse as long as the ship does not arrive. However, its consequences are twofold, and both aspects are problematic.
Conflicts with the System’s Purpose
The reason for the existence of TCC Article 1326 is to prevent a right not visible in the registry from remaining indefinitely suspended on the ship. If this interpretation is accepted, hidden claims **arisen years ago** on a ship that has never come to Turkey remain active, and all of them can be asserted at once on the day the ship first enters a Turkish port.
Mortgagee and Good-Faith Purchaser Remain Unprotected
A maritime lien takes precedence over a mortgage. The existence of claims that a bank cannot take into account when lending to a ship, that are not visible in any record, and that are not subject to a statute of limitations, constitutes an immeasurable risk for ship financing. The same applies to a good-faith third party purchasing the ship.
Disrupts International Harmony
The provisions of TCC Articles 1320-1326 were drafted based on the 1993 Geneva Convention. Creating a ground for suspension in Turkish law through interpretation that is not accepted by the Convention leads to the same ship encountering different legal situations in different countries.
Gives False Confidence to the Creditor
This is its most dangerous aspect in practice. A creditor who postpones taking action by relying on this interpretation will completely lose their right if the interpretation is not accepted in court. The interpretation **is not settled case law**; strategy should not be based on it.
8. The Situation in Cargo Damage is Completely Different: TCC Article 1188
The most common mistake for cargo owners and their insurers is to transfer the discussion regarding the cessation of a maritime lien to their own cases. However, the provision to be applied in cargo damage is entirely different.
Pursuant to Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code, all claims for compensation against the carrier due to loss or damage to goods or delayed delivery shall lapse if legal action is not taken within one year. The period begins to run from the date the carrier delivered the goods or a part thereof, or, if the goods were never delivered, from the date they should have been delivered. However, the recourse action of the person held liable may be filed even after the expiration of this period.
Critical warning: Furthermore, Article 1320/1-(e) of the Turkish Commercial Code expressly excludes loss or damage to goods, containers, and passengers’ luggage carried on board the vessel. This means a classic cargo damage claim does not grant a maritime lien. The period for the cargo owner to rely on is Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code, and there is no ground for suspension in this period, such as “the vessel did not arrive in Turkish waters”. If a lawsuit is not filed within one year from delivery, the right lapses.
For details on how cargo damage files should be structured, please refer to our article on who is responsible for cargo damaged during loading and unloading.
Do not confuse: The fact that a cargo damage claim does not grant a maritime lien does not mean that you cannot seize the vessel for that claim. A claim arising from loss or damage to cargo constitutes a maritime claim pursuant to Article 1352/1-(h) of the Turkish Commercial Code and provides grounds for the provisional attachment of the vessel. The two concepts are different: a maritime claim allows for the provisional attachment of the vessel; whereas a maritime lien grants a privileged rank in the distribution of the sale proceeds. The cargo owner possesses the former but, as a rule, not the latter.
9. The Only Thing That Stops the Period: Provisional Attachment and Sale
TTK art. 1326/1’s exception clause must be read carefully: the right of pledge lapses at the end of one year, unless the vessel has been provisionally attached before the expiry of this period and consequently sold through forced execution.
The formulation here is two-phased: provisional attachment must have been applied before the period expires and this attachment must result in a forced sale. Merely obtaining a provisional attachment order may not be sufficient if the process is not pursued afterwards.
This means in practice: for a creditor based on a maritime lien, provisional attachment is not merely a security instrument, but the procedure that sustains the right itself. You can refer to our main guide on provisional arrest of ships regarding the operation of the process.
10. Practical Table for Seafarers’ Claims
The area where the discussion is most keenly felt is seafarers’ claims, and the reason is clear: a seafarer who has not received their wages can often resort to legal action months later, after leaving the vessel and returning to their country.
Things to consider in these files:
- The starting point is the date of disembarkation from the vessel. Not the date the wage became due. The sign-off date must be documented; the seafarer’s booklet, sign-off certificate, and travel records must be placed in the file.
- The scope of the claim is broad. Repatriation expenses and social insurance contributions are also covered by art. 1320/1-(a).
- It is privileged in the ranking order. Seafarers’ wages are among the top priorities; therefore, it is of great importance that the lien right is not forfeited.
- The interpretation of suspension should not be relied upon. Even if the ship does not come to Turkey, preparation should be completed before one year passes and the ship should be arrested at the first opportunity.
Regarding the nature of seafarer claims as maritime claims and the MLC 2006 dimension, you can refer to our article on seafarer claims.
Do you have a seafarer’s claim or a maritime claim case?
The commencement of the period is often earlier than assumed. Evaluate your case early.
11. Draft Forced Execution Law and Proposed Solution
The prepared Draft Forced Execution Law compiles maritime forced execution provisions in a single volume. At the seminar, Süzel’s proposal on this matter was to eliminate ambiguity by adding an explicit provision to the Draft: that the absence of a competent court in Turkey would not suspend the forfeiture period should be stated in the text of the law (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).
If such a provision is added, the discussion will definitively close; however, the outcome for creditors will worsen. For this reason, the Draft process should be followed, and the strategy in existing files should be established based on the worst-case scenario — that is, the assumption that the period is running.
12. Checklist for the Practitioner
| Question | Why it’s important |
|---|---|
| Does the claim fall under one of the paragraphs listed in Article 1320? | If not, there is no maritime lien; Article 1326 is not applicable at all |
| On what date did the period begin? | Departure date for crew members, date of claim origination for others |
| Is there a general average claim? | Separate periods of six months and sixty days apply |
| Has the ship changed hands, or been registered in a new registry? | Starts the sixty-day period for general average |
| Is there also cargo damage? | That item is subject to Article 1188; a separate calendar should be kept |
| Which ports does the ship call at? | Arrest preparations must be completed in advance; application should be made within hours of the ship’s arrival |
| Is there a possibility of arrest in another country? | Instead of waiting for Turkey, action can be taken in the country the ship calls at |
13. Frequently Asked Questions
How long is a maritime lien valid for?
According to Article 1326/1 of the TCC, the lien on claims specified in subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Article 1320/1 lapses at the end of one year from the date the claim arose. However, for general average claims, separate periods of six months and sixty days apply.
If the period expires, does my claim fully terminate?
No. What lapses is the statutory lien right on the ship; the claim itself continues to exist within its own statute of limitations. However, since the privileged position is lost, the claim falls behind mortgaged creditors in the ranking list, and the actual possibility of collection largely disappears.
Does filing a lawsuit or initiating enforcement proceedings interrupt the period?
The second sentence of Article 1326/3 of the TCC explicitly states that the period does not stop or get interrupted, except during periods when precautionary attachment is not legally permissible. The action that keeps the lien alive is the precautionary attachment of the ship before the period expires and its subsequent forced sale.
If the ship never comes to Turkey, does the period run?
It is debatable. One view, based on the phrase “period when precautionary attachment is not legally permissible” in Article 1326/3 of the TCC, accepts that the period begins the moment the ship enters Turkish waters. The opposing view argues that the absence of a competent court should not be considered a legal impossibility and that no such ground for suspension is foreseen in the 1993 Geneva Convention. Due to this uncertainty, it is safer to base the strategy on the assumption that the period is running.
When does the period for seafarer wages begin?
According to TCC article 1326/1-(a), on the date the seafarer leaves the vessel. Not the date the wage becomes due. Therefore, the date of the sign-off document is the most critical element of the file.
Does a cargo damage claim give rise to a maritime lien?
As a rule, no. TCC article 1320/1-(e) excludes loss of or damage to goods, containers, and passengers’ luggage carried on the vessel. The period applicable to the cargo interest is a one-year forfeiture period stipulated in TCC article 1188 against the carrier.
Can a ship be arrested for a cargo damage claim?
Yes. A claim arising from loss of or damage to cargo is a maritime claim under TCC article 1352/1-(h) and forms the basis for the provisional arrest of the vessel. The fact that it does not give rise to a maritime lien merely means that it cannot enter the privileged rank in the distribution of the sale price.
When does the one-year period begin for cargo damage?
According to TCC article 1188/2, from the date the carrier delivered the goods or a part thereof; if the goods were never delivered, from the date they should have been delivered. A recourse action can also be filed after the expiry of this period.
Why is the Correct Calculation of Time Determinant?
In maritime claims, periods are short, their starting points differ, and there are almost no grounds for suspension. Since multiple timeframes can run simultaneously in a single file, it is essential to correctly determine from the outset which provision the claim is subject to. A timeline established according to the wrong provision will change the outcome, no matter how justified your case may be on its merits.
Our other related works: main guide to ship arrest, controversial items in the concept of maritime claim, conditions of Article 1369 of the Turkish Commercial Code in ship arrest, preparation of the ship arrest application petition and claims for provisions and fuel supplied to ships.
2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Tuzla, operates in the field of maritime commercial law along the line of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir and Üsküdar, as well as Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca, Körfez, İzmit and Başiskele.
Act before the deadline expires
Contact us for your cases in Tuzla, Gebze, Dilovası, and Kocaeli ports.
Resources and legislation
Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Art. 1188, 1320, 1321, 1326, 1352, 1355, 1369; International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages of May 6, 1993.
News about the seminar held by the Istanbul Bar Association Maritime Law Commission and the Chamber of Shipping on November 1, 2025: denizhaber.com.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Since each case has its specific conditions, it is recommended to seek legal support for your concrete dispute.
