In maritime trade, a vessel is often not operated by its registered owner. The vessel may be placed with another company under a bareboat / demise charter; carriage is then organised by that company, bills of lading are issued in its name, and cargo damage occurs during its operations. When cargo is damaged, the creditor’s first question is: “Can I keep the vessel that damaged my cargo in port?”

The answer lies in the special regime of the Turkish Commercial Code governing provisional attachment of vessels and cannot be given correctly unless “liability” and “which vessel may be proceeded against” are carefully separated . Below, we examine the statutory provisions, Regional Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation practice, and a frequently encountered misreading, separately from the perspectives of the creditor and the owner.

Contents

1. Why does provisional attachment of vessels differ from general enforcement law?
2. Is cargo damage a maritime claim?
3. Standard of proof in provisional attachment: prima facie proof
4. Who is a bareboat charterer and how does it acquire shipowner status?
5. Liability is one issue, arrest is another: two questions that must be separated
6. TCC Art. 1369/1-b: as a rule, the chartered vessel cannot be arrested
7. How does the legislative reasoning explain this result?
8. What does the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber decision actually say?
9. TCC Art. 1369/2: sister ship (other vessel) arrest
10. Comparison of paragraph one and paragraph two
11. Does the maritime-lien exception apply to cargo damage?
12. Comparative table of judicial decisions
13. Step-by-step roadmap for the creditor
14. Defence lines for the owner and charterer
15. Jurisdiction, security and time limits
16. Seven most common mistakes in practice
17. Conclusion
18. Frequently Asked Questions
19. Why is it important to conduct the process correctly in these cases?
20. Sources and citation warning

1. Why Does Provisional Attachment of Vessels Differ from General Enforcement Law?

For vessels, provisional attachment is governed not by the general provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, but by the special maritime-enforcement provisions of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. This distinction has three practical consequences:

• Provisional attachment may be requested only for maritime claims. A provisional attachment order cannot be issued against a vessel for a claim other than those exhaustively listed (numerus clausus) in TCC Art. 1352.
• The only protective measure is provisional attachment. Under TCC Art. 1353/1, to secure maritime claims, it is not possible to request an interim injunction over the vessel or otherwise prevent the vessel from sailing.
• The fact that a claim is a maritime claim is itself a ground for attachment. TCC Art. 1353/4 treats the fact that the claim is one of the maritime claims listed in Art. 1352 as sufficient in itself for provisional attachment; the general conditions in İİK Art. 257 do not additionally have to be proven.

This framework is consistently repeated in Regional Court of Appeal decisions. In the Bursa Regional Court of Appeal 5th Civil Chamber decision dated 08.03.2024, E. 2024/393, K. 2024/434, and the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 15.09.2022, E. 2022/1499, K. 2022/1128, it was emphasised that provisional attachment of vessels is specially regulated in the TCC, unlike general enforcement law, and may be requested only by maritime claimants for the claims exhaustively listed in Art. 1352. Similarly, the Izmir Regional Court of Appeal 17th Civil Chamber decision dated 02.05.2024, E. 2024/535, K. 2024/939, and the Bursa Regional Court of Appeal 5th Civil Chamber decision dated 21.09.2023, E. 2023/1431, K. 2023/1335, stated that no provisional attachment order may be issued against a vessel for claims other than maritime claims and no interim injunction may be imposed on the vessel for such claims.

2. Is Cargo Damage a Maritime Claim?

Yes. TCC Art. 1352/1 covers this field through two separate subparagraphs:

• Art. 1352/1-(a): loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel,
• Art. 1352/1-(h): loss of or damage to goods, including baggage, carried on board the vessel or relating to such goods.

In the Izmir Regional Court of Appeal 17th Civil Chamber decision dated 23.08.2023, E. 2023/1206, K. 2023/1457, these provisions were expressly cited and it was held that cargo damage qualifies as a maritime claim and that, to secure maritime claims, only provisional attachment of the vessel may be ordered.

Which subparagraph should be relied upon for cargo damage?

As a rule, relying on subparagraph (h) is sufficient; however, if the damage arose from a fault in the operation of the vessel (hatch-cover leakage, improper stowage, dunnage errors, inadequate ventilation), also relying on subparagraph (a) pre-empts the opposing party’s defence that “this is merely a breach of a carriage contract and not a maritime claim”. Relying on both subparagraphs makes it easier for the court to form the necessary conviction at the provisional attachment stage.

3. Standard of Proof in Provisional Attachment: Prima Facie Proof

Under TCC Art. 1362/1, it is sufficient for the creditor to present evidence capable of persuading the court that its claim is one of the maritime claims listed in Art. 1352 and as to its monetary value. Full proof is not required. This standard was expressly stated in the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 43rd Civil Chamber decision dated 21.04.2022, E. 2022/666, K. 2022/487.

Prima facie proof does not mean a “claim without evidence”. Indeed, where survey reports establish that cargo damage did not in fact occur, the attachment request is rejected; the Sakarya Regional Court of Appeal 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 21.02.2022, E. 2022/101, K. 2022/385, is to this effect. In practice, a file capable of persuading the court typically consists of the following documents:

• Bill of lading or sea waybill (together with a clean-on-board record),
• Damage report prepared at discharge, tally report, port/terminal records,
• Independent survey (expert) report and photographs,
• Invoice, packing list, insurance policy and, if available, adjuster’s report,
• Damage notice and protest sent to the carrier/master (TCC Arts. 1184-1185),
• Registry record, ship certificate, port records and agency correspondence showing the bareboat-charter relationship.

4. Who Is a Bareboat Charterer and How Does It Acquire Shipowner Status?

A bareboat / demise charter is a contract under which the vessel is delivered to the charterer without equipment and crew, and both the technical and commercial operation of the vessel passes to the charterer. The master and crew are employed by the charterer, voyage instructions are given by the charterer, and the earnings belong to the charterer.

TCC Art. 1061/2 characterises a person who uses a vessel belonging to another, in its own name and for profit, personally or through the master, as a ship operator and provides that, in its relations with third parties, that person is deemed to be the shipowner . Legal scholarship likewise accepts that the person referred to in this provision is the “operator” deemed to be the shipowner.

Judicial decisions have reached the same conclusion. In the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance decision dated 07.03.2018, E. 2015/614, K. 2018/85, it was stated that a bareboat charterer operating a vessel not owned by it, in its own name for profit, personally or through the master, is deemed to be the shipowner in its relations with third parties.

A bareboat charter must not be confused with a time charter

The most common conceptual error in practice is treating a time charter as if it were a bareboat charter. Under a time charter, the vessel remains under the operation of the shipowner together with its crew; the charterer merely makes use of the vessel’s carrying capacity. In that case, shipowner status does not transfer and the application of TCC Art. 1369 rests on an entirely different basis. What matters is not the title of the contract, but who actually holds the technical and commercial management of the vessel .

5. Liability Is One Issue, Arrest Is Another: Two Questions That Must Be Separated

This is the key point of the article. In cargo-damage files, there are two separate questions, and if they are confused, the petition will either be rejected or create a risk of compensation for wrongful attachment:

A fundamental principle of Turkish enforcement law is that, except in cases involving security interests, one person’s assets cannot be proceeded against for another person’s debt. The vessel belongs to the owner, not to the charterer. If the owner’s vessel were arrested for the charterer’s debt, the vessel would ultimately be sold and a person who is not the debtor would lose ownership. The “ownership” condition in TCC Art. 1369/1-b exists precisely to prevent that result.

6. TCC Art. 1369/1-b: As a Rule, the Chartered Vessel Cannot Be Arrested

TCC Art. 1369/1 makes provisional attachment of a vessel against which a maritime claim is asserted subject to five alternatives:

The structure of subparagraph (b) is surprising at first reading: it refers to the charterer but ultimately requires ownership status. In other words, for the vessel to be arrested for the charterer’s debt, the charterer must by the time of arrest have become the owner of that vessel. This condition is not met while the charter continues.

Settled Regional Court of Appeal practice

In the Sakarya Regional Court of Appeal 7th Civil Chamber decisions dated 28.11.2022, E. 2022/2296, K. 2022/2095, and 28.11.2024, E. 2024/1712, K. 2024/1726, it was stated that, under TCC Art. 1369/1-b, for a provisional attachment order to be issued in respect of a maritime claim, the person who was the charterer when the claim arose must, at the time the provisional attachment is enforced, still be liable for that debt and be the owner of the vessel. In the same Chamber’s decision dated 08.11.2023, E. 2023/2078, K. 2023/1812, it was likewise held that where the person who was the charterer when the claim arose was not the owner on the date of the attachment request, the conditions for provisional attachment were not satisfied.

The same principle was repeated in the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 13th Civil Chamber decision dated 17.11.2021, E. 2021/2073, K. 2021/1650; it was stated that the provision allows provisional attachment where the person who was the owner or charterer when the claim arose is, at the time of attachment, still liable for the debt and is the owner.

The result is the same where ownership changes: in the Adana Regional Court of Appeal 9th Civil Chamber decision dated 26.01.2023, E. 2022/1530, K. 2023/38, it was stated that where the person liable for the debt is not the owner when the attachment is enforced, provisional attachment of the vessel is not possible. If the vessel has been sold to a bona fide third party after the maritime claim arose, the right to provisional attachment cannot be exercised against the new owner.

The Sakarya RCA’s 2024 decision stated that the same principle had also been indicated in decisions of the Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber and cited, by way of example, that Chamber’s judgment E. 2013/9834, K. 2013/14699. It should additionally be noted that this Court of Cassation citation could not be independently verified in open sources and should be confirmed through UYAP before publication or reliance in a petition.

7. How Does the Legislative Reasoning Explain This Result?

The reasoning for TCC Art. 1369 states that the provision was taken from the first and second paragraphs of Article 3 of the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships. The source provision used the phrase “if the owner or charterer of the ship” in subparagraph (b) of its first paragraph. However, under paragraph three of the source provision, provisional attachment of the vessel while under charter for the charterer’s debt is conditional upon forced sale being permissible under national law .

Under Turkish law, except in cases involving security interests, property belonging to another person cannot be sold through forced enforcement for the debt of a third party. The legislature therefore excluded this possibility from the outset and added to subparagraph (b) the condition “if it is the owner of the vessel”. The legislative reasoning expressly states that, under Turkish law, it is not possible to allow provisional attachment of the vessel for the charterer’s debt while the charter continues.

8. What Does the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber Decision Actually Say?

The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 23.12.2021, E. 2021/2175, K. 2021/1668, is frequently cited concerning the shipowner status of a bareboat charterer. The decision stated that the vessels used for cargo carriage were operated by the party against whom provisional attachment was sought (the bareboat charterer) and that, in that situation, under TCC Art. 1061/2 the company operating the vessels under charter agreements was liable to third parties as if it were the shipowner.

This sentence is sometimes read in summaries of the decision as meaning “therefore the vessel chartered by the bareboat charterer may be arrested for cargo damage” . That reading is misleading and conflicts with the settled practice explained in the previous section.

The concrete facts of the decision: the vessel arrested was not the vessel on which the damage arose

In the case underlying the decision, the debtor company carried cargoes using tankers it had taken over under bareboat charters, and shortages/damage occurred to oil cargo during those voyages. The creditor did not arrest those chartered tankers on which the damage occurred, but instead provisionally attached another vessel owned outright by the debtor bareboat charterer itself .

The decision found that, at the time the attachment was enforced, the vessel against which provisional attachment was sought belonged to the opposing party (meaning that the opposing party had shipowner/owner status in relation to that vessel), whereas the claim arising from cargo loss under the carriage contracts concerned arose from carriage performed by other vessels of the opposing party that were not the subject of the request. It therefore concluded that the applicant could seek attachment of the vessel belonging to the opposing party.

In other words, the dispute was resolved not under Art. 1369/1, but within the framework of Art. 1369/2 (provisional attachment of other vessels / sister ships) . The decision does not say “the chartered vessel may be arrested”; it says “because the charterer is liable as if it were the shipowner, another vessel belonging to it may be arrested”.

9. TCC Art. 1369/2: Sister Ship (Other Vessel) Arrest

The provision introduces a two-layer test:

1. Test at the time of arrest: The vessel sought to be arrested must, at the time the attachment is enforced, belong to the person liable for the maritime claim.
2. Test at the time the claim arose: When the claim arose, that person must have had the status of owner, charterer, allottee or contracting carrier in relation to the vessel on which the maritime claim arose.

For a bareboat charterer, the picture is as follows: on the vessel where the cargo damage arose, it has the status of charterer (the second test is met). If it owns another vessel, that vessel belongs to it at the time of arrest (the first test is met). Accordingly, that other vessel may be provisionally attached.

Caution: “sister ship” means ownership, not fleet

Under Turkish law, the concept of a sister ship does not refer to vessels carrying the same commercial brand or listed on the same group website, but to vessels owned by the debtor . Since it is common in maritime trade to establish a separate one-ship company for each vessel, proceeding against a “sister” ship registered in the name of a different company often requires a discussion of piercing the corporate veil. This is a difficult threshold to overcome through prima facie proof at the provisional attachment stage and should be supported by concrete evidence such as registry records, ownership structure, common address/director/ISM manager.

In addition, under TCC Art. 1369/3, in disputes concerning ownership or possession of a vessel, provisional attachment may be ordered only against the vessel that is the subject of that dispute; a sister ship cannot be proceeded against in such a case.

10. Comparison of Paragraph One and Paragraph Two

11. Does the Maritime-Lien Exception Apply to Cargo Damage?

TCC Art. 1369/1-(e) opens an important route: if the claim gives rise to a maritime lien under TCC Art. 1320, it is not necessary for the debtor to be the owner. This is because a maritime lien creates a statutory security right over the vessel and follows the vessel regardless of who operates it. Legal scholarship likewise states that provisional attachment may be enforced against the vessel for a maritime lien even where the debtor is a charterer, manager or operator rather than the owner.

However, this route is closed for pure cargo-damage claims. When TCC Art. 1320/1-(e) lists the loss and damage items giving rise to a maritime lien, it expressly excludes claims arising from loss of or damage to cargo (goods) carried on board. Thus, cargo damage is a maritime claim under Art. 1352/1-(h) (so attachment may be requested), but it does not give rise to a maritime lien within the meaning of Art. 1320 (so no statutory security right arises over the vessel for the debt of a charterer who is not the owner).

12. Comparative Table of Judicial Decisions

13. Step-by-Step Roadmap for the Creditor

Step 1 — Determine the vessel’s actual operating structure

Who is the carrier on the bill of lading? Who is the registered owner? On whose behalf were agency services obtained? Which company appears in the harbour-master and customs records? The alleged bareboat-charter relationship should be supported by these documents. Registry and classification-society research using the vessel name and IMO number forms the backbone of this stage.

Step 2 — Characterise each item of claim separately

Does the file contain only cargo damage, or are there also items that may fall within Art. 1320? This characterisation determines which vessel may be proceeded against.

Step 3 — Select the target vessel

Has the charterer become the owner of the vessel on which the damage arose? If so, the route under Art. 1369/1-b is open. If not, another vessel owned by the charterer should be identified and the route under Art. 1369/2 should be used.

Step 4 — Base the petition on the correct provision

In a sister-ship request, the petition should separately and clearly satisfy both tests under Art. 1369/2: (i) that the vessel belongs to the debtor at the time of arrest, and (ii) that when the claim arose the debtor had charterer status in relation to the original vessel. A petition inviting the court to take the shortcut “the charterer is liable, therefore arrest the vessel” creates its own risk of rejection.

Step 5 — Prepare the security and enforcement timetable

No order can be obtained without security; and after the order is obtained, the request for enforcement is subject to a very short time limit. This timetable is addressed separately below.

14. Defence Lines for the Owner and Charterer

For an owner whose vessel has been arrested because of the charterer’s debt, the first and strongest defence is the wording of TCC Art. 1369/1-b. Typical objections in the file are:

• Absence of ownership status: The debtor charterer is not the owner of the vessel at the time of arrest; the registry record proves this. Since the condition is not satisfied, the attachment must be lifted.
• Absence of a maritime lien: The claim arises from cargo damage; because TCC Art. 1320/1-(e) excludes this item, the exception in Art. 1369/1-(e) does not apply.
• Objection to characterisation of status: The contract is not a bareboat charter but a time charter or slot agreement; the debtor never acquired shipowner status.
• Absence of a maritime claim: The claim does not arise from breach of the carriage contract but merely from a commercial current-account relationship.
• Failure to meet the prima facie proof standard: The survey report does not confirm the damage; the damage resulted from handling after discharge.
• Objections concerning security and time limits: Security was not deposited, increased security was not completed in time, or the enforcement period was missed.
• Compensation for wrongful attachment: If the attachment is lifted, compensation for loss suffered may be claimed under TCC Art. 1361; lost freight and expenses during the period the vessel remained detained may be considered within this scope.

For a bareboat charterer whose sister ship has been arrested, the defence rests on a different axis: whether it truly had the status of charterer/allottee/contracting carrier in relation to the original vessel when the claim arose, and whether the arrested vessel actually belongs to the debtor. If the vessel belongs to another legal entity, it may be argued that the conditions for piercing the corporate veil have not been established even on a prima facie basis at the provisional attachment stage.

15. Jurisdiction, Security and Time Limits

16. Seven Most Common Mistakes in Practice

1. Equating liability with arrest. The reasoning “the charterer is liable as if it were the shipowner, therefore the vessel may be arrested” bypasses Art. 1369.
2. Treating the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber decision as a decision concerning the original vessel. The decision concerns a sister ship; a petition using the citation otherwise gives the opposing party an easy target.
3. Treating a time charter as a bareboat charter. If the status is characterised incorrectly, both the proper-party analysis and the arrest request collapse.
4. Confusing Art. 1320 with Art. 1352. Cargo damage is a maritime claim but does not give rise to a maritime lien; they are different statutory lists.
5. Selecting a sister ship based on commercial branding. A vessel registered in the name of another legal entity is not treated as the debtor’s vessel unless piercing the corporate veil is established.
6. Missing the three-business-day enforcement period. Even if an order has been obtained, it automatically lapses if enforcement is not requested in time.
7. Identifying the vessel incompletely. The vessel name, IMO number, flag and registry information must be stated without leaving room for doubt.

17. Conclusion

Cargo damage occurring during a voyage performed by a bareboat charterer constitutes a maritime claim under TCC Art. 1352/1-(h), and the charterer is personally liable to third parties for that damage as if it were the shipowner under TCC Art. 1061/2. However, which vessel may be arrested for that debt is a separate question, answered by TCC Art. 1369:

• As to the original chartered vessel: According to the settled case law adopted by the Sakarya RCA 7th Civil Chamber and Istanbul RCA 13th Civil Chamber, under Art. 1369/1-b the person who was the charterer when the debt arose must, on the date of arrest, both remain liable for the debt and have acquired ownership of the vessel. If the charterer is not the owner, a provisional attachment order cannot be issued against the vessel belonging to the third-party owner.
• As to other vessels owned by the charterer: Because the bareboat charterer is personally liable for cargo damage under Art. 1061/2, the creditor may provisionally attach other vessels actually owned by that debtor under Art. 1369/2. This is also what the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal 14th Civil Chamber accepted in its decision dated 23.12.2021.

In short, reading that decision as meaning “the vessel chartered by the bareboat charterer may be arrested” is misleading. What the decision accepts is that, because of the charterer’s debt, another vessel owned by the charterer itself may be provisionally attached. This distinction determines the fate of the file.

18. Frequently Asked Questions

Can the vessel chartered by a bareboat charterer be arrested for the charterer’s debt?

As a rule, no. TCC Art. 1369/1-b requires the person who was the charterer when the claim arose to remain liable for the debt at the time of arrest and to be the owner of the vessel . While the charter continues, this condition is not met, so the vessel belonging to the third-party owner cannot be arrested.

What can the creditor do instead?

If the debtor charterer owns another vessel, that vessel (a sister ship) may be provisionally attached under TCC Art. 1369/2. For the debtor’s assets other than vessels, provisional attachment may be requested under the general provisions of the İİK.

Does cargo damage give rise to a maritime lien?

No. TCC Art. 1320/1-(e) excludes claims arising from loss of or damage to goods carried on board from the items giving rise to maritime liens. Therefore, the chartered vessel cannot be proceeded against by relying on the exception in Art. 1369/1-(e).

What happens if the charterer buys the vessel after the damage?

In that case, the condition in Art. 1369/1-b is satisfied: the person who was the charterer when the claim arose is, at the time of arrest, both liable for the debt and the owner of the vessel. The vessel may be provisionally attached.

Can the vessel be arrested if it is sold to a third party after the damage?

As a rule, no. Where the person liable for the debt is not the owner at the time the attachment is enforced, the vessel cannot be provisionally attached; the Adana RCA 9th Civil Chamber decision dated 26.01.2023 is to this effect. The exception is where the claim gives rise to a maritime lien.

Is it enough that a vessel is in the same fleet for sister-ship arrest?

No. The criterion is ownership: at the time of arrest, the vessel must belong to the person liable for the debt. If the registry shows a separate one-ship company, piercing the corporate veil becomes relevant and must be established on a prima facie basis at the provisional attachment stage.

Do I have to prove cargo damage conclusively?

No. Under TCC Art. 1362/1, prima facie proof is sufficient; evidence capable of persuading the court that the claim is a maritime claim and as to its monetary value is required. However, requests are rejected where the survey report does not confirm the damage.

Does a foreign court or arbitration clause in the bill of lading prevent attachment?

No. Under TCC Art. 1356, a foreign-jurisdiction or arbitration clause does not remove the Turkish court’s jurisdiction to order provisional attachment. While jurisdiction on the merits is being debated, the vessel may still be arrested in Türkiye.

How much time do I have after obtaining an attachment order?

Under TCC Art. 1364, enforcement of the order must be requested within three business days; otherwise the order automatically lapses. In addition, under TCC Art. 1376, the periods in İİK Art. 264 are applied as one month for maritime claims.

Do I also need to request that the vessel be prevented from sailing?

No. According to the Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber decision dated 11.01.2023, E. 2022/7101 – K. 2023/76, preventing the vessel from sailing is a natural consequence of provisional attachment and is implemented by the enforcement office; it is not the subject of a separate request.

What is my liability if the attachment turns out to be wrongful?

Under TCC Art. 1361, compensation may be claimed for damage arising from wrongful provisional attachment. Since lost income and expenses incurred while the vessel remains detained can reach significant amounts, structuring the file correctly from the outset is economically decisive as well.

Can the vessel be released against security?

Yes. Under TCC Art. 1370 et seq., the vessel may be released upon provision of sufficient security, and providing security does not constitute admission of the debt. In practice, a bank guarantee or a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) issued by a P&I club is used; the scope and wording of the security are matters for negotiation.

19. Why Is It Important to Conduct the Process Correctly in These Cases?

The margin for error in provisional-attachment files involving vessels is extremely narrow. The time before an order is obtained is measured in hours, the enforcement period is three business days, no result can be obtained without depositing security, and a request directed at the wrong vessel may give rise to compensation liability. On the opposing side there is often a foreign shipowner, a P&I club and an experienced legal team.

Work that must be carried out for the creditor

• Documenting the vessel’s flag, registry, IMO number and actual operating structure,
• Characterising which subparagraph of Art. 1352 the claim falls under and whether it comes within Art. 1320,
• Determining whether Art. 1369/1 or Art. 1369/2 applies and structuring the petition directly under that provision,
• Preparing security, coordinating enforcement with the enforcement office and commencing enforcement proceedings or an action within the applicable period.

Work that must be carried out for the owner and operator

• Establishing that the conditions of Art. 1369 are not met in order to lift the attachment,
• Conducting release-against-security negotiations quickly,
• Documenting losses caused by the detention period in preparation for a wrongful-attachment compensation claim.

Regional concentration: Tuzla, Gebze and Marmara ports

A significant proportion of vessel provisional-attachment files in Türkiye arise in ports in the Marmara Region. The Tuzla shipyards area, Pendik, Kartal and Maltepe coastline; on the Kocaeli side, Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca, Körfez, İzmit and Başiskele; and the Ambarlı, Haydarpaşa and Yalova corridor all have intensive cargo and repair traffic. The place where cargo is discharged, damage is identified and the vessel is detained is often in this region; under TCC Art. 1355, for a foreign-flagged vessel, the competent court is also the court of the place where the vessel is physically located.

2M Law Firm, from its office in Tuzla, follows maritime-trade disputes along Istanbul’s Anatolian Side and the Kocaeli corridor; it acts for both creditors and owners/operators in matters involving provisional attachment of vessels, cargo damage and recourse, freight and demurrage, seafarer claims, and claims for provisions/fuel supplied to vessels. For detailed information, see our provisional attachment of vessels page and our maritime-law articles .

Related Articles

• Provisional attachment of vessels: conditions and general framework
• Provisional attachment of vessels and maritime claims
• How is a petition for provisional attachment of a vessel prepared?
• Disputed items within the concept of maritime claims
• Who is liable for cargo damaged during loading and discharge?
• Freight contracts and carrier liability
• Where can the vessel name and IMO number be found?
• How are unpaid marina and berth/mooring fees collected?

20. Sources and Citation Warning

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Arts. 1061, 1320, 1352, 1353, 1354-1356, 1361-1364, 1366, 1369-1376 — official text at mevzuat.gov.tr
• Legislative reasoning for TCC Art. 1369 (compared with Article 3 of the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships)
• Sami Aksoy, “Deniz Alacaklarına Dair Türk Ticaret Kanununun 1352. Maddesi Hakkında Bir Eleştiri”, BATİDER, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2018 (section concerning proceeding against the claim vessel or a sister ship for the charterer’s debt)
• Mehmet Ali Aksoy, “Gemilerin İhtiyati Haczi”, Turkish Bar Association Journal
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, 11.01.2023, E. 2022/7101, K. 2023/76 (prevention of sailing is a natural consequence of provisional attachment)
• The Regional Court of Appeal decisions cited in the text and the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance decision dated 07.03.2018