In liner and tramp trades the registered owner is frequently not the operator. The vessel is handed over under a bareboat (demise) charter; the voyage is organised by the charterer, bills of lading are issued in its name, and cargo damage occurs during its operation. When cargo is found damaged at discharge, the first question a cargo interest asks is simple: “Can I hold the ship that damaged my cargo?”

The answer lies in the special regime the Turkish Commercial Code sets out for the arrest of ships, and it can only be given correctly if liability and which vessel may be targeted are kept strictly apart. This article sets out the statutory framework, the settled practice of the Turkish Regional Courts of Appeal, and a frequently misread appellate decision, from both the claimant’s and the owner’s perspective.

Contents

1. Why ship arrest is separate from general enforcement law
2. Is cargo damage a maritime claim?
3. Standard of proof: prima facie (approximate) proof
4. The bareboat charterer as deemed owner
5. Liability is one question, arrest is another
6. TCC Article 1369/1(b): the chartered vessel cannot be arrested
7. What the legislative reasoning says
8. What the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber decision actually held
9. TCC Article 1369/2: sister ship arrest
10. Paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 compared
11. Does the maritime lien exception help in cargo claims?
12. Table of decisions
13. Step-by-step roadmap for claimants
14. Lines of defence for owners and charterers
15. Jurisdiction, counter-security and time limits
16. Seven common mistakes
17. Conclusion
18. Frequently asked questions
19. Why handling the process correctly matters
20. Sources and citation caveat

1. Why Ship Arrest Is Separate from General Enforcement Law

For ships, conservatory attachment is governed not by the general provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Act (“EBA”) but by the special maritime enforcement provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. Three practical consequences follow:

• Only maritime claims support an arrest. A claim outside the closed list in TCC Article 1352 cannot found an arrest order against a vessel.
• Arrest is the only available interim measure. Under Article 1353/1, an injunction over the vessel or any other order detaining her from sailing cannot be sought to secure a maritime claim.
• The existence of a maritime claim is itself the ground for arrest. Article 1353/4 makes the qualification of the claim under Article 1352 a self-standing ground; the general grounds under EBA Article 257 need not be shown.

Turkish appellate practice applies this framework consistently. The Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 5th Civil Chamber (decision of 08.03.2024, file 2024/393, judgment 2024/434) and the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber (decision of 15.09.2022, file 2022/1499, judgment 2022/1128) both emphasised that ship arrest is regulated separately from general enforcement law and may be sought only by the maritime claimants exhaustively listed in Article 1352. To the same effect, the Izmir Regional Court of Appeal, 17th Civil Chamber (02.05.2024, file 2024/535, judgment 2024/939) and the Bursa Regional Court of Appeal, 5th Civil Chamber (21.09.2023, file 2023/1431, judgment 2023/1335) held that no arrest may be granted for claims other than maritime claims, and that no injunction may be placed on the vessel for such claims.

2. Is Cargo Damage a Maritime Claim?

Yes. TCC Article 1352/1 covers this ground twice:

• Article 1352/1(a): loss or damage caused by the operation of the ship;
• Article 1352/1(h): loss of or damage to, or in connection with, goods (including luggage) carried on board.

The Izmir Regional Court of Appeal, 17th Civil Chamber, in its decision of 23.08.2023 (file 2023/1206, judgment 2023/1457), expressly cited these provisions and held that cargo damage qualifies as a maritime claim, and that only arrest may be ordered to secure maritime claims.

Which limb should the application rely on?

Limb (h) is normally sufficient. Where the damage stems from a fault in the operation of the ship (leaking hatch covers, defective stowage, inadequate ventilation), pleading limb (a) as well pre-empts the standard defence that “this is a breach of the contract of carriage, not a maritime claim”. Pleading both limbs makes the court’s task at the arrest stage considerably easier.

3. Standard of Proof: Prima Facie (Approximate) Proof

Under TCC Article 1362/1 it is enough for the claimant to produce evidence satisfying the court that the claim is one of the maritime claims listed in Article 1352 and as to its monetary value. Full proof is not required. The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 43rd Civil Chamber, expressed this standard clearly in its decision of 21.04.2022 (file 2022/666, judgment 2022/487).

Prima facie proof is not the absence of proof. Where survey reports establish that no cargo damage in fact occurred, arrest applications are refused; see the Sakarya Regional Court of Appeal, 7th Civil Chamber, decision of 21.02.2022 (file 2022/101, judgment 2022/385). A persuasive file typically contains:

• The bill of lading or sea waybill, with the clean loading remarks;
• Outturn/damage reports, tally sheets and terminal records taken at discharge;
• An independent survey report with photographs;
• Commercial invoice, packing list, insurance policy and adjuster’s report;
• Notice of loss and protest served on the carrier or master (TCC Articles 1184-1185);
• Registry extracts, ship’s certificate, port records and agency correspondence evidencing the bareboat relationship.

4. The Bareboat Charterer as Deemed Owner

Under a bareboat (demise) charter the vessel is delivered without crew or equipment, and both her technical and commercial management pass to the charterer. The master and crew are employed by the charterer, voyage orders come from the charterer, and the earnings belong to the charterer.

TCC Article 1061/2 describes a person who operates a vessel belonging to another, for profit, in its own name, either personally or through the master, as a ship operator (gemi işletme müteahhidi), and provides that such a person is deemed to be the shipowner in its relations with third parties. Turkish doctrine likewise treats the person described in this provision as the “operator” deemed to be the owner.

Turkish courts have reached the same conclusion. The Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance, in its judgment of 07.03.2018 (file 2015/614, judgment 2018/85), held that a bareboat charterer operating a vessel not belonging to it, for profit, in its own name, personally or through the master, is deemed to be the shipowner in its relations with third parties.

Do not confuse a bareboat charter with a time charter

The most common conceptual error is to treat a time charter as a bareboat charter. Under a time charter the vessel remains in the owner’s operation, fully crewed; the charterer merely uses her carrying capacity. Deemed-owner status does not pass, and the Article 1369 analysis rests on an entirely different footing. What matters is not the label on the contract but who in fact holds the technical and commercial management of the vessel.

5. Liability Is One Question, Arrest Is Another

A founding principle of Turkish enforcement law is that, outside cases of security interests, no person’s assets may be seized for another person’s debt. The vessel belongs to the owner, not the charterer. If she were arrested for the charterer’s debt, she would ultimately be sold in execution and a non-debtor would lose title. The “must be the owner” condition in Article 1369/1(b) exists precisely to prevent that outcome.

6. TCC Article 1369/1(b): The Chartered Vessel Cannot Be Arrested

Limb (b) reads oddly at first: it speaks of the charterer, yet ends by requiring ownership. In substance, the charterer’s debt reaches the vessel only if the charterer has by then become her owner. While the charter is running, that never happens.

Settled appellate practice

The Sakarya Regional Court of Appeal, 7th Civil Chamber, in its decisions of 28.11.2022 (file 2022/2296, judgment 2022/2095) and 28.11.2024 (file 2024/1712, judgment 2024/1726), held that for an arrest order in respect of a maritime claim, Article 1369/1(b) requires the person who was the charterer when the claim arose to be, at the time the arrest is enforced, both liable for the debt and the owner of the vessel. In its decision of 08.11.2023 (file 2023/2078, judgment 2023/1812) the same chamber held that where the charterer at the time the claim arose is not the owner at the date arrest is sought, the conditions for arrest are not satisfied.

The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber, restated the same principle in its decision of 17.11.2021 (file 2021/2073, judgment 2021/1650).

The position is the same where ownership changes hands. The Adana Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber, in its decision of 26.01.2023 (file 2022/1530, judgment 2023/38), held that where the person liable for the debt is not the owner at the time the arrest is enforced, the vessel cannot be arrested. If the vessel has been sold to a third party after the maritime claim arose, no arrest right may be exercised against the new owner.

In its 2024 decision the Sakarya court noted that the same principle appears in the case law of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, citing by way of example its judgment in file 2013/9834, judgment 2013/14699. That citation could not be independently verified in open sources and should be confirmed via the Turkish judicial network (UYAP) before being relied on in submissions or publication.

7. What the Legislative Reasoning Says

The official reasoning to Article 1369 records that the provision was taken from paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships. The model provision, in limb (b) of the first paragraph, uses the words “is the owner or the demise charterer”. However, under the third paragraph of the model provision, arrest for the charterer’s debt while the vessel remains on charter is permitted only if a forced sale following such an arrest is possible under the national law concerned.

Because Turkish law does not, outside security interests, permit the judicial sale of one person’s property for another person’s debt, the legislature closed this route at the outset by adding the ownership requirement to limb (b). The reasoning states that allowing arrest of the vessel for the charterer’s debt during the currency of the charter is not possible as a matter of Turkish law.

8. What the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber Decision Actually Held

The decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, dated 23.12.2021 (file 2021/2175, judgment 2021/1668) is frequently cited on the deemed-owner status of bareboat charterers. The court held that the vessels used for the carriage were in the operation of the respondent as bareboat charterer, and that a company operating vessels under a charter is accordingly liable to third parties as shipowner under Article 1061/2.

Summaries of this decision sometimes read that passage as meaning “a bareboat charterer’s cargo liability therefore makes the chartered vessel arrestable.” That reading is misleading and conflicts with the settled practice set out above.

The facts: the arrested vessel was not the ship on which the claim arose

In that case the debtor company performed the carriages with tankers it had taken over under bareboat charters, and shortage/damage to an oil cargo occurred during those carriages. The claimant did not arrest those chartered tankers; it arrested another vessel actually owned by the debtor bareboat charterer.

The decision records that, at the time the arrest was enforced, the vessel in respect of which arrest was sought belonged to the respondent (that is, the respondent was owner/shipowner of that vessel), while the claim for cargo loss arose out of contracts of carriage performed by the respondent’s other vessels, not the vessel arrested; on that basis the applicant was held entitled to seek arrest of the vessel belonging to the respondent.

The dispute was therefore resolved not under Article 1369/1 but under Article 1369/2 (arrest of other, i.e. sister, ships). The decision does not say “the chartered vessel may be arrested”; it says “because the charterer is liable as deemed owner, another vessel it owns may be arrested”.

9. TCC Article 1369/2: Sister Ship Arrest

The provision imposes a two-stage test:

1. The arrest-date test: the target vessel must, at the time the arrest is enforced, belong to (be owned by) the person liable for the maritime claim.
2. The claim-date test: when the claim arose, that person must have been the owner, charterer, allocatee or shipper of the vessel on which the claim arose.

For a bareboat charterer the analysis is straightforward: it held the capacity of charterer on the offending vessel (second test satisfied), and any vessel in its own ownership belongs to it at the arrest date (first test satisfied). That vessel may therefore be arrested.

“Sister ship” means common ownership, not a common fleet brand

Under Turkish law the sister ship concept turns on ownership by the debtor, not on shared livery, funnel marks or listing on a group website. Because single-ship companies are the industry norm, targeting a “sister” registered to a different company usually requires piercing the corporate veil. That is a demanding threshold to meet even on a prima facie basis, and must be supported by concrete evidence: registry records, shareholding structure, common address, common directors or common ISM manager.

Note also Article 1369/3: where the dispute concerns ownership or possession of a vessel, only the vessel that is the subject of that dispute may be arrested, and no recourse to sister ships is available.

10. Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 Compared

11. Does the Maritime Lien Exception Help in Cargo Claims?

Article 1369/1(e) opens an important door: where the claim gives rise to a maritime lien under Article 1320, the debtor need not be the owner. The reason is that a maritime lien creates a statutory charge over the vessel that follows her regardless of who operates her. Turkish commentary confirms that where the debtor is the charterer, manager or operator rather than the owner, an arrest may still be obtained for a claim carrying a maritime lien.

That door is closed, however, for pure cargo claims. In listing the loss and damage items that give rise to a maritime lien, Article 1320/1(e) expressly excludes claims for loss of or damage to the goods carried. Cargo damage is therefore a maritime claim under Article 1352/1(h) — an arrest may be sought — but it does not create a maritime lien under Article 1320, and so no statutory charge arises over the vessel for the debt of a non-owning charterer.

12. Table of Decisions

13. Step-by-Step Roadmap for Claimants

Step 1 — Map the real operating structure

Who is the carrier on the bill of lading? Who is the registered owner? On whose behalf did the agent act? Which company appears in port and customs records? The bareboat allegation must be documented. A registry and classification search based on the ship’s name and IMO number is the backbone of this stage.

Step 2 — Characterise each head of claim

Is the file limited to cargo damage, or does it also contain items capable of falling within Article 1320? That characterisation determines which vessel you may target.

Step 3 — Choose the target vessel

Has the charterer since become owner of the offending vessel? If so, Article 1369/1(b) is open. If not, identify a vessel in the charterer’s own ownership and proceed under Article 1369/2.

Step 4 — Plead the correct provision

In a sister ship application the pleading must satisfy both limbs of Article 1369/2 separately and expressly: (i) that the vessel belongs to the debtor at the arrest date, and (ii) that the debtor was charterer of the offending vessel when the claim arose. A pleading that invites the court down the “the charterer is liable, so arrest the ship” shortcut creates its own risk of refusal.

Step 5 — Plan security and the enforcement timetable

No order will issue without counter-security, and once issued the order must be enforced within a very short window. The timetable is set out below.

14. Lines of Defence for Owners and Charterers

For an owner whose vessel has been arrested for the charterer’s debt, the first and strongest defence is the wording of Article 1369/1(b). The standard objections are:

• No ownership: the debtor charterer is not the owner at the arrest date, as the registry shows; the statutory condition fails and the arrest must be lifted.
• No maritime lien: the claim arises from cargo damage, which Article 1320/1(e) excludes, so the Article 1369/1(e) exception cannot apply.
• Mischaracterised capacity: the contract is a time charter or slot agreement, not a bareboat charter; the debtor never acquired deemed-owner status.
• Not a maritime claim: the claim arises from a running account rather than from the carriage itself.
• Prima facie proof not met: the survey does not confirm the damage, or the damage arose in post-discharge handling.
• Security and time-limit objections: counter-security was not provided, increased security was not topped up in time, or the enforcement deadline was missed.
• Wrongful arrest damages: once the arrest is lifted, compensation may be claimed under Article 1361 for lost hire and expenses over the period of detention.

A bareboat charterer whose sister ship has been arrested defends on a different axis: whether it truly held the capacity of charterer, allocatee or shipper on the offending vessel when the claim arose, and whether the arrested vessel truly belongs to it. Where the vessel is registered to another legal entity, the argument is that the conditions for piercing the corporate veil are not met even to the prima facie standard applicable at the arrest stage.

15. Jurisdiction, Counter-Security and Time Limits

16. Seven Common Mistakes

1. Equating liability with arrestability. “The charterer is liable as deemed owner, therefore the ship can be arrested” skips Article 1369 entirely.
2. Reading the Istanbul RCA 14th CC decision as an offending-ship authority. It is a sister ship decision; a pleading that uses it otherwise is the easiest target for the respondent.
3. Treating a time charter as a bareboat charter. Getting the capacity wrong defeats both standing and the arrest application.
4. Conflating Article 1320 with Article 1352. Cargo damage is a maritime claim but creates no maritime lien; these are different lists.
5. Selecting the sister ship by brand. A vessel registered to a different entity is not the debtor’s vessel unless veil-piercing is made out.
6. Missing the three-business-day enforcement window. An order not enforced in time lapses automatically.
7. Identifying the vessel loosely. Name, IMO number, flag and registry details must leave no room for doubt.

17. Conclusion

Cargo damage occurring during a voyage performed by a bareboat charterer constitutes a maritime claim under Article 1352/1(h), and the charterer is personally liable for that loss as deemed owner under Article 1061/2. Which vessel may be arrested for that liability is a separate question, answered by Article 1369:

• As to the chartered vessel: on the settled approach of the Sakarya RCA 7th Civil Chamber and the Istanbul RCA 13th Civil Chamber, Article 1369/1(b) requires the charterer at the date the claim arose to be, at the arrest date, both liable and owner of the vessel. If the charterer is not the owner, no arrest may be ordered over a vessel belonging to a third party.
• As to other vessels owned by the charterer: since the bareboat charterer is personally liable under Article 1061/2, the claimant may arrest vessels the debtor itself owns, under Article 1369/2. This is precisely what the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber accepted in its decision of 23.12.2021.

In short, reading that decision as authority for arresting the chartered vessel is misleading. What it accepted is that arrest may be levied, for the charterer’s debt, on another vessel in the charterer’s own ownership. That distinction decides the outcome of the file.

18. Frequently Asked Questions

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

As a rule, no. Article 1369/1(b) requires the charterer at the date the claim arose to be, at the arrest date, liable and the owner of the vessel. While the charter is running that condition is not met, so a vessel owned by a third party cannot be arrested.

What can the claimant do instead?

If the charterer owns another vessel, that vessel may be arrested under Article 1369/2. Assets other than ships may be attached under the general provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Act.

Does cargo damage give rise to a maritime lien?

No. Article 1320/1(e) excludes claims for loss of or damage to goods carried from the items that create a maritime lien. The exception in Article 1369/1(e) therefore cannot be used to reach the chartered vessel.

What if the charterer buys the vessel after the damage?

Then the condition in Article 1369/1(b) is satisfied: the person who was charterer when the claim arose is, at the arrest date, both liable and the owner. The vessel may be arrested.

What if the vessel is sold to a third party after the damage?

As a rule no arrest is available; see the Adana RCA 9th Civil Chamber decision of 26.01.2023. The exception is where the claim carries a maritime lien.

Is membership of the same fleet enough for a sister ship arrest?

No. The test is ownership: at the arrest date the vessel must belong to the person liable. Where a separate single-ship company appears on the registry, veil-piercing arises and must be made out to the prima facie standard applicable at the arrest stage.

Must the cargo damage be fully proved?

No. Article 1362/1 requires only evidence satisfying the court that the claim is a maritime claim and as to its monetary value. Applications are nevertheless refused where the survey does not confirm the damage.

Does a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause block the arrest?

No. Under Article 1356 such a clause does not remove the Turkish court’s power to order arrest. The vessel may be arrested in Turkey while the merits jurisdiction dispute continues.

How long do I have once the order is granted?

Enforcement must be requested within three business days under Article 1364, failing which the order lapses. Under Article 1376 the periods in EBA Article 264 apply as one month for maritime claims.

Should I also apply for detention from sailing?

No. Under the Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber decision of 11.01.2023 (2022/7101 – 2023/76), detention is the natural consequence of the arrest and is effected by the enforcement office; it is not the subject of a separate application.

What is my exposure if the arrest turns out to be wrongful?

Article 1361 provides for compensation of losses caused by a wrongful arrest. Lost earnings and expenses over the detention period can be substantial, so building the file correctly from the outset is an economic as well as a legal question.

Can the vessel be released against security?

Yes. Under Article 1370 et seq. the vessel may be released against sufficient security, and providing security is not an admission of liability. In practice a bank guarantee or a P&I club letter of undertaking is used; scope and wording are matters for negotiation.

19. Why Handling the Process Correctly Matters

In ship arrest work the margin for error is narrow. The time to obtain an order is measured in hours, enforcement must follow within three business days, nothing moves without counter-security, and an application aimed at the wrong vessel creates liability in damages. On the other side of the file there is usually a foreign owner, a P&I club and an experienced legal team.

On the claimant’s side

• Documenting the flag, registry, IMO number and real operating structure of the vessel;
• Characterising the claim under Article 1352 and testing it against Article 1320;
• Answering the Article 1369/1 versus 1369/2 question and pleading accordingly;
• Arranging counter-security, coordinating enforcement with the execution office and commencing proceedings in time.

On the owner’s and operator’s side

• Establishing that the conditions of Article 1369 are not satisfied and seeking release;
• Negotiating release against security without delay;
• Documenting detention losses in preparation for a wrongful-arrest claim.

Regional focus: Tuzla, Gebze and the Marmara ports

A significant share of Turkish ship arrest files originate in the Marmara region: the Tuzla shipyards zone, the Pendik, Kartal and Maltepe coastline; on the Kocaeli side Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca, Körfez, İzmit and Başiskele; and the Ambarlı, Haydarpaşa and Yalova corridor. This is where cargo is discharged, damage is surveyed and vessels are detained — and, under Article 1355, where the competent court for a foreign-flagged vessel is located.

2M Hukuk Law Firm handles maritime disputes across the Istanbul Anatolian side and the Kocaeli corridor from its office in Tuzla, acting for both claimants and owners/operators in ship arrest, cargo damage and subrogation, freight and demurrage, crew wage and bunker/supply claims. For more, see our ship arrest page and our maritime law articles.

Related reading

• Arrest of ships: conditions and framework
• Ship arrest and maritime claims
• How to prepare a ship arrest application
• Contested heads of maritime claim
• Who is liable for cargo damaged during loading and discharge?
• Contracts of carriage and the carrier’s liability
• Where to find a ship’s name and IMO number
• Recovering unpaid marina and berthing fees

20. Sources and Citation Caveat

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Articles 1061, 1320, 1352, 1353, 1354-1356, 1361-1364, 1366, 1369-1376 — official text at mevzuat.gov.tr
• Legislative reasoning to Article 1369, read with Article 3 of the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships
• Sami Aksoy, BATİDER, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2018 (critique of Article 1352; section on recourse to the offending or sister ship for the charterer’s debt)
• Mehmet Ali Aksoy, “Precautionary Arrest of Ships”, Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review
• Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber, 11.01.2023, 2022/7101 – 2023/76
• The Regional Court of Appeal decisions cited above and the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court judgment of 07.03.2018