1. Source of the Problem: Who Is the Carrier on the Bill of Lading?

In maritime carriage, the “carrier” is the person who undertakes to carry the cargo. The company appearing in that capacity on the face of the bill of lading is not always the owner of the vessel. In practice, there are three typical structures:

The first document to examine is the bill of lading’s signature block. Wording such as “as agent for the Master / for and on behalf of the Owners” is an indicator in favour of the owner, whereas a company stating “CARRIER: …” on its own headed document usually points to a charterer structure. For guidance on how to obtain vessel identity and registry information, see our article Where Can Vessel Information Be Found for Provisional Attachment of a Vessel? .

2. TCC Art. 1369: The Two Limbs Required to Arrest the Vessel

Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 Art. 1369/1-(a) provides that provisional attachment of a vessel against which a maritime claim is asserted is possible where the person who owned the vessel when the maritime claim arose is personally liable for that claim and, at the time the provisional attachment is enforced, still owns the vessel .

Article 3/1-(a) of the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships, which is the source of this provision, adopts the same criterion: “liable for the claim” — in other words, being liable for the claim. The legislature did not limit the legal source of that liability.

3. Ownership Alone Does Not Create Liability

This distinction is one of the points most frequently confused in practice. In the Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber decision dated 03.10.2013, E. 2013/12716 – K. 2013/17408, it was held that provisional attachment could not be ordered against an owner who was not a party to the freight contract and was not the debtor of the claim within the meaning of TCC Art. 1369.

4. The Concept of the Actual Carrier and TCC Art. 1191

The actual carrier is the person who personally performs all or part of the carriage. Under TCC Art. 1191/2, all provisions of the Code concerning the carrier’s liability also apply to the actual carrier in respect of liability arising from the carriage personally performed by it.

This means that the actual carrier is liable for loss of and damage to cargo in the same manner as the carrier (TCC Art. 1178); the obligation to exercise the diligence expected of a prudent carrier to make the vessel seaworthy, voyage-worthy and cargo-worthy (Art. 1179) also applies to the actual carrier. The burden of proving absence of fault lies with it.

In a time or voyage charter relationship, the vessel, master and crew remain under the control of the owner. In this structure, the person actually performing the carriage is the owner.

5. Joint and Several Liability and Reaching the Vessel

Under TCC Art. 1191/4, where and to the extent that the carrier and actual carrier are liable for the same damage, their liability is joint and several. The cargo interest may direct its claim against either one or both of them.

The chain is completed as follows:

1. Cargo damage is a maritime claimunder TCC Art. 1352/1-(h).
2. Because the vessel owner personally performs the carriage, it is personally liable for the claim as the actual carrier (Art. 1191/2).
3. That liability is joint and several with the liability of the bill-of-lading carrier (Art. 1191/4).
4. The owner is also the vessel’s registered owner.
5. Accordingly, both limbs of Art. 1369/1-(a) are satisfied and the vessel may be arrested.

6. The Court of Cassation’s Approach: Three Decisions, Three Different Outcomes

These three decisions do not conflict; they complement one another. The distinguishing criterion is singular: does the owner operate the vessel itself? If so, it is the actual carrier and is liable; if not—for example, where the vessel has been transferred under a bareboat charter—it is not liable.

7. How Can It Be Determined That the Owner Is the Actual Carrier?

Full proof is not required at the provisional attachment stage; prima facie proof is sufficient. The following indicators may be used to show that the owner itself operates the vessel.

In practice, the strongest evidence is the vessel’s own stamp and the master’s reservation because these are the opposing party’s own documents and are difficult to deny.

8. Where Does a Bareboat Charter Break the Chain?

Under a bareboat charter, the vessel is delivered to the charterer without equipment and crew; the charterer operates the vessel in its own name and employs the master and crew. In this structure, the person actually performing the carriage is not the owner but the charterer.

9. Sister Ship Arrest: the Backup Plan

Under TCC Art. 1369/2, if the person liable for the maritime claim is not the owner of the vessel, other vessels owned by that person at the time the arrest is enforced may be provisionally attached. The condition is that, when the claim arose, that person was the owner, charterer, allottee or contracting carrier of the vessel concerned.

Thus, if the bill-of-lading carrier is a charterer, another vessel belonging to that charterer may be arrested when it is in Turkish waters. This route is the backup plan used when the necessary connection cannot be established in relation to the original vessel and requires fleet research.

However, caution is required: attempting to arrest both the original vessel and a sister ship simultaneously for the same maritime claim may fall foul of the re-arrest restriction in TCC Art. 1375. The sister-ship option should be kept as a backup, not a parallel route .

10. Consequences of the Single-Ship Company Structure

In international shipping, vessels are commonly registered in the name of single-ship companies . This structure creates two consequences for the creditor:

• There may be no sister-ship option. Because the owner’s fleet contains only one vessel, once that vessel leaves the port there is no other vessel through which an arrest can be pursued against the owner.
• The arrest window is the only opportunity. Once the vessel leaves Turkish territorial waters, enforcement may become practically impossible even if a favourable order has been obtained (TCC Art. 1367/2).

For this reason, in a single-ship ownership structure, timing is even more decisive than the legal argument; the file must be assembled within hours.

11. How Should the Petition Be Structured?

1. Identify the opposing parties correctly. The bill-of-lading carrier and vessel owner may both be named; however, the request to arrest the vessel must be based specifically on the owner’s liability.
2. State the source of liability. Not “because it is the owner”, but “because it is personally liable under TCC Art. 1191/2 as the actual carrier that personally performed the carriage”.
3. Establish joint and several liability. Refer expressly to TCC Art. 1191/4.
4. Show the two limbs of Art. 1369/1-(a) separately. Liability and ownership status should be set out in separate paragraphs.
5. Refer to the source convention. The “liable for the claim” criterion in Article 3/1-(a) of the 1999 Geneva Convention shows that the legal source of liability is not restricted.
6. List the evidence. Vessel stamp, master’s reservation, registry record and, if available, charter-chain documents.
7. Request production of documents. Continuous Synopsis Record, registry transcript and ISM Document of Compliance.

For the general structure and mandatory elements of the petition, see our article How Is a Petition for Provisional Attachment of a Vessel Prepared? .

12. Expected Defences of the Opposing Party

13. Why Is It Important to Conduct the Process Correctly?

The owner–carrier connection is the most common ground for rejection in vessel-arrest cases arising from cargo damage. Establishing this connection is not only a legal argument but also a matter of document collection and timing: while the vessel is in port, its stamp, the master’s reservations and registry information can be obtained; once the vessel departs, accessing the same documents becomes far more difficult.

For the creditor

• Reviewing the bill-of-lading signature block and reverse-side terms within the first hours
• Verifying the owner’s identity through registry and corporate records
• Collecting documents bearing the vessel stamp and the master’s reservation
• Investigating the possibility of a bareboat charter through the CSR and ISM document
• Preparing the sister-ship option as a backup plan

For the shipowner

• Raising the objection as to proper defendant status in time and with the correct case law
• Establishing the charter structure with documentary evidence
• Supporting a request to increase security with concrete cost data
• Conducting release-against-security negotiations swiftly

Regional concentration

These disputes are concentrated primarily along port and shipyard corridors. On Istanbul’s Anatolian Side Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Üsküdar, Sancaktepe and Beykoz; in Kocaeli Gebze, Çayırova, Darıca, Dilovası, İzmit, Körfez and Başiskele; the Yalova region is also prominent. Because a vessel’s stay in port is often limited to only a few days, the file must often be assembled on the same day.

14. Frequently Asked Questions

The company named as carrier on the bill of lading is not the vessel owner. Can I have the vessel arrested?

Yes, if the carriage was performed by the vessel owner using its own vessel and crew. In that case, the owner is personally liable for cargo damage as the actual carrier under TCC Art. 1191/2, and that liability is joint and several with the liability of the bill-of-lading carrier. Because the owner also owns the vessel, the conditions of TCC Art. 1369/1-(a) are satisfied.

Does merely being the vessel owner create liability?

No. In the Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber decision E. 2013/12716, it was held that provisional attachment cannot be ordered against an owner who is not a party to the freight contract and is not the debtor of the claim. Liability arises not from ownership status but from actual-carrier status; ownership status is the second condition for arresting the vessel.

What happens if the vessel has been chartered under a bareboat charter?

Under a bareboat charter, the charterer operates the vessel and is the person actually performing the carriage. In that case, the owner is not regarded as the actual carrier and that vessel cannot be arrested. Because the charterer is not the owner either, the route under TCC Art. 1369/1-(b) is also unavailable. Sister-ship arrest over other vessels belonging to the charterer may then become relevant.

Do I have to prove that there is a bareboat charter?

No. The allegation of a bareboat charter is a defence and must be proven by the party asserting it. Your burden is to establish on a prima facie basis under TCC Art. 1362 that the owner is the actual carrier; the vessel stamp, the master’s reservation and the registry record may satisfy that burden.

Which documents show that the owner operates the vessel itself?

The most direct document is the ISM Document of Compliance showing who is the “Company” within the meaning of the ISM Code. The Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) also lists changes in the owner, bareboat charterer and ISM company with their dates. In practice, the strongest indicator is the vessel’s official stamp and the reservations made by the master on protest letters.

Can I arrest both the original vessel and a sister ship at the same time?

No. This may fall within the re-arrest restriction in TCC Art. 1375. If security has already been obtained for the same maritime claim, re-arrest is permitted only in limited circumstances. The sister-ship option should be treated as a backup plan, not a parallel route.