1. Legal Nature of the Claim: Maritime Claim

 Pursuant to Article 1352/1-l of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102; claims arising from goods, materials, provisions, fuel, and equipment supplied for the operation, management, protection, or maintenance of a vessel, as well as services provided for these purposes, are explicitly defined as “maritime claims”. The supply of fruits, vegetables, meat, and similar food items (provisions) to the vessel is considered within this scope. Judicial decisions consistently emphasize that such claims must be pursued through procedures specific to maritime commercial law (Antalya Regional Court of Appeals 11th Civil Chamber-2017/556 K, Istanbul Anadolu 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance-2025/713 K).

2. Fundamental Legal Remedies Available

A. Provisional Attachment and Arrest of the Vessel 

Pursuant to Article 1353 of the TCC, a decision may be made for the provisional attachment of a ship to secure maritime claims. The provisions creditor, when presenting evidence to the court that will satisfy it regarding the existence and amount of their claim (invoice, delivery note, delivery record, etc.), may have a provisional attachment placed on the ship (Antalya Regional Court of Justice, 11th Civil Chamber – 2017/556 ).

Specific Example: The creditor who supplied provisions to the vessel M/V INA obtained a decision to prohibit the ship from sailing before filing a lawsuit; and for the ship to be able to continue its voyage, its agent provided a security deposit to the enforcement file (Supreme Court 11th Civil Chamber – 2012/1298 K).

B. Enforcement Proceedings and Lawsuit for Annulment of Objection 

The creditor may initiate an enforcement proceeding without a court judgment for unpaid provisions costs. If the debtor (owner or operator) objects to the proceeding, a “lawsuit for annulment of objection” must be filed pursuant to Article 67 of the EBL.

Specific Example: A company that supplied dry provisions to vessels MV … and MV … addressed the objection made to the enforcement proceeding it initiated due to unpaid invoices with a lawsuit for annulment of objection filed in the Maritime Specialized Court; the court ruled for 20% enforcement denial compensation and the collection of the principal claim (Istanbul 17th Specialized Commercial Court – 2019/160 K).

Concrete Example: In an execution proceeding without judgment, initiated for a receivable arising from the sale of ship supplies, the objection was canceled and the continuation of the proceeding was decided by accepting commercial books and invoices as evidence (Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance -2018/913 K).

C. Action for Receivable and Claim for Statutory Lien 

The creditor may file a direct action for receivable to claim the collection of the ship supplies cost. In some cases, creditors also demand the recognition of a “statutory lien” on the ship due to the nature of the receivable as a “maritime claim.” However, in current judicial practice, claims for statutory liens in ship supplies sales based on credit transactions are generally rejected, and only the collection of the receivable is ruled (Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber -2013/15215 K, 2011/8125 K).

3. Procedural Requirements and Points to Consider

Competent Court: Since a ship supplies receivable is a maritime claim within the scope of Article 1352 of the TCC, “Maritime Specialized Courts” (or Commercial Courts of First Instance acting in this capacity) are competent to resolve disputes. Cases filed in general commercial courts are dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction (Istanbul Anatolian 9th Commercial Court of First Instance -2016/745 , Istanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance -2016/278 

Standing (Proper Debtor): A claim or enforcement proceeding must be directed directly to the shipowner or operator. A ship agent cannot be held personally liable for the cost of goods under Article 119/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code; therefore, lawsuits filed against the agent may be dismissed due to lack of standing (Supreme Court 19th Civil Chamber-2014/4441 

Means of Proof: Captain-signed receipts, dispatch notes, e-archive invoices, and commercial ledger records showing that the delivery was made are the most critical pieces of evidence. Failure to object to invoices within 8 days constitutes a presumption that their content has been accepted (Istanbul 17th Commercial Court-2019/160 Istanbul 11th Commercial Court-2018/913 

4. Secondary Source Analysis Decisions acting as secondary sources exemplify the additional strategies that provisions suppliers can follow to secure their receivables as follows:

Conditions for Provisional Attachment: If there is a risk that foreign-flagged vessels will leave territorial waters, an urgent provisional attachment may be requested by asserting the risk of “irreparable harm.” However, in such requests, the debtor (owner/operator) must be clearly identified, and strong evidence must be presented in accordance with the rule of approximate proof; otherwise, the attachment order may be lifted upon objection (Samsun Regional Court of Justice 3rd Civil Chamber-2025/833 , Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 12th Civil Chamber-2021/501 

Mediation and Specialized Court: In these types of claims arising from maritime trade, it is a procedural requirement that the mediation process must be completed before filing a lawsuit and that the lawsuit must be filed in the competent specialized court (Bakırköy 4th Commercial Court-2023/1216 

Unjust Enrichment: If a direct contractual relationship cannot be proven between the parties, but it is established that the goods were delivered to the ship, the claim can also be sought based on the provisions of “unjust enrichment” (Supreme Court 19th Civil Chamber-2015/1861 

Conclusion: The person who supplied provisions to the ship can first secure their claim by preventing the ship from sailing through a precautionary attachment, and then collect their claim, along with interest and execution denial compensation, by initiating enforcement proceedings or an action for annulment of objection in the Maritime Specialized Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemiye verdiğim kumanya bedeli gerçekten “deniz alacağı” mıdır?

Evet. TTK m. 1352/1-l uyarınca geminin işletilmesi, yönetimi ve bakımı için sağlanan kumanya, yakıt ve benzeri ihtiyaç malzemelerinden doğan alacaklar açıkça deniz alacağıdır. Meyve, sebze, et ve kuru gıda tedariki bu kapsamda değerlendirilmekte; yargı kararları bu alacakların deniz ticaretine özgü usullerle takip edilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.

Kumanya alacağı için gemiye ihtiyati haciz koydurabilir miyim?

Evet. TTK m. 1353 uyarınca kumanya alacakları için gemi üzerinde ihtiyati haciz talep edilebilir. Fatura, sevk irsaliyesi, teslim tutanağı gibi belgelerle alacağın varlığı ve miktarı yaklaşık ispat düzeyinde ortaya konulduğunda, geminin seferden men edilmesi mümkündür. Uygulamada çoğu dosyada geminin yoluna devam edebilmesi için acente veya donatan tarafından teminat yatırıldığı görülmektedir.

Gemiye verdiğim kumanya bedelini ihtiyati haciz dışında hangi yollarla tahsilat yapabilirim?

Kumanya alacaklarında en sık başvurulan yollar şunlardır:
İlamsız icra takibi ve borçlu itiraz ederse itirazın iptali davası,
Doğrudan alacak davası,
Şartları varsa kanuni rehin hakkı talebi (uygulamada kredili kumanya satışlarında çoğunlukla reddedilmektedir).
Mahkemeler, itirazın haksız bulunması hâlinde %20 icra inkâr tazminatına da hükmedebilmektedir.

Gemiye verilen kumanya alacağını ispatlamak için hangi belgeler gereklidir?

Uygulamada mahkemelerin özellikle önem verdiği deliller şunlardır:
Kaptan imzalı teslim makbuzları ve eşya teslim listeleri
Sevk irsaliyeleri ve e-arşiv faturalar
Ticari defter kayıtları ve cari hesap dökümleri
Siparişe ilişkin e-posta veya yazışmalar
Faturalara 8 gün içinde itiraz edilmemesi, içeriğinin kabul edildiği yönünde güçlü bir karine oluşturur.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary for Provisions Claims?

Although provisions claims may seem “clear and strong” in theory, in practice they are one of the most frequently lost types of maritime claims. The reason for this is often legal errors.

Filing a lawsuit against the wrong debtor
Lawsuits filed against the agent are almost without exception rejected. The distinction between owner-operator-charterer requires expertise.

Case filed in the wrong court
Lawsuits filed in general courts instead of the Maritime Specialized Court result in a lack of jurisdiction months later. During this period, the ship may leave the port.

Missing the opportunity for precautionary attachment
In the case of foreign-flagged vessels, attachment is often a one-time opportunity. If evidence is presented incompletely, the attachment is rejected or lifted upon objection.

Incorrect structuring of the lien right
In provisions claims, a statutory lien does not always arise automatically. If the element of “necessity” is incorrectly asserted, the claim may be entirely rejected.

Therefore, especially in Istanbul ports, the Tuzla Shipyards Region, for foreign-flagged vessels, and in urgent precautionary attachment processes, working with a lawyer proficient in maritime commercial law practice is critical and often decisive for the collection of receivables.

In this field, 2M Law Office, with extensive experience in Istanbul-based maritime receivables and ship seizure practices, offers expert support for the fast and effective collection of provisions and ship supply receivables.