You have a receivable, the ship is in the middle of the Marmara Sea. It neither approaches a port nor drops anchor. Its engines are running, but it’s drifting. You go to court, and they say, “the ship isn’t stopping, so I can’t seize it.” You have a letter written to the port authority, and the answer comes, “this ship is not docking anywhere, it is drifting.” The ship waits there for weeks, and you can’t do anything.

This scenario is a concrete problem that has become increasingly common in the Marmara Sea in recent years, especially concerning vessels subject to sanctions. In this article, we examine whether a precautionary attachment order can be obtained for a drifting vessel, the legal basis of the “ship’s stopping” condition, the place of the Montreux Convention in this discussion, and the practical avenues available to the creditor.

1. What is Drifting, and Why Has It Become Common?

In maritime terminology, “drifting” refers to a ship waiting by being carried by currents and wind without anchoring, without being tied anywhere, and with its engines ready. Technically, the ship is considered to be underway, but it is not going anywhere.

This maneuver has ordinary commercial uses: waiting for a port turn, waiting for weather conditions to improve, waiting for cargo instructions. However, a new form of use has emerged recently: ships subject to sanction regimes or with an unclear commercial history staying away from inspection and enforcement actions by waiting for a long time without docking at any port.

Atty. Türker Yıldırım, Head of the Istanbul Bar Association Maritime Law Commission, directly brought this issue to the agenda at the seminar held on November 1, 2025; he stated that ships subject to sanctions were waiting adrift in the middle of the Marmara Sea, that they could neither detain these ships nor prevent the supply of provisions, and consequently, ships posing an environmental disaster risk were roaming in the Marmara Sea (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

2. Condition Required by Law: TCC Articles 1354 and 1355

The legal source of the problem is two articles of the TCC regulating the competent court for provisional attachment.

According to TCC Article 1355, a provisional attachment order for foreign-flagged ships in Turkey is granted only by the court of the place where the ship is anchored, moored to a buoy or dolphin, docked, or dry-docked.

TCC Article 1354 lists the same four cases for Turkish-flagged ships; however, it grants creditors additional options: for ships registered in the Turkish Ship Registry, the court of the registration place; for unregistered ships, the court of the owner’s domicile; for ships registered in a special register, the court of the charterer’s domicile.

3. Key Concept in the Justification of the Article: Interruption of Voyage

The justification for Article 1355 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) clearly defines the central concept of the discussion. According to the justification, for a court in Turkey to issue a precautionary attachment order concerning foreign-flagged vessels, the condition that the vessel to be attached must interrupt its voyage within the jurisdiction of that court is required.

The justification also states that this preference is deliberate and aims to resolve the issue of “vessels making passage without calling at a port,” which creates debate in international maritime law: for such a vessel, the condition sought by the article is not met, and thus the jurisdiction of Turkish courts is not established.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, what the law requires is not the physical stopping of the vessel, but its interruption of its voyage. Second, the four situations listed in the article (anchoring, mooring to a buoy or bollard, berthing, dry-docking) are typical manifestations of interrupting a voyage. Drifting does not fully align with any of these four — but whether a voyage has been interrupted is a separate question.

4. Montreux Convention and Innocent Passage

The rationale of TCC Art. 1355 states that the regulation fully complies with Articles 2 and 3 of the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, dated July 20, 1936; that no court has jurisdiction over ships making innocent passage in the sense envisaged by the Convention, but that court jurisdiction may be established if the status of innocent passage is disrupted.

In practice, this rationale has been broadly interpreted by courts and occasionally extended to the waters of Marmara outside the Straits. Attorney Çağlar Coşkunsu questioned this approach in the seminar and shared a remarkable observation: Since 2012, no state has issued a diplomatic note to Turkey due to the detention of its ships in innocent passage; the only known diplomatic note in the context of Montreux came from Russia regarding traffic separation regulations (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

Coşkunsu also reported that in 2013, a commercial court in Istanbul issued a decision of non-jurisdiction regarding ships making innocent passage in the Kumkapı area, on the grounds that no court had jurisdiction over such ships in the Montreux sense, and that this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. He stated that after this decision, the practice requires not only that the ship has stopped but also that the transit has been disrupted (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

5. When Is the Status of Innocent Passage Disrupted?

This is the main area of contention for the creditor. Given that the article’s rationale itself accepts that jurisdiction can be established if the status is disturbed, it is debatable whether the passage of a drifting vessel is truly “innocent” and “non-stopping”.

At the core of an innocent passage is a continuous and expeditious navigation. The passage must be uninterrupted and aim to go from one place to another. In light of this criterion, the following situations can be put forward as indications that the status has been disturbed:

• The vessel remaining in the same area for days or weeks and its route records not showing an intent to proceed to a destination
• Taking on provisions, fuel, spare parts, or conducting crew changes
• Conducting cargo transfer at sea (ship-to-ship transfer)
• Carrying out maintenance or repair activities
• Receiving agency services, or establishing commercial contact with port or pilotage organizations
• Turning off or manipulating the AIS signal

Among these, especially the supply of provisions and fuel, and crew changes, are accepted in doctrine and practice as indicators of suspension of passage. Indeed, regarding foreign vessels, it is accepted that the court of the place where the vessel stopped will have jurisdiction if fuel or spare parts are taken on, or crew changes are made, even if for a short period.

6. Is Drifting Considered “Anchoring”?

Direct answer: no. Article 1355 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) lists four factual situations, and drifting corresponds to none of them. The ship has not anchored, has not moored to a buoy or mooring buoy, has not berthed anywhere, and has not been dry-docked.

Conversely, it can be argued that there is a tension between the wording of the article and its justification. The justification formulates the condition as suspension of voyage, while the article text enumerates its typical four manifestations. It is clear that a ship that remains in the same area for weeks, does not go anywhere, and conducts commercial activity has suspended its voyage.

This argument is not always accepted by the courts; in fact, the prevalent attitude in practice is to interpret the four situations in the article text narrowly. However, establishing the claim within this framework and with strong evidence reduces the risk of a jurisdiction ruling.

7. Port Authority – Court Vicious Cycle

The deadlock in practice is more a procedural issue than a legal debate. The cycle described by Yıldırım works as follows: a writ is sent to the port authority to obtain a court decision; the port authority reports that the ship has not berthed anywhere, is in a state of drift, and has not completed a certain period; when returning to court with this response, the court says “the ship is not stationary, I cannot seize it” (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

For this cycle to be broken, the writ must ask the right question. The answer to the question “Has the ship docked at your port?” is already no. What needs to be asked is: how long has the ship been in this area, who is its agent, has it been supplied with provisions or fuel, has a crew change been reported, has any service request been made?

8. Jurisdiction Issue: Which Province Do the Marmara Offshore Waters Belong To?

The second practical obstacle is jurisdiction. Article 1355 of the Turkish Commercial Code states “the court of the place where the ship is anchored…”; however, which province’s jurisdiction do a point in the middle of the Marmara Sea fall under? Yıldırım stated that they tried to reach these ships through law enforcement, but since the ship was in the open waters of Marmara, it was unclear which province was responsible (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

The practical approach is to take as a basis the closest coastal administrative unit to the ship’s coordinates and the administrative responsibility area of that region’s port authority. The petition must include the ship’s coordinates, the responsibility area of the nearest port authority, and a navigation chart of the region. In cases where more than one court may be deemed competent, the port authority to which the ship’s waiting area is reported becomes the decisive factor.

9. Evidence Strategy: AIS Records and Writs

In these files, the fate of the claim is determined by the evidence. Since the standard of approximate proof is valid, documents that create conviction and support each other must be submitted.

Ship tracking records

A past route record obtained from AIS-based tracking systems shows how many days the vessel has been in the same area, its speed and route profile, and that it has no navigation purpose. Prof. Dr. Emine Yazıcıoğlu argued in the seminar that submitting such records to the court might be sufficient; however, Attorney Sinan Güzel stated that in current practice, a printout from a tracking website alone is not enough, and separate official requests must be obtained from the port authority and coastal security and submitted to the court (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

Official Requests from Institutions

From the port authority, the General Directorate of Coastal Safety, and, if necessary, the customs administration; the vessel’s entry date into the area, its stated reason for waiting, its agent, and supply and personnel movements should be inquired. These documents should be collected before the petition for request and submitted as an annex to the petition.

Evidence of Commercial Activity

Agent records, supply invoices, supplier correspondences, ship-to-ship transfer notifications, and, if available, photo and video records. These constitute concrete evidence for the argument that the status of innocent passage has been violated.

Vessel’s Identity

IMO number, call sign, MMSI, flag, class, and registered owner information must be clearly shown without leaving any room for doubt; for how to verify this information, you can refer to our article on vessel name and IMO number.

10. Is the Situation Different in Final Seizure?

An interesting observation raised in the seminar pertains to the practical difference between precautionary attachment and definitive attachment. Atty. Çağlar Coşkunsu stated that definitive attachment can even seize vessels making innocent passage, and expressed not understanding why the vessel should be required to stop (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

The legal basis for this is as follows: The four de facto situations in Articles 1354 and 1355 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) constitute a jurisdiction rule that determines the court authorized to issue a precautionary attachment order before a lawsuit is filed. It is argued that if there is a final judgment or a finalized enforcement proceeding, the same restriction does not apply in the same way when the enforcement office executes the attachment.

This presents a strategic opportunity for the creditor: if a precautionary attachment cannot be obtained due to the drift problem, having the principal claim formalized into a judgment or a finalized enforcement proceeding as soon as possible provides a much stronger position upon the vessel’s next arrival.

11. Draft Enforcement Law: “Known Place of Stopping”

The prepared Draft Enforcement Law amends the jurisdiction rule, granting authority to the court of the place where the vessel has stopped or is known to stop in territorial waters. The justification states that vessels may stay in ports for very short periods, which can make it practically impossible to obtain a precautionary attachment order (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

This change was one of the most controversial topics of the seminar:

If the draft becomes law in its current form, a part of the drift problem will be solved: since the known place where the vessel will stop will be considered sufficient, a decision can be made before the vessel even arrives in the area. However, for vessels waiting for weeks in the middle of the Marmara and not docking anywhere, the problem will not be fully resolved; because even there, a “place to stop” needs to be designated.

12. Roadmap for the Practitioner

Step 1 — Identify the Flag

If the ship is Turkish-flagged, there is largely no problem: according to Article 1354 of the TCC, you can apply to the court of the place of registration or the owner’s domicile. The problem is specific to foreign-flagged ships.

Step 2 — Formulate the request correctly

In the petition, argue that the ship has interrupted its voyage, not that it has “stopped,” and explicitly rely on this concept in the reasoning of Article 1355 of the TCC. Demonstrate the difference between a transit passage and drifting with concrete data.

Step 3 — Collect the evidence in advance

Obtain institutional warrants before submitting the petition for request; waiting for a warrant during the court phase may take until the ship leaves the area.

Step 4 — Make preparations to await the ship’s berthing

Ships that are drifting will eventually dock somewhere for replenishment, discharge, or repair. The petition, its annexes, and the security should be kept ready; the file should be able to be submitted within hours of the ship’s berthing. The three-business-day execution period of Article 1364 of the TCC must also be taken into consideration.

Step 5 — Link it to the main judgment

If a precautionary attachment cannot be obtained, do not delay the main case. A finalized judgment provides a much stronger position upon the ship’s next arrival and reduces the impact of the “stopping” debate.

Step 6 — Investigate alternative connections

The possibility of precautionary attachment on the debtor’s receivables at its agent in Turkey, freight and charter hire receivables, and other assets should be evaluated. The precautionary attachment of a ship, according to Article 1368/1 of the TCC, also covers the income and benefits obtained by the debtor from the operation of that ship.

13. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a drifting vessel be seized?

For foreign-flagged vessels, Article 1355 of the TCC enumerates four factual situations, and drifting does not fully align with any of them. However, since the rationale behind the article formulates the condition as “suspension of voyage,” it can be argued that this condition is met if the vessel remains in the same area for a long time and conducts commercial activities. The outcome depends on the strength of the evidence presented.

Is there the same problem with Turkish-flagged vessels?

No. Article 1354 of the TCC also grants jurisdiction to the court of the place of registry for Turkish-flagged vessels, and to the court of the owner’s domicile for vessels not registered. Therefore, the actual location of the vessel ceases to be a determining factor.

Can a vessel passing through the Straits be seized?

The rationale behind Article 1355 of the TCC states that there is no jurisdiction over vessels exercising innocent passage in the sense of the Montreux Convention. Conversely, the same rationale accepts that jurisdiction can be established if the status of innocent passage is disrupted. In the case of a passage involving a stopover, there is no problem.

Is a vessel taking on provisions or fuel considered to have stopped?

In practice, taking on fuel, spare parts, or changing personnel, even for a short period, is considered an indication of a suspension of voyage. Therefore, records related to replenishment and personnel movements are the most valuable evidence in drifting cases.

Which court should be applied to in the open waters of Marmara?

The law does not provide a clear criterion on this matter. In practice, the administrative jurisdiction area of the coastal administrative unit closest to the vessel’s coordinates and the port authority to which the region is affiliated are taken as the basis; in the petition, the coordinates, navigation chart, and a document from the port authority are submitted together.

Can a ship tracking website printout be considered evidence?

It may not be considered sufficient on its own. In practice, tracking records are expected to be submitted along with official memo responses obtained from the port authority and coastal safety.

Why is the Correct Execution of the Process Important?

In drift cases, time is even more critical than in a regular ship arrest file. The ship can leave the area at any moment; when it leaves, not only is the possibility of arrest lost, but often the entire debt becomes virtually uncollectible. Therefore, evidence collection and petition preparation must be carried out in parallel while the ship is in the area.

Our other related works: main guide for ship provisional arrest, preparation of the ship provisional arrest petition, conditions of Article 1369 of the Turkish Commercial Code in the provisional arrest of ships, controversial items in the concept of maritime claim and claims for provisions and fuel costs supplied to the ship.

2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Tuzla, operates in the field of maritime trade law along the line of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir and Üsküdar, as well as Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca, Körfez, İzmit and Başiskele.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. As each case has its specific circumstances, it is recommended to seek legal support for your particular dispute.