MARITIME CLAIMS AND PRECAUTIONARY ATTACHMENT ON THE SHIP

I. Introduction

Maritime trade is a largely international economic activity, involving contact with the legal systems of multiple states. The owner of a ship may be based in one country, the ship may fly the flag of another, the contract of carriage may be subject to the law of a third state, and the ship may arrive at a port in a completely different state shortly after the debt arises. This mobility is one of the most significant collection risks faced by creditors in maritime trade.

In general enforcement law, the debtor's assets are often located in a specific place, and their removal faces certain legal and practical obstacles. A ship, by its very nature, is mobile. A ship can leave port within a few hours and move out of the area where Turkish jurisdiction is effectively applicable. Even if the creditor wins the main case, there is a risk that they may not be able to reach the debtor or the ship once the decision becomes final.

Therefore, the function of precautionary attachment for ships is not merely to create a temporary restriction on the debtor's assets. Through precautionary attachment, the ship is prevented from sailing, placed under custody, and the debt is secured. In practice, the ship is released upon the provision of sufficient security by the ship owner, charterer, or liability insurer; thus, a balance is struck between the ship's continued commercial activity and the creditor's guarantee of collection.

The specific provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code regarding compulsory execution are based on the principle that the law of the country where the vessel is located at the time the precautionary attachment proceedings are carried out applies. According to Article 1350 of the Code, the precautionary or enforcement attachment of a vessel, its sale through compulsory execution, the transfer of ownership, and other procedures related to compulsory execution are subject to the law of the country where the vessel is located at the time the procedure is carried out. In matters not specifically regulated in Turkish law, the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law shall apply supplementarily.

II. The Concept and Legal Nature of Provisional Attachment

Provisional attachment is a temporary legal protection that secures the future compulsory execution of a monetary claim. Provisional attachment of a ship essentially means the seizure or restriction of a ship's movement by court order to secure a maritime claim. This action does not mean that the creditor has definitively obtained the claim or acquired ownership of the ship. Provisional attachment only aims to prevent the outcome of subsequent enforcement proceedings or lawsuits from becoming ineffective.

Provisional attachment and definitive attachment should be distinguished from each other. Definitive or enforcement attachment is applied in an ongoing enforcement proceeding to collect the debt and, if necessary, sell the vessel. Provisional attachment, on the other hand, serves the function of providing security before the debt becomes final or while the main proceedings are ongoing. The 1999 Geneva Convention also defines "arrest" as the seizure or restriction of a vessel's movement by court order to secure a maritime claim; it excludes definitive attachment carried out for the purpose of executing a judgment or other enforceable document from this concept.

Article 1353 of the Turkish Commercial Code explicitly stipulates that the only temporary protection that can be applied to a ship to secure maritime claims is provisional attachment. It is not possible to request a provisional measure or any other method of preventing a ship from sailing due to a maritime claim. Thus, the legislator has consolidated the legal protection regarding the temporary detention of ships under a single institution.

An important consequence of this regulation is that it prevents claims from being based on the wrong legal institution in practice. Even if the subject of a dispute is the ownership or possession of a ship, a claim for temporary legal protection to prevent the ship from sailing should be made within the framework of the special provisional attachment provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code, not as a precautionary measure.

III. The Concept of Maritime Claims

Maritime claims are not an unlimited concept encompassing all claims related to maritime trade. Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code specifies which claims are considered maritime claims. The method employed by the law is not to provide a general definition and have the judge add similar claims to the list, but rather to individually enumerate the claims that give rise to a right of provisional attachment.

Therefore, it is not sufficient for a claim to be economically or factually linked to the ship. The claim must fall within one of the categories listed in Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code. Even if the debtor is the ship owner, a special precautionary attachment order cannot be issued against the ship for a claim that falls outside this list. However, the creditor may apply general enforcement law provisions regarding the debtor's assets other than the ship.

Maritime claims under Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code can be examined under several main groups. The first group includes damages arising from the operation of the ship. This includes material damages caused by the operation of the ship, loss of life and bodily harm directly related to the operation of the ship, and damage to the environment or coastline. Reasonable expenses incurred to prevent, limit, or eliminate environmental damage are also considered maritime claims. Expenses related to refloating, removing, or rendering harmless a sunken, grounded, wrecked, or abandoned ship also benefit from the same protection.

The second group consists of contractual maritime claims. Claims arising from contracts for the use or chartering of a vessel are considered maritime claims, regardless of whether a charter party has been drawn up. Contracts relating to the carriage of passengers or goods on board, loss or damage to goods and baggage, general average, towage, and pilotage claims fall within this scope. Claims arising from fuel, provisions, containers, equipment, materials, and services provided for the operation, management, maintenance, or protection of the vessel are also considered maritime claims.

The third group includes receivables related to the physical existence, financing, and operational organization of the vessel. These include the construction, reconstruction, repair, outfitting, or modification of the vessel; port, canal, dock, pier, quay, and quarantine fees; loans taken out for the vessel and expenses incurred on behalf of the owner; insurance premiums, mutual insurance contributions, commissions, brokerage, and agency fees. Seafarers' wages, repatriation expenses, and social security contributions are also explicitly protected under the law.

The last group includes disputes arising from real rights and partnership relationships on the ship. Disputes concerning the ownership or possession of the ship, disputes among co-owners regarding the operation or income of the ship, claims arising from ship pledges, ship mortgages, and ship sale contracts are also considered maritime claims.

IV. Separation of Maritime Claims and Ship Creditor's Rights

Maritime claims and maritime creditors' rights are not the same concept. While every claim giving rise to maritime creditors' rights is also a maritime claim, not every maritime claim holder is entitled to maritime creditors' rights.

A maritime creditor's right grants the holder of certain claims a legal lien on the ship and its accessories. This right can, as a rule, be asserted against the persons in possession of the ship, regardless of a change in ownership. Claims related to seafarers' wages, death and bodily harm directly associated with the operation of the ship, salvage fees, certain port and pilotage fees, certain tort claims arising from the operation of the ship, and general average shares may give rise to a maritime creditor's right under Article 1320 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

In contrast, claims such as a fuel supplier's receivables, a ship agent's commission, ship insurance premiums, or claims arising from the chartering of a vessel, while considered maritime receivables, do not necessarily give rise to maritime creditor rights. While these receivables can be secured through provisional attachment, their priority in the distribution of the proceeds from a forced sale and their status in the event of a change of ownership differ from maritime creditor rights.

This distinction is extremely important in the provisional attachment of a vessel. In the case of a maritime claim secured by a maritime creditor's right, the subsequent transfer of ownership of the vessel to a third party does not prevent the attachment in all circumstances. In contrast, in a purely personal maritime claim, the relationship between the ownership of the vessel to be attached and the person liable for the claim must be examined separately.

The fact that a maritime creditor's right constitutes a statutory lien may also grant the creditor priority in benefiting from the proceeds of a forced sale. The Turkish Commercial Code regulates a significant portion of maritime creditor rights as rights that take precedence over other statutory and contractual liens, whether registered or not, on the vessel.

V. Conditions for Requesting Provisional Attachment

The first and fundamental condition for the provisional attachment of a vessel is that the claim must be a maritime claim within the meaning of Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code. For a due maritime claim, the fact that the claim is of a maritime nature is considered by law as a sufficient reason for provisional attachment. Therefore, unlike the general provisional attachment regime, it is not necessary to separately prove that the debtor has absconded with their assets, has no place of residence, or that collection is jeopardized.

The situation is different if the receivable has not yet become due. For maritime receivables that are not yet due, the conditions stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be met. In these cases, special grounds for precautionary attachment are sought, such as the debtor not having a fixed place of residence or concealing, transferring, or preparing to flee their assets in order to evade their obligations.

In precautionary attachment proceedings, the standard of approximate proof, not full proof, is applied. It is sufficient for the creditor to present evidence that convinces the court that the claim is one of the maritime claims listed in the law and of its monetary value. At this stage, the court does not examine all the evidence in detail as in the main case and make a definitive determination of the claim.

As proof, the following documents may be submitted: charter party, bill of lading, fuel delivery document, invoice, port service documents, ship registry records, classification records, agency agreements, bank statements, expert reports, damage reports, maritime protest, electronic correspondence, and notices of default. If the documents are in a foreign language, it is important to have translations prepared, to include representation and registration documents of foreign companies in the file, and to clearly state the ship's identification information.

As a rule, a creditor requesting a provisional attachment is required to provide security in the amount of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights. The opposing party may request an increase in the security, citing daily operating expenses and lost earnings during the period the vessel is detained. The creditor may also request a reduction in the security. If the additional security is not deposited within the period determined by the court, the provisional attachment is automatically lifted. However, the creditor is exempt from the obligation to deposit security for wages and related claims of seafarers under Article 1320/1-a of the Turkish Commercial Code.

VI. Competent and Authorized Court

Requests for provisional attachment of vessels are commercial matters arising from maritime trade. The competent court is, as a rule, the commercial court of first instance. In locations where specialized courts have been designated to handle maritime trade and marine insurance disputes, the request should be directed to the relevant specialized court.

Before filing a lawsuit, a provisional attachment order against a Turkish-flagged vessel may be requested from the court of the place where the vessel is anchored, moored to a buoy or mooring, berthed, or launched. Additionally, for vessels registered in the Turkish ship registry, the court of the registry's place of registration has jurisdiction; for vessels not registered in the registry, the court of the owner's place of residence has jurisdiction; and for vessels registered in a special registry, the court of the charterer's place of residence has jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is more narrowly defined for foreign-flagged vessels. A provisional attachment order against a foreign-flagged vessel in Türkiye can only be issued by the court of the place where the vessel is anchored, moored, berthed, or launched. Therefore, tracking the arrival and departure information of a foreign vessel at the port and promptly applying to the correct court is of great importance in practice.

The fact that a foreign court has jurisdiction or an arbitration clause has been accepted in the contract between the parties does not prevent a Turkish court from issuing a provisional attachment order on the vessel. Even if foreign law applies to the substance of the maritime claim, the competent Turkish court where the vessel is located in Türkiye may issue a provisional attachment order to secure the claim.

If the main lawsuit is filed in Türkiye, a request for provisional attachment can only be made to the court hearing the case. If the main dispute is being heard in a foreign court or before an arbitration panel, a request for provisional attachment can be made to the specially authorized courts designated for Turkish-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels until a final judgment is rendered.

VII. Which Ships Can Be Seized as a Precautionary Measure?

Article 1369 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) details which vessels can be subject to provisional attachment. The basic rule is that the vessel on which the maritime claim arose can be attached under certain conditions. The person who owned the vessel at the time the maritime claim arose must both be liable for the claim and continue to be the owner of the vessel at the time the attachment is applied.

In cases of debts arising from the liability of a ship's charterer, the ship may be seized even if the charterer, at the time the maritime debt arose, becomes the owner of the ship at the time of seizure. Furthermore, provisional seizure of the ship is possible if the debt is secured by a ship pledge, ship mortgage, or similar real encumbrance; if the dispute relates to the ownership or possession of the ship; or if the debt grants a right to a ship creditor.

The law also permits the provisional attachment of other vessels, known in legal doctrine as "sister vessels," under certain conditions. If, at the time of attachment, another vessel belongs to the person liable for the maritime debt, and that person was the owner, charterer, consignee, or carrier of the vessel in question at the time the debt arose, then the other vessel may also be provisionally attached.

While sister ship seizure is important for creditor protection in maritime trade, it can be limited in practice due to the fact that ships are registered in the names of separate companies. Since it is common for a separate company to be established for each ship within maritime company groups, it is possible for two ships controlled economically by the same group to be registered as different legal entities. Mere economic connection or joint management is not sufficient for sister ship seizure in every case. If it is alleged that the separation of legal entities between companies has been abused, concrete evidence must be presented to demonstrate the conditions for lifting the corporate veil.

Sister ship seizures cannot be applied in disputes concerning the ownership or possession of a vessel. In such cases, only the vessel that is the direct subject of the ownership or possession dispute can be provisionally seized.

The special provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code regarding compulsory execution apply not only to merchant ships but also to yachts and vessels dedicated to pleasure, sports, education, training, and scientific purposes. However, these provisions do not apply equally to state vessels dedicated to public service, warships, and auxiliary vessels belonging to the navy.

When Turkey acceded to the 1999 Geneva Convention, it declared that it reserved the right to give priority to the provisions of the 1926 Convention on the Immunity of State Ships and its 1934 Additional Protocol regarding the immunity of state-owned vessels.

VIII. Implementation of the Provisional Attachment Order

The creditor must request the enforcement of the provisional attachment order within three business days from the date the order is issued. The application may be made to the enforcement office within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the order or to the enforcement office located where the vessel is situated. If enforcement is not requested within the three-business-day period, the provisional attachment order is automatically lifted.

A ship is not automatically seized upon the issuance of a court order. The order must be enforced through an enforcement office. The enforcement office applies the provisional attachment immediately upon request. Considering the possibility of the ship leaving the port, the provisional attachment can also be applied at night or on public holidays.

When a precautionary attachment order is executed, the vessel is prohibited from sailing and taken into custody by the enforcement officer, regardless of its flag and the registry in which it is registered. The order is served to the captain, owner, non-owner shipowner, or their representative. The vessel may be left with the notified person as a custodian.

The enforcement officer notifies the Coast Guard Command or security forces responsible for the area where the ship is located, the port authority, and the customs administration of the seizure order. On the first business day following the day the order is implemented, notification is made to the registry where the ship is registered, and in the case of foreign-flagged ships, also to the nearest consulate of the ship's flag state. These notifications prevent the ship from leaving the port and prevent any actions incompatible with the seizure from being taken on the registry.

The law also addresses the possibility that the vessel may have already departed or be on a voyage when the precautionary attachment order is to be executed. For Turkish-flagged vessels, those responsible for the debt are warned to provide security within a specified period; otherwise, the vessel will be handed over to the enforcement office on its next voyage. For foreign-flagged vessels, the attachment can be enforced with the assistance of the Coast Guard until the vessel leaves Turkish territorial waters.

A precautionary attachment covers not only the physical assets of the vessel but also the income and benefits the debtor derives from its operation. The enforcement office is obligated to take the necessary measures for the maintenance, protection, management, and, if necessary, operation of the vessel. Prolonged detention of the vessel in port can result in significant costs for port fees, crew expenses, fuel, maintenance, security, and environmental risks.

IX. Release of the Ship in Exchange for Security

The purpose of precautionary attachment is not to prevent the ship from engaging in commercial activity for an extended period, but to provide sufficient security to the creditor. Therefore, the law allows for the release of the ship if appropriate security is provided.

The vessel may be released to the debtor by depositing its value or by providing a real estate pledge, ship mortgage, or a guarantee from a reputable bank that the bailiff will accept. In this case, the provisional attachment legally continues, but the vessel is effectively released. The attachment record is preserved in the registry.

The owner or debtor of the vessel may request the lifting of the provisional attachment by providing sufficient security to cover the entire maritime debt, including accrued and future interest and expenses, provided that the security does not exceed the value of the vessel. The authority to evaluate the request for lifting before the commencement of proceedings belongs to the court that issued the provisional attachment order, and after the commencement of proceedings, it belongs to the enforcement court.

The type and amount of security may be freely agreed upon between the creditor and the shipowner or non-owner ship operator. In practice, cash, bank guarantee letters, or, under appropriate conditions, guarantee letters issued by a liability insurer or P&I club may be considered. If the parties cannot agree, the adequacy and form of the security shall be determined by the court.

The amount of security cannot exceed the value of the vessel. The reason for this limitation is that the security replaces the seized vessel. The security provided in place of the vessel should, as a rule, not exceed the highest economic value that can be obtained from the forced sale of the vessel. The 1999 Geneva Convention also accepts that the amount of security cannot exceed the value of the seized vessel.

Providing security for the release of a vessel does not imply acceptance of debt or liability. The guarantor may continue to raise all objections and defenses regarding the non-existence of the claim, its statute of limitations, its being directed to the wrong person, or the limited liability. Article 1373 of the Turkish Commercial Code explicitly regulates this matter.

X. Objection to Provisional Attachment and Modification of Security

A provisional attachment order is usually issued without hearing the debtor or the ship owner. The main reason for this is the risk of the ship leaving the port if the other party is informed in advance. However, after the order is executed, the relevant parties can object to the provisional attachment.

In objections, it may be argued that the claim is not a maritime debt, that the debt cannot be approximately proven, that the seized vessel does not belong to the person liable for the debt, that the conditions for a sister ship are not met, that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that sufficient security has not been provided. The claim that the vessel was transferred to a bona fide third party before the seizure may also be significant, depending on the nature of the debt.

Objections made before the main lawsuit is filed are examined by the court that issued the provisional attachment order. If the main lawsuit has been filed in Türkiye, the court hearing the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the objection. If the dispute is being heard in a foreign court or arbitration, the objection is evaluated by the Turkish court that issued the provisional attachment order. These same courts can also decide on requests to increase, decrease, change the type of, or cancel the security deposit.

The guarantor may at any time request a reduction in the amount of the security, its replacement with another type of security, or its complete cancellation, depending on changing circumstances. In particular, a decrease in the amount of the claim during litigation, the rejection of certain claims, or the discovery that the value of the vessel is lower than the initial estimate may necessitate a reassessment of the security.

XI. Re-seizure and Seizure of Another Vessel for the Same Debt

The repeated provisional seizure of a ship for the same debt can disproportionately hinder maritime trade. For this reason, the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) has made the re-seizure of a ship that has been previously seized and released subject to exceptional circumstances.

If the type or amount of the initial security is insufficient, if it becomes clear that the guarantor is unable to fulfill their obligation, or if the vessel has been released against the reasonable will of the creditor, a new seizure may be possible. However, the total security obtained cannot exceed the value of the vessel.

The seizure of a sister ship for the same maritime debt is subject to similar conditions. If the previously obtained security is sufficient and there is no serious risk regarding the validity of the security, the creditor cannot obtain excessive security by seizing a second ship for the same debt.

Conversely, if the vessel illegally evades seizure, departs despite instructions from port authorities, or the security provided becomes invalid, this may provide the creditor with the opportunity to re-seize the vessel. The aim of the regulation is to protect the creditor's rights while preventing excessive pressure on the debtor for the same debt.

XII. Liability Arising from Unlawful Provisional Attachment

Preventing a ship from sailing can lead to very high economic losses. Holding a merchant ship in port for several days can result in lost freight, charter fees, port and demurrage charges, crew expenses, delays in cargo delivery, cancellation of subsequent voyages, and damage to commercial reputation. Therefore, a creditor requesting a precautionary attachment must carefully consider the legal and factual grounds for their request.

If the attachment is found to be wrongful or unlawful, the ship owner, charterer, or other injured parties may file a compensation claim against the creditor. According to Article 1361 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the court that issued the provisional attachment order is also authorized to hear the compensation claim filed against the losing creditor. If the merits of the maritime claim are being heard in another court or before an arbitration panel, the outcome of the main dispute shall be considered a preliminary issue in the compensation claim.

In assessing an unlawful provisional attachment, simply dismissing the main case may not be sufficient. It is necessary to examine whether the creditor based their request for provisional attachment on a just and reasonable ground, the evidence presented, the connection of the vessel to the debt, and whether the requested security is proportionate.

The 1999 Geneva Convention recognizes the right to compensation for damages arising from wrongful or unjustified seizure and excessive security demands, and allows courts to require creditors to provide security to cover such damages. Liability arising from wrongful seizure is determined according to the laws of the state where the seizure was carried out.

One of the functions of the initial security deposit of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) provided by the creditor is to safeguard against damages that may arise from wrongful seizure. However, the daily operating expenses and loss of income of the vessel may exceed this amount. In this case, the other party may request an increase in the security deposit while the seizure continues.

XIII. The Significance of the 1999 Geneva Convention in Turkish Law

The 1999 International Convention on the Provisional Seizure of Ships aims to ensure international uniformity regarding the provisional seizure of ships. The Convention was adopted in Geneva on 12 March 1999 and entered into force generally on 14 September 2011. Turkey acceded to the Convention on 11 September 2019, and it entered into force for Turkey on 11 December 2019.

The fundamental principle of the Convention is that a ship can only be provisionally seized for maritime claims listed in the Convention. While the list of maritime claims in the Convention is not explicitly defined, it is broader than that of the previous 1952 Convention. Environmental damages, wreck removal costs, insurance premiums, brokerage fees, and disputes arising from the ship sale contract are also included in the list.

The Convention has adopted a broad scope of application, applicable to vessels within the jurisdiction of a State party, regardless of whether the vessel flies the flag of that State party. However, the issue of state vessels and immunity is considered separately. Turkey reserves the right to give priority to the provisions of the 1926 Convention on the Immunity of State Vessels and its 1934 Additional Protocol in this regard.

Although the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code regarding maritime claims and provisional attachment of vessels entered into force before Turkey became a party to the Convention, they are largely consistent with the Convention's system. Nevertheless, in every case involving a foreign element, the scope of application of the Convention, the status of the vessel in question, state immunity, the parties' jurisdiction or arbitration agreement, and the provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code must be considered together.

XIV. Points to Consider in Practice

In requests for precautionary attachment of a vessel, speed is often as important as the strength of the legal grounds. It is necessary to determine the vessel's arrival time at the port and estimated departure time, obtain up-to-date vessel registration information, examine the chain of ownership, and ascertain the vessel's actual operating relationship.

The creditor must indicate the ship's name, IMO number, flag, call sign, registration information, port of call, and, if possible, place of berthing in the claim application. The IMO number is of particular importance in identifying the ship, as ship names can change.

If the debtor of the maritime claim and the ship owner are not the same person, the special conditions in Article 1369 of the Turkish Commercial Code must be explained in detail. It should not be assumed that the ship can be automatically seized even if the charterer, ship manager, operator, or agent is the debtor. It must also be investigated whether the claim grants maritime creditor rights, whether there is a mortgage on the ship, and whether the debtor owns other ships.

The three-business-day enforcement period after the decision is made must not be missed; coordination of implementation should be ensured with the port authority, the enforcement directorate, and, if necessary, the Coast Guard units. The time limits for completing the provisional attachment under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law should also be considered in relation to the main case or enforcement proceedings.

From the ship owner's perspective, the basis for the seizure order, the nature of the claim as a maritime debt, ownership status, the amount of security, and the competent court must be examined immediately. Considering the damage that the ship may cause by remaining in port for an extended period, providing appropriate security without accepting liability and having the seizure lifted may be more economically advantageous in many cases.

XV. Conclusion

The provisional attachment of a vessel due to maritime debts is one of the most effective temporary legal protection mechanisms in maritime law. The mobile nature of vessels, their subjection to the flag and registration systems of different states, and their ability to quickly move outside of jurisdiction necessitate a special protection mechanism for maritime creditors.

The Turkish Commercial Code stipulates that a ship may only be provisionally seized for maritime claims limited by law. A provisional seizure or injunction prohibiting a ship from sailing cannot be issued for claims other than maritime claims. The fact that the claim is a maritime claim is considered a reason for provisional seizure for due claims; it is sufficient for the creditor to provide approximate proof regarding the nature and amount of the claim.

A distinction must be made between maritime claims and maritime creditors' rights. While maritime creditors' rights provide statutory security and priority, maritime claims primarily grant the right to request provisional attachment of the vessel. Not every maritime claim creates a real right that can be asserted against the subsequent owner of the vessel.

The type of vessel to which a precautionary attachment can be applied depends on the relationship between the owner or charterer at the time the debt arose and the owner at the time of the attachment. While attachment of sister vessels is possible under certain conditions, joint economic control alone may not be sufficient for vessels registered under different single-ship companies.

The three-business-day period for implementing the decision, the creditor's guarantee, the prohibition of the vessel from sailing, and the notifications to the relevant institutions are of critical importance. Releasing the vessel upon provision of sufficient guarantee does not imply acceptance of liability. This ensures the creditor's collection security while allowing the vessel to continue its commercial operations.

Because an unlawful provisional attachment can cause significant harm to the ship owner and operator, the creditor must base their claim on solid evidence. If the attachment is found to be unlawful, liability for damages arising from the inability to operate the ship, loss of income, and other reasonable expenses may arise.

With the entry into force of the 1999 Geneva Convention in Turkey, a stronger system has been established in the field of provisional seizure of ships, where national and international legal rules are applied together. The main aim of this system is to strike a fair and proportionate balance between the uninterrupted continuation of world maritime trade and the access of maritime creditors to effective legal protection.