{"id":94100,"date":"2025-01-09T13:21:09","date_gmt":"2025-01-09T13:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=94100"},"modified":"2025-09-02T08:21:56","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T08:21:56","slug":"turkiye-shipping","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/turkiye-shipping\/","title":{"rendered":"T\u00fcrkiye: Shipping"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-94100","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-shipping","jurisdictions-turkiye"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">TCG Fora Law Office<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2020\/11\/tcg-fora-law.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">TCG Fora Law Office<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2020\/11\/tcg-fora-law.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Shipping laws and regulations applicable in T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What system of port state control applies in your jurisdiction? What are their powers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkey has signed the Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 11 July 1997 and the Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on 7 April 2000. Under the terms of Turkish Port State Control Directive which has been published on 26 March 2006 within the scope of the provisions of Mediterranean and Black Sea Memorandums, the authorised maritime authority for implementation of the Memorandums for PSC in Turkey is Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. Port State Control is carried out by properly qualified Port State Control Officers (PSCO) acting under the responsibility of the maritime authority. According to Port State Control Directive, Maritime Authority has power to refuse access of certain vessels to Turkish Ports, to carry out various inspections on board the ships, detain vessels or stop the operation or may allow the ship for rectification of the determined deficiencies on completion of an inspection. The detention order or the stoppage of the operation shall not be lifted until the determined deficiencies are rectified.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering wreck removal or pollution? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Although preparations were made, Turkey has not yet become a party to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (Wreck Removal Convention) 2007.<\/p>\n<p>The Turkish Act on Ports (Code no.618) is the largest applicable regulation for wreck removals in Turkish Ports. The Harbour Master is entitled to order the removal of a wreck within the port area. Owners, Masters and Agents are considered to be jointly liable for wreck removal. If the wreck is not removed within the deadline given by the Harbour Master, the Harbour Master himself is authorised to arrange the removal of the wreck and then sell the wreck for the recovery of the costs thereof. There are also various provisions in Turkish Commercial Code as to wreck removal.<\/p>\n<p>The Turkish Environmental Code (Code no. 2872) is the main legal regulation as to pollution. On the other hand, Turkey is also signatory to the conventions below:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>MARPOL 73\/78 (Only to the ANNEX I\/II and V).<\/li>\n<li>SOLAS 1974.<\/li>\n<li>International Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Cooperation.<\/li>\n<li>Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean\u2019s Marine Environment and Coastal Zone.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution Caused by Unloading from Ships and Airplanes in the Mediterranean Sea or Burning at Sea (1976) 1995 Barcelona.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on Prevention of Pollution Caused by Transboundary Movements and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes in the Mediterranean.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on the Protection of the Mediterranean Against Pollution from Land Based Resources and Activities.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on Struggle and Cooperation in the Pollution of the Mediterranean with Petroleum and Other Harmful Substances in Extraordinary Situations.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean.<\/li>\n<li>Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land Based Resources.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on Cooperation in Emergency Situations Against Pollution of Black Sea Marine Environment with Petroleum and Other Harmful Substances.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment Due to Discharges.<\/li>\n<li>Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution Convention on the Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape in the Black Sea.<\/li>\n<li>Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Transport and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast Water and Sediments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the limit on sulphur content of fuel oil used in your territorial waters? Is there a MARPOL Emission Control Area in force?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Turkey, the maximum sulphur content of fuel oil for ships is 0.50% by mass, in line with MARPOL Annex VI, effective since 1 January 2020. In addition, stricter sulphur limits of 0.10% are required for ships operating in certain port areas and for specific vessels, such as passenger ships operating on regular routes within the country. The regulations do not apply for vessel transits in Bosporus and Dardanelles and the Marmara Sea unless these vessels in transit have anchored in the area for more than 2 hours.<\/p>\n<p>As of May 1, 2025, the Mediterranean will become an Emission Control Area (ECA) for sulphur oxides (SOx) under MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14. In this area, the sulphur content of fuel used by ships will be limited to no more than 0.10% by mass.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering collision and salvage? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) rules are the fundamental key provisions regulating collisions, grounding or other major casualties. In addition to local rules, Turkey is a signatory to the following International Conventions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collision between Vessels dated 23 September 1910.<\/li>\n<li>International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision dated 10 May 1952, Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The collision cases are considered as action in tort and the Courts at the place of the collision have Jurisdiction for the cases thereof.<\/p>\n<p>The TCC, which was drafted in line with the international conventions such as the 1989 International Convention on Salvage and 1910 Brussels Convention, is the main regulation ruling the salvage issues. Turkey is also signatory to 1989 International Convention on Salvage which was ratified on 14 May 2013 with some reservations. The Turkish Directorate General of Coastal Safety has monopoly rights for the salvage operations at the Turkish Straits (Istanbul Strait and Dardanelles) and within the Marmara Sea as per their Main Statute published on the Turkish Official Gazette.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims? If not, is there equivalent domestic legislation that applies? Who can rely on such limitation of liability provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkey is signatory to the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims concluded on 19 October 1976 (1976 London Convention) and to the 1996 Protocol amending the 1976 Convention.<\/p>\n<p>The 1976 Convention came into force in Turkey on 1 July 1998, whereas the 1996 Protocol came into force on 17 October 2010. The above convention and the protocol have been largely adopted in the TCC no.6102 passed on 1 July 2012. Thus, we can conclude that the TCC is primarily applicable for the Limitation of Liability. The Shipowners (which may include the Charterers, the Managers or the Operators) or their Underwriters, Salvors and any person for whose act, neglect or default the shipowner or salvor is responsible may limit their liabilities for any single marine-related incident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged, what can the receiver do to secure their claim? Is your country party to the 1952 Arrest Convention? If your country has ratified the 1999 Convention, will that be applied, or does that depend upon the 1999 Convention coming into force? If your country does not apply any Convention, (and\/or if your country allows ships to be detained other than by formal arrest) what rules apply to permit the detention of a ship, and what limits are there on the right to arrest or detain (for example, must there be a \u201cmaritime claim\u201d, and, if so, how is that defined)? Is it possible to arrest in order to obtain security for a claim to be pursued in another jurisdiction or in arbitration?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged the Receiver is entitled to arrest the vessel under Article 1352 of TCC.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey has ratified the International Convention on Arrest of Ships (Geneva 12 March 1999) on 24 March 2017.<\/p>\n<p>Before its ratification, the 1999 Convention was entirely adopted in the TCC and became the primary source of Turkish Ship Arrest Regime. The Arrest of a ship under Turkish Law may be admitted only in respect of \u2018maritime claims\u2019. Any party whose claim is of \u2018maritime claim\u2019 nature may file an e<em>x parte <\/em>application before the Turkish Court which has Jurisdiction (as to place), over the vessel to be arrested, whether flying a Turkish or Foreign Flag, and seek an arrest order. The Arrest Applicant must prima facie prove the existence of the maritime claim and the claim amount thereof.<\/p>\n<p>The Maritime Claims are extensively defined and listed under Article 1352 of TCC which is in strict conformity with Article 1 of 1999 Convention.<\/p>\n<p>As per Article 1356 &amp; 1357 of TCC it is possible to arrest a vessel within Turkish Jurisdiction in order to obtain security for a claim that will be or that might have already been initiated in another jurisdiction or in arbitration. If already not initiated, the arresting party is required to initiate the substantive proceedings within one month after execution of the arrest order.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">For an arrest, are there any special or notable procedural requirements, such as the provision of a PDF or original power of attorney to authorise you to act?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkish Court requires a valid POA enabling the lawyers to act on behalf of the arresting party. The POA has to be notarised and apostilled (or attested by the Turkish Consulate). In practice, the courts generally find it sufficient that the executed POA is sent electronically in the first instance. The original POA has to be submitted to the Court at a later stage.<\/p>\n<p>The documents in support of the claim also have to be provided with the arrest application. All supporting documents in foreign languages must be submitted with their Turkish translations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What maritime liens \/ maritime privileges are recognised in your jurisdiction? Is recognition a matter for the law of the forum, the law of the place where the obligation was incurred, the law of the flag of the vessel, or another system of law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The primary sources of the TCC as to the arrest regime and the maritime liens are two significant conventions which are International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages (Geneva 6 May 1993) and International Convention on Arrest of Ships (Geneva 12 March 1999). Relevant Part of Article 1320 of TCC which is very identical to Article 4 of the Geneva 1993 Convention is as follows:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cEach of the following claims against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel grants a right of maritime lien to its claimant on the vessel:<\/p>\n<p>a) Claims for wages and other sums due to the crew members in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf; (b) Claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel; (c) Claims for reward for the salvage of the vessel; (d) Claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues; (e) Claims based on tort arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel other than loss of or damage to cargo, containers and passengers\u2019 effects carried on the vessel. (f) The general average contribution credit claims\u2019\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam? Or can a vessel be arrested in respect of debts incurred by, say, a charterer who has bought but not paid for bunkers or other necessaries?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Identical to Article 3 of 1999 Convention, under Article 1369 of TCC the arrest of a ship is possible if;<\/p>\n<p>(a) the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest order is effected; or<\/p>\n<p>(b) the demise charterer of the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or<\/p>\n<p>(c) the claim is based upon a mortgage or a \u2018hypot\u00e8que\u2019 or a charge of the same nature on the ship; or<\/p>\n<p>(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the ship: or<\/p>\n<p>(e) The claim gives rise to a maritime lien pursuant to Article 1320 of TCC.<\/p>\n<p>In this regard, we can conclude that it is a requirement that the liability in personam and the ownership must be united in the same person.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are sister ship or associated ship arrests possible?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The regime for sister-ship arrest under Turkish Law is also identical to the rules in the 1999 Convention; the arrest is permissible of any other ship or ships is also possible, if the ship is owned by the person who is liable for the maritime claim when the arrest is effected and who was, when the claim arose;<\/p>\n<p>(a) the owner of the vessel in respect of which the maritime claim arose,<\/p>\n<p>(b) the demise charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer of that vessel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the arresting party need to put up counter-security as the price of an arrest? In what circumstances will the arrestor be liable for damages if the arrest is set aside?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Article 1363 of the new Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), the applicants are required to deposit a lump sum of SDR (Special Drawing Rights) 10,000.00 counter security irrespective of the claimed amount. The counter security can be by way of cash deposit or Turkish Bank Guarantee. Provision of the counter security is a pre-condition for the arrest application and the court will not even review the application if the counter security is not deposited. The respondent (Owners) may apply to the court requesting the counter security to be increased. If the court accepts such application to increase the amount of the counter security, it will set a deadline for the arresting party to supplement the counter security. If the additional security is not provided within such deadline, the arrest order will automatically become null and void. In the same sense, the arresting party may also request the court to decrease the counter security. Arrest applications for crew wages are exempted from providing counter-security. No objection in this regard can be listened by the Court.<\/p>\n<p>Under Turkish Law no particular provisions have been set out in respect of the wrongful arrest of the ships. The Respondents may at any stage claim that the arrest is wrongful and unjustified. If the arrest is found wrongful, the applicant is liable against the Respondents and the third parties for any and all damages arising from or in connection with the arrest. The mere dismissal of the substantive proceedings (proceedings on merits) is sufficient to invoke liability against the arresting party for a wrongful arrest. Thus, it simply has to be established that the claim, for which the arrest was granted, is rejected in full. However, if the claim was partly upheld, the liability would not arise. The court granting the arrest order has the jurisdiction for the claims arising out of wrongful arrests. The losses and damages arising out the wrongful arrest may be satisfied from the counter-security deposited by the Arresting Party if the amount of the same is sufficient (if not, enforcement proceedings have to be initiated against the Arresting Party).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How can an owner secure the release of the vessel? For example, is a Club LOU acceptable security for the claim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Owners should provide sufficient security covering the claim, interest and costs thereof for the release of the vessel. In practice, the security is provided in the form of a Turkish Bank Guarantee. However, other forms of security by means of cash deposit or mortgage on real estate may also be accepted. The parties are also free to agree on the production of a P&amp;I Letter of Undertaking as security. Otherwise, the Court will decide the form of the security which will be either a Turkish Bank Guarantee or Cash Deposit. Beyond the Owner, the time charterer, manager or the mortgagee are also allowed to provide security for releasing the vessel. If so, the Court will ensure that the final title issued against the person liable is also enforceable against the security provided. If the maritime claim exceeds the value of the ship, security covering the value of the ship will be sufficient for the release.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Describe the procedure for the judicial sale of arrested ships. What is the priority ranking of claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Turkish Law once the claimant obtains a final and binding Judgement upon conclusion of Court Proceedings on the merits or obtains a final enforcement instrument upon conclusion of the Enforcement Proceedings, it will be entitled to seek seizure of the vessel. The vessel should be physically seized by enforcement offices and after this stage the claimant will have the right to request the judicial sale of the vessel. The Judicial Sale of the vessel is generally executed by way of public auction.<\/p>\n<p>After the Judicial sale is requested, the Enforcement Office should first obtain a valuation report for the vessel through the Enforcement Court. The valuation report may be compelled by the Claimant itself, Owners, mortgagees or other parties concerned such as registered claimants.<\/p>\n<p>The Enforcement Office must also obtain the information as to registered rights and encumbrances on the vessel from the registry. The following parties must be notified of the Judicial sale;<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>Registration authority,<\/li>\n<li>Registered mortgagees,<\/li>\n<li>Holders of maritime liens of which the<\/li>\n<li>Enforcement Office is informed,<\/li>\n<li>The registered owner of the vessel,<\/li>\n<li>The Claimant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Alternatively, such notice may be published in a newspaper with a daily circulation of minimum 50,000.00 at the place of the registry.<\/p>\n<p>The notice should also be published in a newspaper in Turkey with a daily circulation of minimum 50,000.00 and an international shipping newspaper distributed worldwide. The notice contains the terms of the sale including the place and time, valuation of the vessel and a clause indicating the vessel will be sold free of all registered mortgages, encumbrances or claims whatsoever.<\/p>\n<p>If there is no higher bid, the vessel can be sold at 50 % of its determined value as per the valuation report.<\/p>\n<p>After the sale, the Enforcement Office issues a list of creditors showing the priority rankings of all claims.<\/p>\n<p>The priority ranking of claims under Turkish Law is as follows (TCC Article 1389 to 1397):<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>Costs and expenses arising out of the vessel\u2019s maintenance and preservation along with the maintenance of the ship\u2019s company for the period under arrest as of the vessel\u2019s arrest, and out of foreclosure on the vessel and distribution of the proceeds of the sale, and Wages and other sums due to the crew members that relate to the period under arrest, from the date of the vessel\u2019s arrest until the date on which payment is made,<\/li>\n<li>Costs of public authority for removal of a stranded or sunken ship, carried out for the sake of safe navigation or the protection of environment;<\/li>\n<li>Maritime liens described in subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Article 1320 of TCC (crew claims, loss of life or personal injury claims, salvage claims, claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues, claims based on tort arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel) which are not governed by the preceding rankings;<\/li>\n<li>Shipyard claims, provided such claims arise when the vessel is in the possession of a shipyard in the course of judicial sale;<\/li>\n<li>Customs duty and other taxes relating to the vessel;<\/li>\n<li>Claims that are secured by a contractual or statutory right of pledge which are not governed by the preceding rankings;<\/li>\n<li>Maritime claims which are not governed by the preceding rankings;<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Ordinary claims against the shipowner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who is liable under a bill of lading? How is \u201cthe carrier\u201d identified? Or is that not a relevant question?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Simply, the \u2018Carrier\u2019 is liable under a Bill of Lading. The Carrier under Turkish Law is identified as per Article 1238 of TCC which is similar to Rotterdam Rules; The person who signed the Bill of Lading in the capacity of Carrier or on whose behalf the Bill of Lading was signed is the \u2018Carrier\u2019. If the identity of the Carrier cannot be understood from the information on the Bill of Lading i.e. if the name &amp; surname, title or main place of business is not shown or is not understandable on the Bill of Lading, the shipowner is deemed to be the Carrier unless such information is provided in writing upon a clear request of a Bill of Lading holder. If such information is provided late or wrongfully, the Carrier, the Owners, and the representative of the Carrier i.e. the Agents can be held jointly liable for the damages that may arise thereof.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the proper law of the bill of lading relevant? If so, how is it determined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Bill of Lading governs the legal relation between the Carrier and the Bill of Lading Holder; thus, the proper law of the bill of lading is always relevant. The Bill of Lading constitutes the terms of the contract of carriage between the carrier and the Bill of Lading Holder. If there is no categorical choice of applicable law in the Bill of Lading, Turkish Law will be applicable.<\/p>\n<p>Incorporation of the Charterparty terms and the applicable law therein will not be recognised unless the Charterparty is not physically attached to the Bill of Lading and Turkish Law will become applicable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are jurisdiction clauses recognised and enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As per article 47 of International Private Law and Procedure Law, except in cases where the jurisdiction of a court is determined according to exclusive jurisdiction of specific court principles, the parties may agree on jurisdiction of a court of foreign state in a dispute that contains a foreign element and arises from obligatory relations. The Jurisdiction Agreement must be concluded in writing. However, competency of Turkish Courts for some specific cases cannot be removed by agreement such as lawsuits related to Employment Contracts, Consumer Rights, and Insurance Contracts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the attitude of your courts to the incorporation of a charterparty, specifically: is an arbitration clause in the charter given effect in the bill of lading context?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As per Article 1237of TCC, the relation between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading is governed by the Bill of Lading and the relation between the carrier and the shipper is governed by the charter party. Under Turkish Law a simple incorporation clause in the Bill of Lading will not itself suffice for an arbitration clause to be binding for the third-party Bill of Lading holders. A copy of the Charterparty has to be delivered to the bearer of the Bill of Lading. On the other hand, the text of the incorporated terms must be consistent with the text of the Bill of Lading; if there is any conflict thereof terms of the Bill of Lading will prevail.<\/p>\n<p>Turkey is signatory to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law, Brussels 1924 known as the Hague Rules, which was ratified in and came into force in 1956. Although Turkey did not become a party to the Hague Visby, Rotterdam or Hamburg Rules, the Hague Visby &amp; Hamburg Rules were largely, and the Rotterdam Rules were partly, adopted in the TCC.<\/p>\n<p>If there is no contractual choice by the Parties as to applicable provisions, cargo claims are dealt with by TCC within the Turkish jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to any of the international conventions concerning bills of lading (the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules etc)? If so, which one, and how has it been adopted \u2013 by ratification, accession, or in some other manner? If not, how are such issues covered in your legal system?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkey is signatory to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law, Brussels 1924 known as the Hague Rules, which was ratified in and came into force in 1956. Although Turkey did not become a party to the Hague Visby, Rotterdam or Hamburg Rules, the Hague Visby &amp; Hamburg Rules were largely, and the Rotterdam Rules were partly, adopted in the TCC.<\/p>\n<p>If there is no contractual choice by the Parties as to applicable provisions, cargo claims are dealt with by TCC within the Turkish jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? If not, what rules apply? What are the available grounds to resist enforcement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Turkey is party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.<\/p>\n<p>The main legislation as to enforcement of arbitration awards in Turkey are the International Private and Procedural Law (Code no.5718) (IPPL) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards which is ratified by Turkey on 2 July 1992 and entered into force on 30 September 1992.<\/p>\n<p>As per relevant terms of IPPL and the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be resisted if:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>There is an absence of an arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause in the relevant agreement.<\/li>\n<li>The subject matter is not referable to arbitration under Turkish law.<\/li>\n<li>The recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to the public policy and morality of Turkey.<\/li>\n<li>The party, against whom the enforcement of the award is sought, was not properly served of the arbitration proceedings and therefore could not use its right of defence.<\/li>\n<li>The party, against whom the enforcement of the award is sought, was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case.<\/li>\n<li>The composition of the Tribunal or the arbitral procedure was contrary to the agreement of the parties or with the law to which the agreement is subjected and\/or the law of the country where the arbitration was concluded.<\/li>\n<li>The part of the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. The award submitted for recognition and enforcement has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent body.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please summarise the relevant time limits for commencing suit in your jurisdiction (e.g. claims in contract or in tort, personal injury and other passenger claims, cargo claims, salvage and collision claims, product liability claims).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Unless otherwise specified time limit for commencing suit under Turkish Law is ten years. In general terms time limit for commencing suit in contract, although it may vary depending on the specific form of the contract, and\/or in tort is ten years.<\/p>\n<p>Here follows summary of time limits for various claims;<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>salvage or wreck removal claims: two years,<\/li>\n<li>Claims granting creditors maritime lien rights: one year,<\/li>\n<li>Claims for loss of life or personal injury: ten years<\/li>\n<li>Passenger Claims and claims for damage or loss of luggage: two years<\/li>\n<li>Claims arising out of charter parties, contracts of carriage or bills of lading: one year;<\/li>\n<li>Collision claims: two years.<\/li>\n<li>Claims arising out of damage, loss or late delivery of cargo: one year,<\/li>\n<li>General Average claims: one year<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Pursuant to article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, if the dispute concerns any criminal liability, the time limit for commencing suit may be longer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your system of law recognize force majeure, or grant relief from undue hardship?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no precise definition of force majeure under Turkish Law. However, the Article 136 of Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) defines the term \u201cImpossibility of Performance\u201d. As per such Article, if it is impossible to perform all the obligations under the contract due to the reasons that are not attributable to the obligor, the obligor shall be released from performing the related obligations. So far, the force majeure events are not listed in Turkish Legislation, either certain events beyond control of parties can be defined in the contract by the parties or such event can be determined as force majeure under the discretion of Courts. Unless the obligor duly and timely notifies the creditor on the impossibility of the performance of the obligations and takes necessary precautions to prevent the increase of loss, the obligor shall be liable for consequential losses thereof.<\/p>\n<p>Notwithstanding the foregoing, as per decisions of Turkish Supreme Court an event can be defined as force majeure provided;<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>the event arises beyond control of the parties,<\/li>\n<li>occurrence of such event is unforeseeable,<\/li>\n<li>it is impossible to prevent occurrence of such event,<\/li>\n<li>a chain of causation exists between the impossibility of performance and such event.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>TCO also regulates the terms of \u201cPartial Impossibility of Performance\u201d and \u201cHardship\u201d. The partial impossibility of performance occurs when the performance of the obligations under a contract becomes partially impossible due to reasons for which the obligor cannot be held responsible, the obligor shall be released from the obligations which became partially impossible. However, if it is clearly understood from the interpretation of the contract that such contract would not be concluded if the respective impossibility would have been foreseen by the parties in advance, then all of the obligations under such contract shall be terminated. Pursuant to article 138 of TCO titled \u201chardship\u201d, obligor can request adaption or revocation of the contract from the court provided the following circumstances occur;<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>An unexpected event occurred after the execution of the contract which was unforeseen and not expected to be foreseen by the obligor<\/li>\n<li>The performance of the obligations become excessively burdensome for the obligor due to unexpected event,<\/li>\n<li>Obligor have performed his obligations by reserving its rights for hardship or not yet performed the obligations under the contract.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5097<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/94100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}