You supplied fuel to a ship, sold provisions, made repairs, or your cargo was damaged. The invoice is addressed to the ship’s operator. Then you check Equasis: the ship’s owner is a completely different company. Your request for a precautionary attachment goes to court and is rejected — on the grounds that “the debtor is not the owner of the ship”.

In practice, a large majority of cases get stuck at exactly this point. In this article, we examine whether an owner’s ship can be arrested due to the debt of a bareboat charterer or operator, why Turkish law consciously deviates from international conventions on this matter, and on what legal grounds the claim should be based.

1. Source of the Problem: Operator and Owner are Separate Entities

In modern maritime trade, there isn’t a single company behind a ship. The typical structure is as follows: the ship is registered in the name of a single ship-owning company; its commercial operation is left to a management company; the ship has been chartered to another company on a bareboat or time charter basis; and the contract of carriage has been made by a completely different carrier.

From the perspective of a supplier, shipyard, or cargo interest, the result is this: the debtor and the shipowner are different entities. The claim has arisen against the person actually operating the ship; whereas the ship sought to be arrested is owned by someone else.

In the Istanbul Bar Association Maritime Law Commission – Chamber of Shipping seminar on November 1, 2025, Attorney Savaş İnandıoğlu expressed this situation with figures: the vast majority of cases arise from the debt of the ship’s commercial operator; and courts reject requests for provisional arrest when the owner has not seen their ship (Istanbul Bar Association – COS Seminar, 1.11.2025).

2. TCC art. 1369/1: Five Paragraphs, Five Distinct Possibilities

The most common mistake in practice is to base the claim solely on the first two paragraphs. However, TCC art. 1369/1 makes the provisional arrest of a ship against which a maritime claim is asserted possible in five distinct cases, and these are alternatives to each other:

The fifth clause is the central point of this article and is the most overlooked provision in practice.

3. Why is Clause (b) Drafted Narrowly?

Read clause (b) carefully: the person who was the charterer when the claim arose must be the owner at the time of the arrest. In other words, being a charterer is not sufficient; that person must have purchased the vessel at the time of the arrest.

This is a conscious deviation from the source regulation. The explanatory memorandum for Article 1369 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) states that the provision is derived from the first and second paragraphs of Article 3 of the 1999 International Convention on the Arrest of Ships; however, it notes that the source regulation’s subparagraph (b) contains the phrase “if the owner or demise charterer of the ship”.

The Turkish legislator did not adopt the “or demise charterer” part of this phrase. The explanatory memorandum also explains the reason: according to the third paragraph of the source provision, the possibility of applying provisional arrest to a ship for the charterer’s debt while the ship is on charter depends on such an arrest being followed by a forced sale being possible under national law. However, in Turkish law, the sale of an owner’s ship for the charterer’s debt is only possible in cases where maritime lien rights are recognized. The explanatory memorandum further reminds that, according to Article 9 of the 1999 Convention, the provisions of the Convention shall not create new maritime liens.

4. Conclusive Sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum

This sentence is the legal basis for courts’ rejection decisions and will also be invoked by the opposing party’s counsel. Therefore, basing the claim on subparagraph (b) is a lost strategy from the outset if the charter relationship continues.

However, note: this rule applies only with regard to subparagraph (b). The explanatory memorandum itself points to the exception by stating “it is only possible in cases where maritime lien rights are recognized”. That exception is subparagraph (e).

5. Primary Approach: Subparagraph (e) and TCC Art. 1320

According to TCC Art. 1369/1-(e), provisional arrest of a ship is possible if the claim grants a maritime lien within the meaning of Art. 1320. In this subparagraph, the condition of ownership is not required.

The reason lies in the introductory sentence of Art. 1320/1. While enumerating against which persons the maritime lien arises, the provision states: “The following claims arising against the owner, charterer, manager, or operator of the ship…”

In other words, the legislator has not made a distinction between the owner and the charterer regarding the maritime lien. Even if the claim arises against the charterer, manager, or operator, a statutory lien right arises on the ship, and the ship can be arrested for this claim.

So, which claims are within the scope of Art. 1320? They are enumerated in six subparagraphs:

• (a) Wages and other amounts payable to seafarers — including repatriation costs and social security contributions
• (b) Loss of life or personal injury directly related to the operation of the ship
• (c) Salvage remuneration
• (d) Port, canal, other waterways, quarantine, and pilotage dues
• (e) Claims arising from tort for material loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel — excluding goods, containers, and passenger luggage carried
• (f) Claims for general average contributions

6. Second Way Out: Actual Carrier’s Liability

In cargo damage cases, there is often an overlooked possibility that directly makes subparagraph (a) applicable.

Pursuant to TCC Art. 1191/2, all provisions of the Law regarding the carrier’s liability also apply to the liability arising from carriage actually performed by the actual carrier. Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of the same article, if and to the extent that the carrier and the actual carrier are liable for the same damage, they are jointly and severally liable.

The value here is this: even if another company appears as the carrier on the bill of lading, the shipowner who actually performs the carriage with their own vessel and crew is personally liable by virtue of a statutory liability. If this person is also the owner of the ship at the time of attachment, the conditions of TCC Art. 1369/1-(a) are met, and the discussion of the charterer is avoided entirely.

In practice, this determination can be approximately proven by the title on the ship’s official seal, the statements in the captain’s protest letters, and the registered owner information in Equasis records.

7. Third Way Out: TCC art. 1369/2 and Sister Ship

TCC art. 1369/2 regulates the arrest of ships other than those enumerated in the first paragraph — i.e., ships other than the ship where the claim arose. Accordingly, if the ships belong to a person liable for this maritime claim at the time of the arrest, and if, when the claim arose, this person was:

• (a) the owner of the ship on which the maritime claim arose, or
• (b) its charterer or bareboat charterer or carrier, it is possible.

Subparagraph (b) of the second paragraph is decisive here and much broader than the first paragraph: even if the debtor was a charterer when the claim arose, if there is another ship **owned by him** at the time of arrest, that ship can be arrested.

The practical result is this: if your debtor is a bareboat charterer, you may not be able to arrest the ship they chartered — but you can arrest **ships owned by them**. Therefore, the debtor’s fleet structure must be investigated via their IMO company number.

8. Which Claim Relies on Which Subparagraph? Decision Table

9. The “Lessee” Clause Controversy and Geneva 1993 Art. 3/3

Another aspect of the same issue has emerged in the prepared Draft Law on Enforcement and Bankruptcy. In the seminar, both Prof. Dr. Kerim Atamer and Lawyer Savaş İnandıoğlu criticized the addition of the phrase “lessee” to the clauses related to insurance premiums and commissions in the Draft (Istanbul Bar Association – DTO Seminar, 1.11.2025).

The basis of the criticism is the third paragraph of Article 3 of the 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages. According to the speakers, this provision stipulates that a maritime lien cannot be claimed on the owner’s vessel due to the charterer’s debt for insurance premiums or commissions.

The suggestion from both speakers is the same: either the phrase “charterer” should be removed, or the mentioned provision of the Convention should be added to the Draft. Atamer also emphasized that this addition in the Draft contradicts the rule that the owner’s vessel cannot be sold for the charterer’s insurance premium debt.

The implication for practitioners is this: until this discussion is codified into law, the arrest of an owner’s vessel will remain contentious if the charterer is indebted for insurance premiums and commission claims.

10. How Should a Claim Petition Be Drafted?

First, Document the Capacities

It must be clearly shown who is the owner, who is the charterer, who is the operator, and who is the manager. Equasis records, the vessel’s official stamp, certificate of registry, agent correspondence, and declarations in previous letters of guarantee, if any, form the basis for this determination.

Draft the clauses sequentially and alternatively

Do not confine the claim to a single clause. First, clause (a) — based on the liability of the actual carrier — should be put forward; if it is not accepted, clause (e), and if that is also not applicable, clause (b) should be relied upon in the alternative. If the court cannot proceed with one clause, it can consider another.

Discuss the nature of the claim based on Article 1320

If the claim falls within the scope of Article 1320, address it under a separate heading and with a clause number. Also, recall the provision of TCC Art. 1320/final paragraph: this paragraph introduces a special rule of conflict of laws, stipulating that whether a claim asserted before Turkish courts constitutes a maritime lien shall be determined according to Turkish law. In cases with foreign elements, this shortens the applicable law discussion.

Investigate the debtor’s fleet

For the possibility under Article 1369/2, the ships owned by the debtor should be identified via their IMO company number, and it should be monitored whether these ships call at Turkish ports.

Check if the charter relationship has ended

Clause (b) requires the charterer to be the owner at the time of attachment. If the charterer subsequently purchases the ship, this clause directly applies. Therefore, ownership change dates on Equasis must be checked.

11. Measures to be Taken at the Contract Stage

For suppliers, shipyards, and cargo owners, the most effective protection is taken not after a dispute arises, but when the contract is being established:

• Establish the capacity of the addressee in writing. The contract should clearly state whether the order was placed on behalf of the owner or the bareboat charterer; the phrase “for and on behalf of the Owners” makes a big difference.
• Obtain confirmation from the owner. Written confirmation obtained from the owner or captain for the supply of fuel and provisions strengthens the chain of liability.
• Have the captain sign the delivery documents. Stamped and signed delivery notes, delivery receipts, and invoices are crucial for proving both the receivable and the capacity.
• Investigate the charter status. Learning before ordering whether the vessel has been chartered on a bareboat basis changes the form of your collateral request.
• If you are a shipyard, exercise your right to demand a mortgage. Article 1013 of the TCC grants the shipyard owner the right to request mortgage registration for claims arising from construction and repair, and prior waiver of this right is not valid.

12. Frequently Asked Questions

Can the owner’s ship be seized for the bareboat charterer’s debt?

As a general rule, no. Article 1369/1-(b) of the TCC requires that the person who was the bareboat charterer when the claim arose must be the owner of the ship at the time of seizure. The rationale for the article also states that it is not possible under Turkish law to allow for the provisional attachment of the ship for the charterer’s debt during the continuation of the charter. The exception is if the claim grants a maritime lien (ship creditor’s right) under Article 1320 of the TCC.

Can the ship be seized against the charterer for seafarers’ wages?

Yes. Article 1320/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) grants the right of a maritime lien for claims arising against the owner, charterer, manager, or operator of the vessel. Seafarer wage claims are at the top of this list; therefore, arrest is possible under Article 1369/1-(e) of the TCC, and the condition of ownership is not required.

What is the situation regarding claims for fuel and provisions?

These claims are maritime claims within the meaning of Article 1352 of the TCC and constitute grounds for provisional arrest; however, since they are not included in the list in Article 1320 of the TCC, they do not grant a maritime lien. If the debtor is not the owner of the vessel, the path under Article 1369/1-(e) is closed; in this case, the vessels owned by the debtor must be considered in accordance with Article 1369/2.

What happens if the debtor is not the owner in case of cargo damage?

The person who actually performed the carriage must be investigated. According to Articles 1191/2 and 1191/4 of the TCC, the actual carrier is personally and jointly and severally liable under a liability arising from law. If this person is the owner of the vessel at the time of arrest, the conditions of Article 1369/1-(a) of the TCC are met.

Can I arrest another vessel belonging to the debtor?

Yes, if the conditions are met. According to Article 1369/2 of the TCC, other vessels belonging to the debtor at the time of arrest can be arrested if, at the time the claim arose, the debtor was the owner, charterer, demise charterer, or carrier of the vessel on which the maritime claim arose. This paragraph is broader than the first paragraph because it explicitly lists the capacity of a charterer.

What happens if the charterer later buys the vessel?

Article 1369/1-(b) of the TCC precisely regulates this situation: if the person who was the charterer at the time the claim arose is the owner of the vessel at the time of arrest, arrest is possible. Therefore, the dates of ownership changes in the registry and Equasis records should be carefully examined.

Why is Correctly Establishing the Claim Crucial?

There is usually no second chance in a ship arrest. When the ship leaves the port, the claim becomes moot, and it can take months for the debtor to bring the same ship back to a Turkish port. Therefore, it must be clarified which clause the claim will be based on before the petition is drafted.

Our other related works: conditions of TCC Article 1369 in ship arrests, main guide for ship arrest, disputed items in the concept of maritime claim, claims for provisions and fuel supplied to ships, seafarer claims and where to find the ship’s name and IMO number.

2M 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.

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