Lien Rights: Freight, Cargo, Bunker and Others (Turkish Practice)

Lien Rights: Freight, Cargo, Bunker, and Others (Turkish Application) In maritime trade, a large portion of receivables appear strong "on paper," but their collectibility is often weak. This is because ships, cargo, and commercial flows are in motion: containers move to the next port, cargo is delivered and enters the market, charter companies close, or receivables are dispersed across different countries. Therefore, in maritime trade, collection is often collateral and intervention tools . This is precisely where "lien" rights come into play.

However, in practice, the word "lien" does not refer to a single institution. In Turkish law, cases are often weakened because three separate mechanisms are confused with each other:

1. Right of retention / detention (based on possession, failure to deliver the property),

2. Maritime lien (arising from law, priority/property disputes),

3. Ship arrest based on maritime claims (Turkish Commercial Code Articles 1352–1353 system; seizure of a ship to secure a claim).

In this paper, I systematically examine the carrier's lien in freight, cargo, and container delivery, as well as the subfreight/sub-hire lien clauses seen in charterparty practice ; and the maritime debt – vessel precautionary attachment regime that generally comes into play in receivables related to bunker (fueling) and ship operation , focusing on Turkish practice.

---

1) What is "Lien"? Correct translation and distinction in Turkish law

1.1 Right of retention (detention) – “If the cargo is in my possession, I will not hand it over”

The carrier's classic lien secures its receivables as long as it holds the goods . In Turkish law, this is often referred to as a right of lien . In maritime transport of goods, this right of the carrier is explicitly regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK): The carrier has a right of lien on the goods for receivables arising from the freight contract, in accordance with Articles 950-953 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) .

Although this right functions like a "secured asset," it is not a registered right like a classic pledge; of possession and delivery .

1.2 Maritime claim – precautionary seizure of a ship – “The cargo is not with me, I will seize the ship”

In many claims such as bunker receivables, provision of supplies/equipment, maintenance and repair, and port charges, the creditor is not the possessor of the cargo; therefore, they cannot exercise a right of lien. In this case, the practical solution is often provisional attachment of the ship if it falls under the definition of maritime receivables in Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code ( TTK). Article 1352 of the TTK lists the claims considered "maritime receivables" individually; these explicitly include supplies/provisions/fuel (bunker) and similar provisions provided for the operation of the ship. Article 1353 of the TTK emphasizes that only provisional attachment can be used as security for maritime receivables ; provisional attachment cannot be imposed on the ship except for maritime receivables.

1.3 Charterparty lien clauses – “lien on subfreight / sub-hire”

In the charterparty world, there are also contractual lien clauses: The shipper claims "lien" on subfreights or sub-hire for receivables arising from the charterer. This is not about holding onto the movable property; it often aims to redirect the freight/rent payable to a third party to the shipper (an effect similar to an assignment). This area gives rise to the discussion of "who is bound by the clause" within the bill of lading holder-carrier-charterer triangle.

---

2) Carrier's right of lien on the cargo for freight and ancillary claims (Turkish Commercial Code Articles 1201 and subsequent articles)

2.1 Scope: “All claims arising from the freight contract”

Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code recognizes the carrier's right of lien on the goods for claims arising from the freight contract and links this right to Articles 950-953 of the Turkish Civil Code.
In practice, this phrase "all claims" gives rise to discussions about whether items such as freight, demurrage, carrier's expenses (certain items originating from customs/terminals), general average, and salvage shares should be considered within the scope of the right of lien.

Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code also imposes an important limitation: the right of lien, as a rule, secures claims arising from that specific voyage . In other words, it is generally not acceptable for the carrier to hold the same cargo as collateral for "debts remaining from previous voyages."

2.2 Possession requirement and 30-day window after delivery

The "natural habitat" of the right of retention is the possession of the carrier: if the goods are in the carrier's possession, they exert pressure by not delivering them. However, Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code opens a critical window regarding the post-delivery period: even after the goods have been delivered an application is made to the court within 30 days and the goods are still in the possession of the consignee.

This provision is a lifesaver in practice in scenarios where the goods were delivered "by mistake/due to operational requirements but payment was not made." However, there are two major risks:

• If the 30-day period is missed, the right to imprisonment effectively becomes null and void.

• The "possession of the consignee" requirement becomes disputed if the goods have been transferred to a third party or are on the market.

2.3 Proportionality: "enough goods to cover the debt"

Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code states that the right of lien can be exercised on goods in an amount sufficient to secure the debt ; however, it may have broader applicability in cases such as general average and salvage. In practice, this creates the following balance: If the carrier holds the entire container for days for a small debt, the other party may rely on the argument of "abuse/disproportionate handling"; in response, the carrier must substantiate operational justifications such as the amount of the debt, the divisibility of the goods, and the delivery method.

---

3) Deposit of the disputed amount and security: A safety valve that "softens" the right of lien (Turkish Commercial Code Article 1202)

The right of lien is often a "harsh" tool; it halts the flow of commerce. The law provides a solution to counterbalance this harshness: if there is a dispute regarding the carrier's receivables, the carrier is obliged to deliver the goods as soon as the disputed amount is deposited in a location determined by the court

This mechanism leads to two consequences in legal cases:

• The sender/carrier fulfills the need to "receive the cargo and continue the trade.".

• The carrier gains security regarding the "money/collateral," but their power to use the right of lien as a bargaining chip is diminished.

Therefore, the strategic question is: How long can I effectively maintain the right to detention? This duration is directly related to the speed at which the court makes bail/deposit decisions and the practices of the location where the case is situated.

---

4) When a third party (consignee) becomes involved: The party liable for the right of retention changes (Turkish Commercial Code Articles 1203–1204)

In maritime transport, the debtor is often the "consignor," while the recipient of the goods is another person, the "consignee." Article 1203 of the Turkish Commercial Code stipulates that if the goods are to be delivered to someone other than the consignor, that person is obligated to pay any receivables and expenses incurred on their own behalf, as authorized by the terms of the contract/bill of lading, at the time of delivery

However, Article 1204 of the Turkish Commercial Code imposes a very critical limitation: From the moment the carrier requests delivery of the consigned goods, he only exercise a lien against the consignee for the claims stipulated in Article 1203 of the Turkish Commercial Code; he cannot exercise it for other claims.

Practical conclusion:
Not every claim arising from the carrier's relationship with the consignor automatically "passes" on to the holder of the bill of lading. Which claim can be asserted against the consignee with which document determines the fate of the right of lien. Therefore, the first checklist in the application of the right of lien is:

• Who has the bill of lading? Is there a condition for delivering the original bill of lading?

• What items are included in the sender's payment obligation?

• Does the requested item pass the filter of Article 1203/1204 of the Turkish Commercial Code?

---

5) Charterparty practices: Freight, hire, demurrage, bunker, and “lien on subfreights/cargo” clauses

5.1 Why is a clause necessary?

The right of lien is often the possession of the cargo . However, in charterparty relationships, the greatest risk for the shipowner is this: the charterer does not pay the freight, but the cargo must be delivered to the holder of the bill of lading; the shipowner's actual control over the cargo is limited. Therefore, in classic charterparty texts, provisions are made in favor of the shipowner:

• Cargo lien (on the cargo),

• Subfreight lien (on lower freight rates),

• Sub-hire lien (sub-rent),

• Sometimes lien clauses are also seen for bunkers advanced/disbursements .
  

In Türkiye, these clauses are of great value, particularly in creating "emergency security" in cases related to international arbitration (LMAA, etc.).

5.2 How does a subfreight link work?

The logic is simple: the shipowner wants the freight/charter fees that the charterer will collect from third parties to be directed to him. In practice, this is accomplished through two elements:

1. The open lien clause in Charterparty,

2. Timely notification to the third party (e.g., shipper/consignee/forwarder) instructing them to "pay the freight/hire to the shipowner, not the charterer."

The biggest mistake here is the delay in notification and the fact that the freight has already been paid to the tenant by a third party. If the payment has been made, the lien loses its practical force.

5.3 Distinction between “lien” and “arrest” for bunker receivables

The bunker supplier is often not the possessor of the cargo; they do not have the right to "seize" the cargo through a lien. However, since the bunker is considered under the category of "fuel provided for the operation of the ship..." as a maritime claim in Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the option of ship arrest is frequently considered by the creditor.
At this point, the word "lien" is often misused in practice: the bunker supplier usually secures collection through the threat of "arrest," not "lien."

---

6) “Other lien/captivity” areas: General average, salvage, port charges and container equipment

6.1 General average and salvage shares

Within the framework of Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code, general average and salvage claims are of particular importance in terms of the scope of the right of lien and the quantity of goods to which it can be exercised.
In practice, delivery of the cargo may be requested before the P&I/average adjuster processes are completed; therefore, carriers often operate "average guarantee / cash deposit" mechanisms together with the threat of a right of lien.

6.2 Port/terminal charges and the "whose debt" debate

Port charges, dock fees, and quarantine costs are sometimes borne by the carrier under certain contracts, while in others they are borne by the charterer/consignee. The first question when formulating a "lien" strategy is: Whose responsibility is this item according to the contract?
A lien placed on the wrong debtor can both increase commercial losses and give rise to allegations of abuse.

6.3 Container/equipment disputes: Detention/demurrage and lien relationship

Container detention/demurrage claims are often based on tariffs and contracts. Whether these claims can be secured by a "lien on the cargo" depends on the specific contractual chain and the filter of Articles 1203/1204 of the Turkish Commercial Code (especially if the consignee is the counterparty).
In practice, although carriers may try to exert pressure by "not delivering" the goods in these cases, when a dispute arises, the other party usually activates the mechanism of Article 1202 of the Turkish Commercial Code, deposits the disputed amount, and takes possession of the cargo.

---

7) Implementation strategy in Türkiye: Which instrument for which debt?

The following "quick decision matrix" works for most files:

7.1 If the burden/possession is in your hands

• Freight/demurrage/costs: Turkish Commercial Code Article 1201 right of retention (failure to deliver the cargo)

• In case of dispute: Delivery against deposit/collateral according to Article 1202 of the Turkish Commercial Code

• If the consignee is involved: narrow down the items using the TTK 1203–1204 filter

7.2 If the cargo is not with you but the ship is in Turkey

• Bunker, provisions, maintenance and repair, port charges, etc.: If the maritime claim is under Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code, then precautionary attachment of the ship should be considered.

• Article 1353 of the Turkish Commercial Code: For maritime claims, only precautionary attachment is permitted; no other "prohibition from sailing/measures" can be requested

7.3 If there is subfreight/sub-hire traffic in the charterparty

• Lien clause + quick third-party notice + payment redirection
  (practical value decreases if there is a delay)

---

8) The most common critical mistakes (and details that weaken the file)

1. Exercising a lien without reading the document chain: The items for which a lien can be exercised against the consignee are limited by Article 1204 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

2. Stopping delivery without checking the original bill of lading: Especially with "to order" bills of lading, dealing with the wrong person can lead to a greater risk of compensation claims.

3. Missing the 30-day post-delivery deadline: The post-delivery application window under Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code is practically invaluable; if the deadline is missed, the vehicle is lost.

4. Mistaking bunker receivables for "lien": In most bunker cases, the correct procedure is "maritime receivables – precautionary attachment of a vessel".

5. Excessive use of the right of lien: If the principle of using the right of lien only on enough property to secure the debt is disregarded, the claim of "abuse" and increased commercial damage is strengthened.

---

9) Application-oriented mini checklist (for the creditor)

A) If the cargo is with you (cargo lien)

• Match the receivables items with the contract/bill of lading clause.

• If the consignee is the counterparty, check the scope of Articles 1203-1204 of the Turkish Commercial Code individually.

• Specify the written warning/notice + delivery terms (payment/deposit).

• If a dispute arises, expedite the deposit/collateral processes under Article 1202 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

B) If the ship is in Turkey (arrest)

• Check if your receivable falls under Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code as a "maritime receivable" (including bunker/supply items).

• Plan the authority/duties and collateral dynamics at the outset (arrest can be a quick but costly option).

• Imagine a scenario where the seizure is lifted if the other party provides security.

C) Subfreight/sub-hire lien

• Clarify the charterparty lien clause.

• Delaying the notification of payment redirection to the third party.

• If payment has been made, proceed to an alternative payment method.

---

Conclusion

“Lien” rights are the real engine of debt collection in maritime affairs; but only if they are placed within the correct legal category. In Türkiye:

• In claims arising from freight contracts, the carrier's right of lien on the cargo is clearly recognized by Article 1201 of the Turkish Commercial Code; the 30-day application window after delivery and the restrictions against the third-party consignee determine the fate of the case.

• In most cases, the practical solution for receivables related to bunker and ship operation is not a "lien" but rather a precautionary attachment of the ship based on a maritime claim under Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code .

• The subfreight/sub-hire lien clauses in charterparty can be a powerful collection tool if properly notified and timely; however, their effectiveness dramatically decreases if delayed.