Maritime Claims, Ship Arrest, and Collection Methods
The non-payment of invoices issued in exchange for spare parts, technical service, and maintenance services provided to a ship is among the most common disputes encountered in maritime trade. Questions such as whether these types of receivables are considered maritime claims, against whom enforcement proceedings will be initiated, and whether a ship can be arrested directly determine the fate of the collection.
1. Methods for Collecting Payments for Spare Parts Provided to a Ship
When judicial decisions are examined, it is observed that enforcement proceedings and lawsuits are primarily used for the collection of receivables arising from spare parts and technical service services provided to ships. The prominent legal mechanisms in the collection process are:
Enforcement Proceedings and Annulment of Objection: Creditors generally initiate summary (unadjudicated) enforcement proceedings via general attachment based on invoices and delivery documents. In case of an objection by the debtor, a lawsuit for “annulment of objection” is filed in accordance with Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) to collect the receivable and claim enforcement denial compensation (Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2023/5955 P. D; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2016/148 P.
Maritime Claim and Ship Creditor’s Right: According to Article 1352/1-(l) of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), materials and equipment (including spare parts) supplied for the operation, maintenance, and protection of a vessel constitute a “maritime claim.” In some cases, these claims grant a “ship creditor’s right” within the scope of TCC Articles 1320 and 1235 (former TCC Article 946). This right grants the creditor a statutory lien on the vessel (Bursa 1st Commercial Court, 2018/1560 E. K; Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber, 2019/3544 E.
Attachment of a Vessel and Prohibition from Sailing: Decisions can be made to attach a vessel and prohibit it from sailing for the purpose of securing a claim (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/504 E. ; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/502 E.
Means of Proof: In proving the existence of a claim; delivery notes, work completion certificates, service reports, and invoices sealed and signed by the ship’s captain or authorized personnel are accepted as primary evidence (Bursa 1st Commercial Court, 2018/1560 E. ; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/506 E.
2. Agent’s Liability and Party Status
In cases where spare parts are supplied to the vessel through an agent, the agent’s liability varies depending on whether the agent performed the transaction in their own name or on behalf of the shipowner:
Capacity as Representative and Lack of Passive Party Status:
In most decisions, it has been emphasized that the agent acted on behalf and for the account of the shipowner, and in cases where invoices were issued to the agent relative to the ship or with the phrase “C/O” (care of), the agent had no personal liability. In such cases, lawsuits filed against the agent are dismissed due to “lack of passive legitimate interest” (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2019/387 E. K; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2016/148 E. Istanbul Anadolu 1st Commercial Court, 2024/763 E. K)
Status as Contractual Party:
If the agent cannot prove that they are the shipowner’s agent, or has directly become the addressee of the invoice as a party to the contractual relationship, they may be considered personally liable for the debt (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber, 2021/1003 E.
3. Joint and Several Liability
The issue of joint and several liability varies according to the legal relationship between the parties and the nature of the service:
Shipowner and Charterer’s Liability: If spare parts or repair services provided to the ship were for its “seaworthiness and fitness for voyage”, it is accepted that the shipowner and the charterer are jointly and severally liable for these works (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/504 E. K; Istanbul 17th Commercial Court, 2015/502 E. K).
Spare Parts and Repair Services Provided to the Ship – Shipowner’s Liability, a concrete example:
In the case subject to the decision dated 16.07.2018 of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance; a shipowner chartered its vessels to a third company under a bareboat charter agreement. Subsequently, an allegation emerged that the charterer invoiced spare parts, repair-maintenance, and technical services obtained for its own vessels, by presenting them as if they were provided to the vessels owned by the shipowner. Using these invoices as grounds, enforcement proceedings were initiated against the shipowner; as no objection was made to the payment order, the proceedings became final, and a seizure and prohibition from sailing order on the vessel was enforced. The shipowner, however, claimed that the services in question were not provided to his vessel and that the invoices were collusive/fictitious, and filed a negative declaratory action. In the trial conducted by the court;
Even if the invoices were addressed to the agent, the fact that the work delivery documents included the ship’s stamp, seal, and the captain’s signature, and that the work performed consisted of repair-maintenance jobs directly affecting the ship’s seaworthiness and fitness for voyage, such as shaft, ballast pump, and coupling repairs, were considered together. The Court accepted that such spare parts and repair services constitute a maritime claim, and that even if the charterer actually received the service, both the shipowner and the charterer are jointly and severally liable for work done to ensure the ship’s seaworthiness and fitness for voyage.
This decision concretely demonstrates the following:
If spare parts and repair services relate to the ship’s fitness, they constitute a maritime claim.
Even if the invoice is issued to the agent, the owner is responsible if it is proven that the service was provided to the ship.
Even if the charterer received the service, the owner cannot escape joint and several liability for such works.
However, if there is an excessive or erroneous invoice, this part can be eliminated through a negative declaratory action. In this respect, the decision serves as a guiding precedent in practice for the collection of spare parts and technical service fees provided to the ship.
Owner and Ship Manager:
Although some decisions have held the ship manager and owner jointly and severally liable, the Supreme Court of Appeals may overturn such decisions by stating that liability must be examined separately for each defendant in this situation (Supreme Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, 2019/3544 E.
Joint and Several Liability with the Agent:
As a general rule, joint and several liability is not foreseen between the agent and the owner in the supply of spare parts. However, exceptions apply when the agent directly enters into a contractual relationship or when special arrangements are in place.
Agent’s Liability in the Supply of Goods and Services to the Ship – Concrete Example:
(Istanbul 17th Civil Court of Commerce – 10.11.2020)
A supplier company initiated enforcement proceedings against the shipping agency, which appeared as the addressee of the invoices, for the purpose of collecting payments for goods and services provided to ships; upon the debtor agent’s objection, it filed an action for annulment of objection. The plaintiff;
It was alleged that the invoices were issued in the name of the agent, that the invoices contained the agent’s stamp and signature, and therefore the agent was responsible for the charges. However, the defendant agent stated:
that they were only a shipping agent,
that the phrase “C/O (Care Of)” on the invoices meant “by means of” or “through”,
that the goods were purchased directly in the name of the vessels/shipowners,
and argued that they were not a party to the contract but merely acted as intermediaries, raising an objection of lack of passive locus standi. During the examination conducted by the court;
that the invoices clearly included the names of the vessels and shipowners,
that the phrase “C/O” in commercial practice indicated that the agent was a representative/intermediary,
that the plaintiff also knew they were selling goods to foreign vessels,
and that there was no evidence that the agent purchased the goods in their own name or was a party to the contract.
was determined. For these reasons, the court ruled that the defendant, acting as an agent, could not be held personally liable for the invoice amounts, that the claim belonged directly to the vessels/shipowners, and dismissed the case due to lack of passive locus standi.
Frequently Asked Questions
Gemiye verilen yedek parça ve teknik servis bedeli “deniz alacağı” mıdır?
Evet. Türk Ticaret Kanunu m. 1352 uyarınca, geminin işletilmesi, bakımı ve denize elverişliliği için sağlanan yedek parça ve teknik hizmetler deniz alacağı niteliğindedir. Bu nitelik, alacaklıya gemi üzerinde haciz, ihtiyati haciz ve bazı hâllerde kanuni rehin (gemi alacaklısı hakkı) talep etme imkânı verir. Ancak her yedek parça alacağı otomatik olarak gemi alacaklısı hakkı doğurmaz; hizmetin niteliği somut olaya göre değerlendirilir.
Yedek parça acenta aracılığıyla teslim edilmişse acenta borçtan sorumlu olur mu?
Kural olarak hayır. Yargı kararlarında ağırlıklı görüş; acentanın donatan adına ve hesabına hareket eden temsilci olduğu, bu nedenle doğrudan sözleşme tarafı olmadığı sürece şahsi sorumluluğunun bulunmadığı yönündedir. Bu tür davalarda acentaya yöneltilen talepler çoğu zaman pasif husumet yokluğu nedeniyle reddedilmektedir.
Ancak acenta, sözleşmenin doğrudan tarafı gibi hareket etmişse veya temsil yetkisini ispatlayamazsa, istisnai olarak sorumlu tutulabilir.
Yedek parça bedeli için gemi haczi ve seferden men kararı alınabilir mi?
Evet, mümkündür. Alacağın deniz alacağı niteliği taşıması hâlinde, gemi üzerine haciz veya ihtiyati haciz konulabilir. Uygulamada bu yol, alacağın tahsili açısından en etkili baskı aracıdır. Özellikle geminin sefer hazırlığında olması, haczin fiilî etkisini artırır. Gemi satılsa dahi, haciz veya haciz yerine yatırılan teminat korunur.
4. Information Obtained from Secondary Sources
The information in this section of the report should be considered as secondary sources that provide additional context when there is limited information in decision texts:
Competent Court: Istanbul Anatolian 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2017/949 E. K), qualified the supply of spare parts to the ship as a “maritime claim” (Turkish Commercial Code art. 1352) and ruled that Maritime Specialization Courts are competent in such cases, thus issuing a decision of incompetence.
Example of Joint and Several Liability for Service Fees: In the decisions of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2014/12251 E. and (2014/15674 E. K), it was stated that the shipowner and the agent are jointly and severally liable for certain service fees, such as lighthouse and pilotage fees, in accordance with tariff provisions. However, whether this situation can be directly extended to general commercial sales, such as the supply of spare parts, depends on the specific legislation of the relevant service.
Provisional Attachment: It has been stated that preventing the ship from sailing and provisional attachment are effective methods for collecting maritime claims arising from services and materials provided to the ship, and that during this process, ship managers can act on behalf of the shipowner (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 14th Civil Chamber, 2017/103 E. K
Difficulty of Proof: It is observed that in cases of unilateral issuance of invoices for spare parts sales, lack of service reports, or absence of the ship’s captain’s signature, the lawsuit may be dismissed due to insufficient evidence (Istanbul 21st Commercial Court, 2024/335 File No.).
Conclusion: The cost of spare parts supplied to the ship can be collected through enforcement proceedings initiated against the shipowner or through statutory lien/attachment based on a maritime claim. Since the agent usually acts in a representative capacity, they are not held personally liable unless they are a direct party to the contract, and joint and several liability generally arises between the shipowner and the charterer in the context of the service’s impact on the ship’s seaworthiness.
Why is Expert Maritime Law Attorney Support Necessary?
Unlike classic commercial receivables, claims for spare parts and technical services provided to a ship involve a multi-layered legal structure: Risk of Wrong Party
The most common mistake in practice is initiating a lawsuit or enforcement proceeding against the agent. However, in many cases, the agent is considered merely a representative, and lawsuits are dismissed on procedural grounds. This leads to both time and significant cost loss.
Distinction Between Maritime Claim and Maritime Lien
Not every maritime claim automatically gives rise to a maritime lien. Incorrect legal characterization can lead to the refusal of attachment, and even security obligations. This distinction can only be made correctly with expertise in maritime trade jurisprudence.
Complexity of Joint and Several Liability
The relationships between the shipowner, charterer, ship manager, and agent are often intertwined. The Supreme Court evaluates joint and several liability separately in each specific case. Suing everyone together incorrectly can lead to the annulment or rejection of the lawsuit.
Proof and Evidence Issues
In spare part receivables;
Delivery documents without captain’s signature,
Incomplete service reports,
Lawsuits can be lost due to insufficient evidence because of unilaterally prepared invoices. The correct collection of evidence before the lawsuit is critically important.
Time Limits and Procedural Errors
Lawsuits that must be filed after a preliminary attachment are subject to preclusive time limits. Even a one-day delay can lead to the automatic invalidation of the attachment obtained. Therefore, for spare part and technical service receivables provided to a ship, the process must be handled by an expert lawyer knowledgeable in maritime commercial law, ship arrest practice, and established Supreme Court precedents, which is the most crucial condition for the effective collection of the receivable.
