Maritime Claims and Ship Arrest in Turkey: Requirements, Procedure, and Practical Pitfalls

Maritime Claims inshipping, the debtor is mobile, the asset is international, and time is rarely on your side. That is why ship arrest—in Turkey, most commonly framed as precautionary attachment of a vessel (ihtiyati haciz)—remains one of the strongest tools available to secure payment of a maritime debt. But it is also a tool with strict boundaries: not every receivable is a “maritime claim,” and not every dispute justifies arrest. A creditor who moves too slowly (or too aggressively) can lose leverage, waste costs, or even face exposure for wrongful arrest.

This article explains what counts as a maritime claim, when a ship can be arrested in Turkey, which court is competent, and how the process typically works in practice, with a focus on the mistakes that most often turn a strong case into an avoidable risk.

1) Legal framework: Turkish Commercial Code + international alignment

Turkey’s ship arrest regime is set out primarily under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), which contains special enforcement rules for vessels. In addition, Turkey is a party to the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships, which influences the structure and terminology of the Turkish rules.

A key takeaway for practitioners is that Turkish law treats ship arrest as a security measure tied to specific categories of receivables—the so-called “maritime claims.” If you cannot bring your receivable within those categories, arrest is simply not available as a remedy in Turkey.

2) Maritime claims vs maritime liens vs mortgages (why the labels matter)

Maritime claim (deniz alacağı) is the gateway concept for arrest. It is a statutory list of claim-types that qualify for ship arrest.

A maritime lien (in Turkish practice, often discussed under “gemi alacaklısı hakkı”) is different: it is a privileged in rem–style security concept that may rank ahead of other creditors in distribution. A ship mortgage is also different: it is a registered real security right (particularly important for banks and structured finance).

In day-to-day disputes, creditors sometimes assume that “any shipping debt” supports arrest. That assumption is dangerous. In Turkey, the arrest question starts and ends with whether the receivable is a maritime claim within the TCC list.

3) What qualifies as a “maritime claim” in Turkey?

The TCC provides a detailed list of maritime claims. Rather than reproducing the full list verbatim, it is more useful to understand the typical clusters that arise in practice. The list includes, among others:

A. Casualty, damage, and safety-related claims

These include:

• Damage caused by the operation of the ship (including collision-type losses),

• Personal injury or loss of life connected to ship operations,

• Salvage-type items (and related cost elements).

B. Contracts: chartering, carriage, and cargo

Many of the most common arrest applications arise from:

• Charterparty disputes (time charter / voyage charter, hire, demurrage, damages),

• Carriage of goods (cargo loss/damage, delay-related heads when contractually framed),

• Bills of lading disputes when they translate into a qualifying maritime claim.

C. Port services, towage, pilotage, supplies, repairs

A large share of arrests in busy ports are driven by:

• Towage and pilotage,

• Port/harbour dues and service charges,

• Bunkers/fuel supplies, stores, repairs, shipyard invoices, and similar necessities.

D. Crew and employment-related receivables

Wages and certain onboard employment receivables often have special priority dynamics in addition to being arrest-relevant.

E. Property disputes tied to the ship

The list also captures disputes relating to the ship’s possession/ownership or co-ownership issues (with important limitations when the dispute is specifically about title/possession, discussed below).

Practical approach: when preparing an arrest file, do not argue in generalities (“this is a shipping dispute”). Instead, map each invoice/claim head to the closest statutory category and build your evidence packet around that category (service records for bunkers; statement of facts for casualty; charterparty clauses + hire statements for charter disputes, etc.).

4) The core rule: only arrest (not injunction) and only for maritime claims

Turkish law is explicit:

1. To secure a maritime claim, the ship may be subjected only to precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz).

2. For these claims, the creditor cannot request a ship-specific injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) or any other form of detention.

3. For non-maritime claims, a ship arrest order cannot be granted.

4. The fact that a claim falls within the statutory maritime claim list is itself treated as an arrest ground.

This design matters because it forces parties to play within a clear statutory “lane.” If your receivable is outside the list, you may still have remedies—lawsuit, arbitration, enforcement against other assets—but ship arrest is not one of them.

What about unmatured maritime claims?

Even if a maritime claim is not yet due, arrest may still be sought if the special conditions referenced by the Code are met.

5) Which ship can be arrested? “Target ship,” “sister ship,” and key limits

One of the most litigated questions is: Can I arrest a different ship owned by the same debtor? Turkish law allows this within a carefully structured rule-set.

A. Arrest of the ship connected to the claim (the “target ship”)

A ship can be arrested where the maritime claim is asserted against it if the statutory conditions are satisfied—most importantly, that the relevant person is both liable and tied to ownership in the way the Code requires.

B. Arrest of other ships (sister ship arrest)

Turkish law permits arrest of ships other than the one on which the claim arose if, at the time of arrest, the ships belong to the person liable for the maritime claim and certain status conditions at the time the claim arose are met (owner/charterer/allocatee/shipper type links).

C. Ownership/possession disputes: only the specific ship

If the dispute concerns ownership or possession of a vessel, Turkish law limits arrest to the ship that is the subject of that dispute (you cannot roam across a fleet).

Practice tip: ownership structure and liability alignment are often the “make or break” issue in urgent arrest files. Your evidence bundle should include registry extracts and documents showing who is the liable person in relation to the claim, not merely who manages the ship operationally.

6) Which court is competent in Turkey?

Competence rules are strict and very practical: they dictate whether you can obtain an order before the ship sails.

A. Turkish-flagged ships

For Turkish-flagged vessels, an arrest order may be granted by:

• The court where the ship is anchored, moored to a buoy, berthed, or in dry dock, or

• Depending on registration/registry status, certain other courts linked to the registry location or the owner/charterer’s domicile (as defined by the Code).

B. Foreign-flagged ships located in Turkey

For foreign-flagged ships in Turkey, the rule is even tighter: the arrest decision may be issued only by the court of the place where the ship is anchored/moored/berthed/in dry dock.

Operational meaning: if the vessel is in a Turkish port, you typically prepare the file for the competent local commercial court immediately (often through counsel familiar with that port’s practice), because a wrong venue choice can cost the window of opportunity.

7) Security (counter-security) required from the arresting creditor: 10,000 SDR

Turkish law requires the arresting creditor to provide security in the amount of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) when seeking ship arrest for a maritime claim.

The opposing side can also request an increase of the security amount by pointing to operating costs and loss of earnings while the ship is detained; if additional security is ordered and not deposited in time, the arrest can lapse.

There is also a statutory exemption for certain maritime lien–type creditors (as referenced by the Code).

Why this matters: many clients focus on the claim amount and overlook the liquidity impact of security. In urgent arrest planning, you should treat security readiness as part of the timeline, not as an afterthought.

8) How arrest is executed: detention (seferden men) and notifications

Once the arrest order is granted, execution is carried out by the enforcement officer. The Code provides that arrested ships are detained from sailing (seferden men) and placed under protective custody, with service to the captain/owner/operator representative and formal handling through “yediemin” (custodian) mechanics.

The enforcement office must also notify relevant authorities promptly (coast guard/security units, harbour master, customs), and later the ship registry (and for foreign ships, the nearest consulate).

Practical meaning: arrest is not merely a court order on paper; it is an operational coordination exercise with port authorities. A well-prepared file anticipates ship schedules, port working hours, and execution steps.

9) After the arrest: deadlines to “complete” the process (one-month rule)

A common creditor mistake is winning the arrest order and then delaying the main proceedings. Turkish law applies a special timing rule for ship arrests: the completion periods referenced in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy regime are applied as one month for ship arrests.

Practice tip: treat the arrest as your time-buying mechanism, not your endgame. You should have a parallel plan ready for:

• Filing a substantive lawsuit in the competent court, and/or

• Commencing arbitration (where relevant) and documenting that commencement, and/or

• Starting the relevant enforcement step if that is the correct procedural route.

10) Releasing the ship: posting security does not mean admitting liability

In most commercial scenarios, the ship will be released once adequate security is provided. Turkish law states that the owner or debtor can seek lifting of the arrest by providing sufficient security for the claim (up to the ship’s value) and related items, and it also regulates post-enforcement competence for such requests.

Crucially, posting security to release the ship is not treated as an admission of liability and does not waive defenses or limitation rights.

This is why, in practice, security is often negotiated: the creditor wants certainty, the ship interests want speed, and both sides want to avoid transforming a security step into a merits concession.

11) The most common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

Pitfall 1: Treating every shipping invoice as arrest-eligible

Fix: Category mapping. Identify the TCC maritime claim category for each head and attach proof tailored to that category.

Pitfall 2: Wrong court / wrong port logic

Fix: verify the ship’s location and apply the venue rules strictly—especially for foreign-flagged ships.

Pitfall 3: Ignoring the security (10,000 SDR) planning

Fix: treat security as a prerequisite and prepare funding logistics early.

Pitfall 4: Weak ownership/liability evidence for sister-ship arrest

Fix: gather registry materials and corporate/operational documents proving the statutory link.

Pitfall 5: Missing the one-month “completion” window

Fix: have the merits track (court/arbitration/enforcement) ready to launch immediately after arrest.

12) Quick checklist: a “ready-to-file” arrest pack (practitioner view)

A typical arrest application file is strongest when it includes:

• Clear statement of the maritime claim category + amount calculation (principal/interest/costs),

• Contract chain (charterparty/B/L/service contract) where applicable,

• Invoices, delivery records, port logs, bunker delivery note, repair completion docs, survey reports—depending on the claim,

• Registry extract / ownership proof and vessel identifiers,

• Evidence of ship’s current location and urgency,

• Security readiness documentation (for the court stage),

• Draft execution instructions anticipating port notifications.