Contents

1. Why doesn’t the carrier pay the whole loss?
2. Which limit applies to which mode of carriage?
3. How is the sea limit calculated: 666.67 SDR or 2 SDR?
4. Where and when is the value of the goods assessed?
5. Is a container one package, or is each carton inside it separate?
6. What does the carrier pay for delay: what is the 2.5 times freight cap?
7. When does limitation fall away altogether?
8. Can the parties change the limit by contract?
9. Can the shipowner limit globally by tonnage? (LLMC)
10. How do the SDR regimes compare across modes?
11. How do the courts apply the 8.33 SDR road limit?
12. Is the air cargo limit still 19 or 22 SDR?
13. Which date governs the SDR exchange rate?
14. How many days do you have to give notice of damage?
15. How long do you have to bring the claim?
16. Which documents must be gathered before filing?
17. Frequently asked questions
18. Why running these files correctly matters

Why doesn’t the carrier pay the whole loss?

When cargo arrives damaged and the invoice figure is on the table, cargo interests naturally expect full recovery. Transport law does not work that way. A carrier’s liability for loss of, damage to or delay in delivery of the goods is not, as a rule, unlimited: it is subject to ceilings expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) under both domestic and international instruments.

Two consequences follow. First, the limit is a ceiling, not a payment: if the actual loss is below it, the actual loss is awarded. Second, the ceiling is a calculable figure and must be calculated before proceedings are issued — otherwise court fees are paid on a sum that will never be recovered.

Which limit applies to which mode of carriage?

The general regime for contracts of carriage of goods and the maritime regime differ materially in their unit of account, ceilings and conversion dates.

• General carriage of goods (road): under Article 882 TCC the limit is 8.33 SDR per kilogramme of the gross weight of the consignment.
• Carriage of goods by sea (contracts of affreightment): Article 1186 TCC lays down a dual limit — 666.67 SDR per package or unit, or 2 SDR per kilogramme of gross weight.
• Global limitation in maritime trade: by reference in Articles 1328 and 1329 TCC, the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) and its 1996 Protocol allow a global limitation based on the ship’s tonnage, and they apply even where the dispute has no foreign element.

Article 1186 TCC mirrors the liability ceilings familiar from the Hague/Visby Rules, which makes the Turkish framework recognisable to foreign parties and their P&I clubs.

How is the sea limit calculated: 666.67 SDR or 2 SDR?

Article 1186/1 TCC provides:

The calculation runs in four steps:

• Package/unit calculation: the number of packages or units lost or damaged is multiplied by 666.67 SDR.
• Weight calculation: the gross weight in kilogrammes of the goods lost or damaged is multiplied by 2 SDR.
• The applicable ceiling: the two figures are compared and the higher one is taken as the limit — that is, the figure more favourable to the claimant.
• Conversion: unlike general carriage, where the date of delivery governs, the SDR rate is the Central Bank rate on the day of actual payment (or such other date as agreed).

In practice, heavy cargo in few packages produces a higher figure on the weight basis, while light cargo in many packages produces a higher figure on the package basis. The value of a claim cannot be assessed without running both.

Where and when is the value of the goods assessed?

Article 1186/2 TCC provides that the total compensation payable by the carrier is calculated by reference to the value of the goods at the place and on the day at which they were, or should have been, discharged from the ship in accordance with the contract of affreightment. The value is fixed according to the commodity exchange price, or, if there is no such price, according to the current market price, or, in the absence of both, by reference to the normal value of goods of the same nature and quality.

So the court first establishes the actual loss at the place and date of discharge. If that figure is below the statutory ceiling, the actual loss is awarded; if it exceeds the ceiling, the limitation figure under Article 1186/1 applies. The commercial invoice alone is not decisive.

Is a container one package, or is each carton inside it separate?

This is the single technical point that moves the figure most in maritime cargo claims. Article 1186/3 TCC provides that where goods are consolidated in a container, pallet or similar article of transport, each package or unit enumerated in the sea waybill as packed in that article of transport is deemed a separate package or unit; otherwise the article of transport itself is deemed a single package or unit. Where the article of transport is itself lost or damaged it counts as a separate package, unless it is owned or supplied by the carrier.

If the bill of lading enumerates the cartons inside the container, the 666.67 SDR calculation runs on the number of cartons. If it does not, the whole container is one unit. In a container holding 500 cartons that distinction moves the ceiling between 666.67 SDR and 333,335 SDR — a difference no subsequent legal work can recover.

What does the carrier pay for delay: what is the 2.5 times freight cap?

Under Article 1186/6 and /7 TCC, the carrier’s liability for exceeding the period of carriage is limited to two and a half times the freight payable for the delayed goods, and that amount may not exceed the total freight payable under the contract of affreightment. Where paragraphs one and six apply together, the carrier’s aggregate liability may not exceed the amount for which it would be liable under paragraph one in case of total loss of the goods.

Commercial losses from delay are usually many times the freight; the ceiling nevertheless tracks the freight. Where delay also caused physical loss or damage, the loss-and-damage limits apply instead.

When does limitation fall away altogether?

Declaration of value and false declaration

Where the shipper declares the nature and value of the goods before shipment and has them inserted in the transport document, limitation does not apply. But Article 1186/5 TCC provides that if the shipper has knowingly misstated the nature or value of the goods, the carrier is not liable at all for loss of or damage to the goods. The provision cuts both ways: an accurate declaration removes the ceiling, a deliberate false declaration removes liability.

Intent or recklessness

Article 1187/1 and /2 TCC provide that where it is proved that the loss or the delay in delivery resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause such loss or delay, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or delay would probably result, the carrier cannot rely on the limits in Article 1186. The same applies to the carrier’s servants and agents, who cannot invoke those limits through Article 1190/2 either.

The threshold is high in practice. As the decisions below show, the courts preserve limitation in cases of ordinary negligence and require concrete evidence of intent or recklessness. Moreover, under Article 1190 TCC the defences and limits apply equally to claims brought against the carrier in tort — re-pleading the claim in tort is not a route around the ceiling.

Can the parties change the limit by contract?

Yes, upwards. Under Article 1186/8 TCC the parties may increase the limits by a clause in the contract of carriage, in which case the agreed figure becomes the limit. In practice carriers are also found to have waived limitation entirely:

The decision shows that the contract wording matters as much as the ceiling. On high-value shipments, an ad valorem declaration against additional freight, or a waiver clause, changes the value of the claim completely.

Can the shipowner limit globally by tonnage? (LLMC)

Alongside package limitation, maritime law allows global limitation by reference to the ship’s tonnage. Article 1328/1 TCC provides that liability arising from maritime claims may be limited in accordance with the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, published in the Official Gazette of 4 June 1980 No. 17007, and the Protocol of 2 May 1996 amending it, or such international conventions as may replace them and be accepted by the Republic of Türkiye. Article 1329 TCC extends that rule to disputes with no foreign element within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure.

The limits rose in 2015 — do not use the old table

The limits under the 1996 Protocol were increased by roughly 51% by the IMO Legal Committee in 2012 (Resolution LEG.5(99)), and the new figures took effect on 8 June 2015:

The Turkish maritime administration circulated the amendment and required P&I cover for ships calling at or leaving port facilities in Turkish maritime jurisdiction to match the new limits. A fund calculation based on the pre-2015 table is simply wrong today.

An example from practice

The decision is instructive because it shows that in major casualties proof of fault is more decisive than the limitation fund itself.

How do the SDR regimes compare across modes?

Four rows mean four different calculations. On a multimodal shipment the sea leg and the road leg are subject to different ceilings, so establishing at which stage the damage occurred directly determines the recovery.

How do the courts apply the 8.33 SDR road limit?

Domestic carriage (TCC Articles 882 and 886)

International carriage under CMR

Is the air cargo limit still 19 or 22 SDR?

Which date governs the SDR exchange rate?

Same loss, same ceiling, different conversion date — and a different outcome:

• Sea (Article 1186/1 TCC): the Central Bank rate on the day of actual payment, or such other date as agreed. The delivery-date rule applicable to road carriage does not apply at sea.
• Domestic road (Article 882/4 TCC): the date the goods were handed over to the carrier.
• CMR (Article 23/7): conversion into the national currency of the forum at the rate current at the date of judgment or as agreed between the parties.
• Montreal (Article 23): the rate at the date of judgment.

Given the depreciation of the Turkish Lira, this is not an academic distinction. In a long-running maritime case the “day of actual payment” rule works markedly in the claimant’s favour, while in a road case the handover-date rate pulls the ceiling down. The claim should therefore be pleaded in SDR, with the conversion date expressly stated.

How many days do you have to give notice of damage?

This step comes before the ceiling calculation. Failure to give notice in time does not always destroy the claim, but it shifts the burden of proof in the carrier’s favour and seriously weakens the file.

Under Article 1185/2 TCC no notice is required where the goods have been jointly surveyed by the court, a competent authority or officially appointed experts with the parties present. The safest course in practice is a delivery receipt claused at the moment of delivery together with a simultaneous call for a surveyor.

How long do you have to bring the claim?

• Sea: claims against the carrier are as a rule subject to a one-year limitation period, running from delivery of the goods or, in case of total loss, from the date on which they should have been delivered.
• Road (Article 855 TCC): one year as a rule; three years where the loss was caused intentionally or recklessly and with knowledge that it would probably result.
• CMR (Article 32): one year; three years in case of wilful misconduct or equivalent default.
• Montreal (Article 35): a two-year period of extinction which is not suspended or interrupted.

Because the starting point and the applicable regime depend on the transport documents, both should be verified separately in every file.

Which documents must be gathered before filing?

• Bill of lading / CMR consignment note / air waybill — in particular whether the number of cartons inside the container is enumerated
• Commercial invoice, packing list and gross/net weight breakdown (the ceiling cannot be calculated without them)
• Delivery receipt, clausing, container interchange report and seal records
• Survey report and photographs; ideally a joint survey with the parties present
• The contract of carriage and the reverse-side terms of the bill of lading — is there a waiver or an ad valorem declaration?
• Freight invoice (essential in delay claims, where the ceiling tracks the freight)
• Insurance policy and any subrogation documents
• Correspondence: the date of the damage notice and the person to whom it was addressed

Frequently asked questions

The carrier says its liability is capped in SDR. Is it still worth suing?

Usually yes. The cap is a ceiling: if your actual loss is below it, the whole loss is recoverable. And the ceiling itself may be far higher than the carrier suggests if the cartons are enumerated in the bill of lading, if the weight basis exceeds the package basis, or if the carrier has waived limitation.

Is the SDR calculation done even where the actual loss is below the cap?

It is done, but it does not change the result. The court first establishes the actual loss at the place and date of discharge; if that is below the ceiling, the actual loss is awarded. The ceiling bites only when the loss exceeds it.

What if the number of cartons in the container is not stated in the bill of lading?

Under Article 1186/3 TCC the container counts as a single package or unit. The package basis then stops at 666.67 SDR and the weight basis (2 SDR per kg) is usually the higher of the two — and the higher figure applies.

Can I escape limitation by suing in tort?

No. Under Article 1190 TCC the defences and limits of liability apply equally to claims brought against the carrier in tort for loss of, damage to or delay in delivery of the goods.

Does gross fault break the limit?

At sea and on the road the test is not gross fault but intent or recklessness with knowledge that loss would probably result (TCC Articles 1187 and 886; CMR Article 29). In air cargo the limit is absolute: the courts hold that it cannot be broken even for gross fault.

Has the air cargo limit really become 26 SDR?

Yes. Following ICAO’s five-yearly review the cargo limit rose from 22 to 26 SDR per kilogramme with effect from 28 December 2024. For earlier carriage the limit in force at the time — 19 or 22 SDR — applies.

My delay loss is many times the freight. Can I recover it in full?

Not at sea. The carrier’s liability for delay is limited to two and a half times the freight payable for the delayed goods and cannot exceed the total freight. If the delay also caused loss or damage, the loss-and-damage limits apply.

Is an ad valorem declaration worth the extra freight?

Where the nature and value are declared before shipment and inserted in the transport document, limitation does not apply. For high-value, low-weight cargo — electronics, spare parts, pharmaceuticals — the cost of declaring is usually small against the gap between the ceiling and the actual loss. But a knowingly false declaration removes the carrier’s liability altogether under Article 1186/5 TCC.

There was a fire on board and the owner has constituted a fund. What happens to my claim?

The shipowner may limit globally by tonnage under LLMC and the 1996 Protocol through Articles 1328 and 1329 TCC, in which case claimants share rateably in the fund. The limits rose by roughly 51% on 8 June 2015. Proof of fault tends to be decisive in these files.

Which regime applies to multimodal carriage?

As a rule, the regime governing the leg on which the damage occurred. Where that cannot be established, the contract terms and transport documents govern. Leg-by-leg delivery receipts and container interchange reports are therefore critical.

Why running these files correctly matters

Cargo claims turn on the correct calculation before they turn on legal argument. A handful of technical choices decide the outcome:

• Which regime applies (Article 882 or 1186 TCC, CMR or Montreal) moves the ceiling between 8.33 SDR and 666.67 SDR.
• Whether the container contents are enumerated in the bill of lading can move the ceiling by a factor of hundreds.
• Choosing the wrong conversion date turns a correctly calculated ceiling into an under-pleaded claim.
• Missing the notice deadline shifts the burden of proof to the carrier’s advantage.
• Limitation and extinction periods differ by regime; the two-year Montreal period is neither suspended nor interrupted.
• Unless intent or recklessness is supported by concrete evidence the ceiling stands, so building the claim on that allegation alone is a risky choice.
• Failing to plead the sum in SDR with the correct conversion date, or to reserve rights as to the excess, costs recovery.

Where these disputes concentrate in and around Istanbul

Cargo damage and carriage claims cluster along the port, shipyard and logistics corridors of Istanbul. On the Anatolian side the shipyards, warehouses and logistics facilities of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Sultanbeyli and Beykoz; on the European side the Ambarlı belt with Avcılar, Beylikdüzü, Küçükçekmece, Zeytinburnu, Bakırköy and Başakşehir; and for air cargo the areas around Arnavutköy (Istanbul Airport) and Pendik (Sabiha Gökçen). In Kocaeli, the ports and organised industrial zones of Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca and Körfez account for a significant share of these files.

The type of dispute varies with the location: container terminals generate arguments about package enumeration and bill of lading particulars; bulk and project cargo about discharge method and stevedoring fault; air cargo about temperature chain and the number of packages. In all three, what decides the case is whether the damage was properly documented at the moment of delivery.

Sources and legislation

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 — Articles 855, 879, 880-883, 886, 889, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1190, 1328, 1329 (mevzuat.gov.tr)
• 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) and the Protocol of 2 May 1996; the 2012 amendments to the Protocol (IMO Legal Committee, Resolution LEG.5(99)), in force 8 June 2015
• CMR — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, Articles 23, 29, 30, 32
• Montreal Convention 1999, Articles 22, 23, 24, 31, 35; revised limits following ICAO’s 2024 review, effective 28 December 2024
• Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, Article 1

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every file must be assessed on its own documents and evidence. Statutory texts quoted here in English are unofficial translations. The current texts of the judgments cited should be verified through UYAP and the official case-law databases.