Legal remedies and collection methods that can be resorted to in cases where ship or yacht owners fail to pay dock, marina, or port mooring/rental fees are presented below, categorized in light of reviewed court decisions:

1. Summary Enforcement Proceeding and Lawsuit for Annulment of Objection 

The most frequently resorted method in court decisions is initiating a summary enforcement proceeding via general attachment for unpaid rent and service fees.

Process: The marina or dock operator initiates enforcement proceedings before the enforcement office based on unpaid invoices or current account receivables. If the debtor (shipowner, yacht owner, or operator) objects to the proceeding, a lawsuit for “Annulment of Objection” is filed by the creditor.

Specific Examples:

İzmir Regional Court of Justice 17th Civil Chamber (2017/2092 K): The objection to the enforcement proceeding initiated against the boat owner who failed to pay the mooring fee at Torba Fishermen’s Shelter was annulled, and due to the liquidity of the receivable, 20% enforcement denial compensation was awarded.

Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (2023/532 K): The marina operator won the lawsuit filed after an objection was raised against the enforcement proceeding it initiated for dry dock and mooring fee receivables; the court decided to continue the proceeding based on commercial ledgers and marina records.

Antalya 3rd Civil Court of Commerce (2018/349 K): In the enforcement proceedings initiated by the marina operator, the debtor made a payment during the litigation phase, yet the court still ruled for execution denial compensation.

2. Right of Retention and Conversion of Pledge into Money 

Dock or marina operators can exercise a right of retention over the boat for unpaid debts and convert this right into enforcement proceedings by way of converting the pledge into money.

Application: The operator may detain the boat in accordance with Article 950 of the Turkish Civil Code or Article 580 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

Concrete Examples:

Istanbul Anatolian 3rd Civil Court of Commerce (2015/1238 K): It was observed that the marina operator actually exercised a right of retention over the boat and subsequently initiated enforcement proceedings “by way of converting the movable pledge into money.”

Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of Commerce (2024/61): Enforcement proceedings were initiated based on a right of retention for a storage fee debt, by way of registering a pledge and converting it into money.

Point to Note: The 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2018/1065 ) stated that for the right of retention to be exercised, possession must have been transferred with the debtor’s consent and the debt must be due. Detaining a boat based on regulation provisions without fulfilling legal conditions may be considered “abuse of right.”

3. Maritime Claim and Provisional Attachment (Secondary Source Data) 

In secondary source decisions, the nature of “maritime claim” for pier and port fees is emphasized.

Nature of Maritime Claim: Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 37th Civil Chamber (2023/776 K), stated that the monies to be paid for port, pier, and quay are a “maritime claim” in accordance with Article 1352/1-l of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) and that disputes should be heard in Maritime Specialization Courts.

Provisional Attachment: In the decisions of Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 13th Civil Chamber (2020/1838 ) and Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 14th Civil Chamber (2024/576 K), it is exemplified that a decision for “provisional attachment” can be obtained on the vessel for the collection of maritime claims, that this attachment may result in the vessel being prohibited from sailing, and that the debtor may have to deposit cash collateral to lift the attachment.

4. Identification of Responsible Persons and Joint and Several Liability 

In the collection of the claim, not only the shipowner (operator) but also the agent or captain, depending on the situation, can be addressed as parties.

Agent’s Liability: The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2009/3587 ), ruled that agents handling business in the port, in accordance with the port services tariff, are “jointly and severally” liable along with the shipowner (operator).

Captain’s Responsibility: Bursa 1st Civil Court of Commerce (2019/908 Decision) has ruled that the captain can be held jointly liable with the yacht owners for mooring fees, in accordance with the captain’s authority to represent the shipowner and port regulations.

5. Other Collection and Intervention Methods

Direct Bankruptcy Petition: In the Istanbul 2nd Civil Court of Commerce case (2023/702), there is an example where, upon non-payment of rent and the futility of enforcement proceedings, the direct bankruptcy of the debtor company was requested in accordance with Article 177/2 of the EBL.

Unlawful Occupation and Vessel Removal (Secondary Source): The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision (2012/2086 Decision), stated that a lawsuit for “unlawful occupation” (ecr-i misil) can be filed for vessels that do not vacate the pier despite their term having expired, that the vessel can be towed to another location by means of a tugboat (towing cost), and that these costs can be collected from the shipowner.

Arbitration (Secondary Source): The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2014/4806 Decision) indicated that if an arbitration clause is present in the contract, the dispute may need to be resolved in international arbitration centers (e.g., the London Maritime Arbitrators Association).

Competent Court: In general, it is accepted that Specialized Maritime Courts (or Commercial Courts of First Instance in this capacity) are competent for disputes arising from maritime trade. However, in some decisions, such as Ankara 13th Commercial Court of First Instance (2024/398), non-jurisdiction decisions have been rendered, indicating that Civil Courts of Peace might be competent if the dispute is characterized as a pure lease agreement.

In conclusion; the methods accepted in concrete judicial practices against a yacht owner who does not pay the pier rent include, primarily, sending a notice through a notary, then initiating a debt collection procedure without a judgment (summary execution), in case of objection, filing an annulment of objection lawsuit, or resorting to provisional attachment/lien rights by emphasizing the nature of a ship’s claim.

Marina veya iskele bağlama bedeli ödenmezse ilk hangi yol izlenir?

Uygulamada en hızlı ve etkili yol, genel haciz yoluyla ilamsız icra takibi başlatmaktır. Ödenmeyen faturalar veya cari hesap alacağı dayanak gösterilir. Borçlu itiraz ederse, alacaklı itirazın iptali davası açarak takibin devamını ve şartları varsa %20 icra inkâr tazminatını talep edebilir.

Marina işletmecisi tekneyi alıkoyabilir mi (hapis hakkı)?

Evet, şartları varsa. Alacak muaccel olmalı ve teknenin zilyetliği borçlunun rızasıyla işletmeciye geçmiş olmalıdır. Aksi halde keyfi alıkoyma “hakkın kötüye kullanılması” sayılabilir. Hapis hakkı sonrasında rehnin paraya çevrilmesi yoluyla icra takibi yapılabilir.

Bağlama ve liman ücretleri “deniz alacağı” sayılır mı, gemiye haciz konulabilir mi?

Yargı uygulamasında bu bedeller çoğunlukla deniz alacağı kabul edilmektedir. Bu nitelik sayesinde ihtiyati haciz istenebilir; haciz geminin seferden men edilmesine yol açabilir ve borçlu haczi kaldırmak için nakit teminat yatırmak zorunda kalabilir.

Sadece gemi/yat sahibi mi sorumludur, acenta veya kaptan da sorumlu olur mu?

Somut olaya göre müteselsil sorumluluk doğabilir. Liman tarifeleri ve temsil ilişkisi kapsamında acenta, donatanla birlikte sorumlu tutulabilir. Kaptan da, temsil yetkisi ve liman düzenlemeleri gereği bağlama ücretlerinden sorumlu kabul edilebilir.

İskele / Liman / Yanaşma Hizmeti Sözleşmesinden Doğan Alacaklarda Görevli Mahkeme Hangisidir?

Gemilere iskeleye yanaşma, liman veya rıhtım kullanım hizmeti verilmesinden doğan alacaklar, 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.1352/1-n uyarınca deniz alacağıdır. Bu alacaklar; sözleşme hukuku kapsamında bir hizmet sözleşmesine dayanıyor olsa dahi, deniz alacağı niteliği baskın olduğundan, uyuşmazlığın çözümü Denizcilik İhtisas Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinin görev alanına girer.
Bu nedenle; İskele hizmet bedelinin tahsiline yönelik itirazın iptali davaları,
Taraflar arasındaki ilişki “hizmet sözleşmesi” olarak adlandırılsa bile,
Gemilere fiilen verilen yanaşma/liman hizmetinden kaynaklanıyorsa
genel asliye ticaret veya asliye hukuk mahkemelerinde değil, deniz ticaretine özgülenmiş ihtisas mahkemelerinde görülmelidir.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Marina, pier, and port receivables, unlike a regular rental receivable, involve highly technical legal aspects such as maritime claim nature, provisional attachment, right of lien, foreclosure of pledge, joint and several liability, and the correct determination of the competent court (Specialized Maritime Court, Commercial Court of First Instance, or Civil Court of Peace). An incorrectly initiated enforcement proceeding, a lawsuit filed in the wrong court, or insufficient evidence can delay the collection of the receivable for months, and in some cases, can also lead to irreversible loss of rights.

Especially in areas with heavy maritime traffic, such as Istanbul marinas and ports (Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Ataköy, Kalamış, Ambarlı, and their surroundings), factors such as frequent changes in yacht and ship ownership, foreign elements, and agent and captain responsibility make the process even more complex. Therefore, it is of vital importance that the collection strategy is structured using the correct legal instruments, in accordance with current Supreme Court and Regional Court of Appeals precedents.

At this point, 2M Hukuk Law Office, based in Istanbul Tuzla, with its maritime commercial law experience regarding marina and port receivables, ensures that the receivable is collected in the fastest and most effective way, that precautionary attachment and security mechanisms are activated when necessary, and that the process is carried out from beginning to end without loss of rights. In marina and port receivables, it is not possible to obtain a result unless the right step is taken at the right time; therefore, expert lawyer support is not a preference, but a necessity.