Shipping 2026 Comparisons

Maritime Courts

Civil courts of first instance and appeal courts are established as per Law 5235. Pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 thereof and the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), commercial matters shall be referred to commercial courts, and one or more in each province can be identified as functioning as a maritime court. For instance, the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court and Izmir 5th Commercial Court have been designated as maritime courts.

Common Maritime Disputes

Disputes arising from carriages – such as vessel and container demurrage and cargo damage – are common, along with ship arrests and cargo liens due to maritime claims or charterparty disputes. Further, the number of disputes stemming from under-declaration of bunkers or a deficiency in bunkers has been steadily increasing.   

Türkiye applies port state control (PSC) based on the Mediterranean and Black Sea Memorandum of Understanding. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (the “Ministry”) is the highest authority for PSC. The Directorate General of Maritime Affairs and the port authorities, operating under the Ministry, are the main bodies authorised to implement PSC through authorised PSC officers (PSCOs). By implementing PSC, the Ministry aims to:

• verify that vessels engaged in shipping within Turkish jurisdiction comply with applicable international maritime instruments in respect of navigation safety, life, property and environmental protection, as well as seafarers’ living and working conditions; and
• take enforcement action against sub-standard vessels.

The authorities and powers of the PSCOs are regulated under Law 4922 and other relevant regulation. PSCOs shall, inter alia:

• inspect foreign-flagged vessels calling at Turkish ports or anchorage areas;
• assess compliance with International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules regarding safety, pollution prevention and crew welfare requirements;
• order that deficiencies be remedied; and
• suspend operations or detain vessels where serious non-compliance is found.

Ship registration in Türkiye is regulated by specific provisions under the TCC and the relevant secondary legislation. Ship registries operating under port authorities – for instance, the Office of the Istanbul Harbour Master – handle domestic registration of vessels.

There are different types of ship registries in Türkiye, each with different registration requirements.

Registration with the Turkish (National) Ship Registry is only allowed if the ship-owner is either a Turkish citizen or a Turkish legal entity where the majority of the board of directors, shares and voting rights are held by Turkish citizens.

On the other hand, registration with the Turkish International Ship Registry (TISR) is possible if the ship-owner resides in Türkiye, irrespective of nationality. For legal entitles, such ship-owner must still be a Turkish legal entity; however, assignment of the majority of the board of directors, shares and voting rights shall only be sought if the vessel is to hoist the Turkish flag.

However, there is an exception under Article 941(2) of the TCC in that foreign vessels shall be allowed to fly the Turkish flag if bareboat-chartered to a Turkish legal entity where, again, the majority of board of directors, shares and voting rights are held by Turkish citizens. Further, the Master and 51% of the crew must be Turkish citizens.

A special registry exists for vessels under construction, and it is possible for builders and buyers to have vessels under construction registered with such special registry.

Neither temporary nor dual registration of vessels is permitted in Türkiye. However, there is an exception for financial leasing and bareboat charter. Financially leased foreign-flagged vessels can be registered with the TISR subject to certain conditions, whereas bareboat-chartered foreign vessels can be registered with a special registry kept by the Ministry.

Ship registries maintain the registration of mortgages. The following documents, in original, are required for registration of a mortgage:

• ship mortgage registration application;
• notarised mortgage agreement;
• payment of registration fees;
• for real persons, ID document, power of attorney and proof of address; and
• for legal entities, signature circular, good standing certificate, power of attorney and an ID document of the representative.

As per Article 973 of the TCC, the Turkish ship registry is public, and registry records may be reviewed by any person. However, in practice, the registry requires such persons to state their interest in reviewing the records. In any case, pursuant to Article 973(2), one must prove one’s legitimate interest to review the detailed registry files.

Key terms generally include:

• default provisions;
• loan amount;
• form of loan extension;
• interest terms;
• payment terms;
• lender’s and debtor’s rights and obligations;
• securities; and
• terms of repayment.

In addition, key terms increasingly include sanctions clauses due to the ongoing conflicts and enhanced know-your-customer (KYC) diligence by the lenders. 

Debt financing is the most common ship finance type in Türkiye. Typical transactions involve an owner mortgaging one or more of their existing vessels to finance the purchase of another.

Other than mortgages, lenders usually require assignment of receivables, earnings or insurances, and personal and corporate guarantees. Undertakings by managers are also not uncommon.

Ship-Leasing Transactions

While leasing transactions are increasing in other trade areas (such as aviation), ship leasing is still not a commonly preferred financing option for ship-owners or financial institutions in Türkiye. Accordingly, there is not a strong shift away from traditional bank lending towards private equity and alternative credit providers. That said, Chinese leasing houses have been seen as becoming more active in the market.

On the other hand, sale-and-leaseback transactions are more common, albeit still less preferred than traditional financing.

Differences in Relationship Between Transaction Parties

In ship-leasing transactions, the lessor owns and holds legal title to the vessel, while the lessee can operate, have possession, and control the vessel during the lease term. The lessee may acquire ownership of the vessel at the end of the lease term.

In terms of ship financing, the borrower is the legal owner of the vessel, while the lender is merely financing the acquisition of the vessel with funds secured by a mortgage and other securities.

Differences Between Mortgage and Lease Default

There are certain differences in both the enforcement and qualification of ship mortgage and lease defaults. As per Article 1014 of the TCC, a ship mortgage constitutes a right in rem granting the lender/mortgagee the ability to seek the enforcement of the mortgage for satisfaction of its claim from sale proceeds and with priority over ordinary claims. In the event of a lease default, general default provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) and the TCC shall apply, and the lessor shall have a claim for the return of the vessel and payment of contractual receivables. Therefore, where the transaction is secured by a mortgage, the lender would arrange the auction of the vessel as per the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL). If the transaction is a lease transaction, the lessor would aim for the return of its property – ie, the vessel – and satisfaction of its receivables under the lease agreement by pursuing the assets of the lessee, albeit without enjoying any priority rights.

Pollution

Türkiye is a party to the following international conventions, among others:

• the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL) and the Protocol of 1997;
• the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992;
• the Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, and the Protocol of 2003; and
• the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.

Regarding the owners’ liability for pollution, administrative fines are imposed under the Turkish Environmental Law and on the basis of the gross tonnage of the vessel that caused the pollution.

Wreck Removal

Türkiye is not a state party to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. Wreck removal in Türkiye is governed by the Law on Ports No 618 and the relevant provisions of the TCC.

Collision

Türkiye is a party to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs). Under the Regulation on Maritime Collision Prevention, which entered into force on 12 March 2024, all vessels, regardless of their flag, sailing in Turkish territorial waters are required to comply with the rules set out in COLREGs.

Salvage

Türkiye is a party to the International Convention on Salvage, 1989. The provisions of various international conventions, including the aforementioned Convention, have been incorporated into the TCC. Claims for salvage reward constitute maritime liens under Turkish law.

Türkiye is a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, as amended by the 1996 Protocol, and maritime claims in Türkiye are subject to global limitation. The Convention’s provisions are incorporated into the TCC by way of Article 1328 thereof.

Regarding the 2012 amendments, under the tacit acceptance procedure introduced by the 1996 Protocol, in 2024 the Istanbul Maritime Court ruled that the limitation fund should be constituted in accordance with the increased limits set out in the 2012 amendments. However, there remains an ongoing debate as to whether the increased limits introduced by the 2012 amendments have entered into force in Türkiye.

Türkiye is not a state party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (the “Vienna Convention”). However, certain principles of the Vienna Convention are applied on the basis that they constitute universally accepted legal standards.

A limitation fund is set up upon an application to the competent maritime court. The court would then determine the limitation amount and grant the applicant time (usually a few weeks) to deposit the money or provide security. The limitation amount is calculated with reference to the ship’s tonnage. Items such as interest and potential legal costs are taken into consideration as well.

While Türkiye signed the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC), the process for Türkiye to become a formal party to the MLC has not been completed.

The rights and safety of seafarers are regulated by international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, as well as by domestic laws, regulations and decisions of the competent authorities. Türkiye is currently a party to several International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions regulating seafarers’ rights and safety, including the Conventions numbered 55, 73, 134 and 69. Further, seafarers working on Turkish-flagged vessels, regardless of their nationality, are entitled to the rights set out under Maritime Labour Law 854. For matters involving foreign-flagged vessels, the TCO shall apply.

Türkiye has ratified the dated Hague Rules. Although Türkiye has not ratified either the Visby Rules, the Hamburg Convention or the Rotterdam Rules, these have influenced the TCC, particularly in terms of the carrier’s limitation of liability. For instance, non-conflicting innovations introduced by the 1968 Visby Protocol and the 1979 Special Drawing Rights Protocol were incorporated into the TCC.

The legal holder of a bill of lading shall have title to sue by relying on the bill of lading. The insurer may also have title to sue if it has subrogated the rights of the legal bill of lading holder.

The title to sue may be transferred to third parties without any limitation.

Liability

In principle, the ship-owner is liable for any damage caused to third parties because of the fault of the crew or the compulsory or voluntary pilot while performing their duties. If, however, the ship-owner is the carrier at the same time, it shall be liable under the provisions of the TCC governing the carrier’s liability.

Pursuant to Article 1180, the carrier is obliged to exercise the care and diligence that a prudent carrier is expected to show in the performance of a contract of carriage, particularly in loading, stowage, handling, carriage, preservation, supervision and discharge of the goods. For a carrier to be held liable for cargo damage, the damage must have occurred while the cargo was in the carrier’s custody. The cargo is deemed to be in the carrier’s custody from the time it has been received by the carrier until:

• the delivery to the cargo receiver;
• where the cargo receiver refuses delivery, the cargo is put at the cargo receiver’s disposal in accordance with the contract or the law; and
• if it is mandatory for the cargo to be delivered to authorities, delivery to such authorities.

The carrier can be excluded from liability in accordance with Articles 1179, 1180, 1181 and 1182, in particular where:

• the damage did not occur due to the carrier’s or its employees’ intent or neglect;
• the damage results from an act relating to the navigation or other technical management of the vessel, or from fire – in which case the carrier’s liability shall be limited to its own fault;
• except in cases of general average, the damage results from salvage operations or attempts at salvage of life or property at sea; or
• specific cases apply, such as compliance with court orders, occurrences of strikes or lockouts, etc.

Limitation of Liability

According to Article 1186 of the TCC, the liability of the carrier is limited. For any loss of or damage to the cargo, the carrier shall, in any event, not be liable for an amount exceeding the higher of SDR666.67 per package or unit, or SDR2 per kilogram unless the value of the cargo has explicitly been stated on the bill of lading. Further, limitation of liability would not apply in certain cases, such as the carrier causing the loss of or damage to the cargo on purpose.

Liability of Actual Carrier

Pursuant to Article 1191 of the TCC, if the carriage is partially or entirely performed by an actual carrier, the contractual carrier shall remain liable together with the actual carrier on a joint and several basis.

Pursuant to Article 1145 of the TCC, the shipper is obliged to declare to the carrier accurate and complete information regarding the cargo. Accordingly, the shipper is liable to the carrier for any damages arising from misdeclaration.

Two recent judgments on Article 1145, both by the Istanbul Maritime Court, confirm that carriers’ claims against shippers on the ground of misdeclaration of cargo are approved and accepted by the Turkish courts.

Pursuant to Article 1188 of the TCC, any rights to claim compensation from the carrier for damage to or loss of cargo or late delivery will be limited to within one year as of the complete or partial delivery of the cargo and, where the cargo was never delivered, the date the cargo should have been delivered. This is a prescription period; however, it can be extended by an agreement between the parties, provided such agreement is executed after cause of action has arisen.

With reference to Article 1297, claims in the nature of a liability in tort, such as those arising from collision, are subject to a time bar of two years. This is a statute of limitation and can be suspended or interrupted in certain situations.

Türkiye ratified the 1999 International Convention on the Arrest of Ships (the “1999 Arrest Convention”) and the 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages (“1993 MLM Convention”).

As for domestic law, vessel arrest procedures in Türkiye are governed by the TCC, which incorporates the principles of the 1999 Arrest Convention and sets out the rules on maritime claims.

Türkiye differentiates between maritime lien claims and maritime claims.

Maritime Lien Claims

Articles 1320 to 1327 of the TCC set out maritime liens. Maritime lien claims are listed on a numerus clausus basis, and are as follows:

• claims for seamen’s wages;
• claims for loss of life and personal injuries;
• claims for salvage reward;
• claims for port, canal and other waterway dues, as well as pilotage dues;
• 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 or passengers’ effects carried on the vessel; and
• claims for general average.

Turkish courts recognise a maritime lien for loss of life and personal injury of passengers or crew on the vessel, as well as other persons on land or on water, under Article 1320(1)(b) of the TCC. The basis of such claims must be “in direct connection with the operation of the vessel”.

Maritime Claims

Maritime claims are listed under Article 1352 of the TCC on a numerus clausus basis, and are as follows:

• loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel;
• loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;
• salvage operations or any salvage agreement, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by herself or her cargo threatened damage to the environment;
• damage or threat of damage caused by the vessel to the environment, coastline or related interests, measures taken to prevent, minimise or remove such damage, compensation for such damage, costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of the environment actually undertaken or to be undertaken, or loss incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties in connection with such damage, and damage, costs or loss of a similar nature to those identified in this point;
• costs or expenses relating to the raising, removal, recovery, destruction or rendering harmless of a vessel which sank or was wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board such vessel, and costs or expenses relating to the preservation of an abandoned vessel and maintenance of her crew;
• any agreement relating to the use or hire of the vessel, whether contained in a charterparty or otherwise;
• any agreement relating to the carriage of goods or passengers on board the vessel, whether contained in a charterparty or otherwise;
• loss of or damage to or in connection with goods (including luggage) carried on board the vessel;
• general average;
• towage;
• pilotage;
• goods, materials, provisions, bunkers, equipment (including containers) supplied or services rendered to the vessel for her operation, management, preservation or maintenance;
• construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the vessel;
• port, canal, dock, harbour and other waterway dues and charges;
• wages and other sums due to the Master, officers and other members of the vessel’s complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf;
• disbursements incurred on behalf of the vessel or her owners, including loans taken for the vessel;
• insurance premiums (including mutual insurance calls) in respect of the vessel, payable by or on behalf of the ship-owner;
• any commissions, brokerages or agency fees payable in respect of the vessel by or on behalf of the ship-owner;
• any dispute as to ownership or possession of the vessel;
• any dispute between co-owners of the vessel as to the employment or earnings of the vessel;
• a mortgage or “hypothèque” or a charge of the same nature on the vessel; and
• any dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the vessel.

There is no specific statutory time bar for filing maritime claims before the Turkish courts per se. As a matter of private international law, time bars are subject to the law that is applicable to the underlying legal relationship.

The lapse of time leading to the extinction of maritime liens is governed by Article 1326 of the TCC, which is incorporated from Articles 6 and 9 of the 1993 MLM Convention.  Maritime liens listed under Article 1320(1)(a) to (e) are extinguished after one year unless, prior to expiry, the vessel is arrested or seized for a forced sale. For the seamen’s claims, the period of one year commences upon the claimant’s discharge from the vessel.

Under Turkish law, as a general rule, in personam liability of the owners or demise charterers is required for a vessel to be arrested. However, there is an exception for maritime liens. If the claim constitutes a recognised maritime lien, the vessel may be arrested regardless of whether the owners or demise charterers are personally liable.

A bunker supplier may arrest a vessel based on a maritime claim, as provided under Article 1352(1)(l) of the TCC. For an actual supplier to arrest the vessel, the supporting documents for the claim and the owner’s liability for the debt must be assessed separately. If the bunkers were supplied to a chartered vessel and ordered by the charterer rather than the owner, the vessel may not be arrested. However, since an arrest application is examined by Turkish courts on a prima facie basis, the owner’s or charterer’s liability is not always assessed in depth at this stage. Also, under Turkish law, a charterer does not have the authority to bind the vessel.

The arresting party must provide prima facie evidence that the claim constitutes a maritime claim under Article 1352 of the TCC, including the amount claimed. Submission of original supporting documents is not required.

A legalised power of attorney (PoA) in favour of the lawyer is required. If the PoA is issued abroad, it would need to be notarised and apostilled.

All documents in a foreign language must be translated into Turkish by a translator recognised by a Turkish notary.

Counter-Security

Save for crew claims, the arresting party is required to provide counter-security at the fixed level of SDR10,000. Said security must be provided simultaneously with the submission of the arrest application. The amount of the counter-security can be increased or decreased by the arresting court depending on the requests of the parties.

There is no specific provision directly allowing the arrest of bunkers and freight. However, if the conditions set out under the general enforcement and attachment rules are met, it may be possible to obtain such an arrest.

A sister-ship arrest is possible under TCC Article 1369(2). This article is adopted from Article 3(2) of the 1999 Arrest Convention.

Apart from vessel arrests, no other attachment orders are permitted on a vessel to secure maritime claims under TCC Article 1353. It is also not possible to arrest a vessel for claims other than maritime claims. However, if the debtor owns assets other than the vessel and the legal requirements are met, attachment may be applied to such other assets.

The arrested party can challenge the arrest order, and the latter can be lifted if the objections are accepted by the court.

The release of the arrest vessel can be procured by provision of security. The amount of such security would be at the discretion of the arresting court, and is usually 115% of the claim amount, provided that such amount remains below the arrested vessel’s value. The security can be deposited in cash or provided by means of an unconditional bank letter of guarantee issued by a Turkish bank for an unlimited period of time. Release upon provision of a P&I letter of undertaking or a foreign bank guarantee is possible if the arresting and arrested party agree.

Under Turkish law, the judicial sale of a vessel is carried out by the competent bailiff’s office. A judicial sale would require a finalised claim. While the auction process is the same for Turkish and foreign-flagged vessels generally, there is a difference in that the auction of a foreign vessel would require a notification to the general consulate of the vessel’s flag state as well as notifications to the relevant ship registry and announcement in the relevant country.

The vessel’s maintenance is attended by trustees appointed by the relevant bailiff; however, the claimant seeking the auction is, in practice, expected to pay the fees and expenses.

The auction shall be public and can be entered by any individual or legal entity. There will be a reserved price of 50% of the appraised value of the vessel.

A private sale is possible, albeit by way of a process involving the bailiffs and courts and a minimum of 90% of the appraised value of the vessel.

Under Articles 1390 to 1397 of the TCC, the ranking of claims from the proceeds of a vessel’s auction is as follows:

• expenses related to the forced sale, custody and maintenance of the vessel, and the wages and other receivables of crew for the period from the vessel’s arrest until their discharge;
• costs for the removal or salvage of a wrecked, stranded or sunken vessel by public authorities, either to ensure safe navigation or to protect the environment;
• claims secured by maritime liens;
• ship-yard’s privileged claims, if the vessel was in the ship-yard’s possession at the time of the auction;
• customs duties, taxes and other levies imposed on the vessel;
• ship mortgages or other statutory liens;
• maritime claims that do not take priority over the above; and
• all other claims against the owners.

Insolvency proceedings in Türkiye are mainly governed by the EBL. The EBL stipulates the “concordato” scheme, which is similar to Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and the Scheme of Arrangement in the UK.

Vessels owned by ship-owners under court protection by way of the “concordato” scheme cannot be arrested.

The arrested party can seek damages on the ground of a wrongful arrest if the arrest order is lifted upon the arresting party’s failure to issue substantive proceedings within one month, or the lifting of the arrest order as per objections or the failure of the arresting party in the substantive proceedings. In any case, the claimed damages must be substantiated.

Applicable Regulations for Maritime Passenger Claims

The Athens Convention 1974 and the 2002 Protocol have been in force in Türkiye since 1987 and 2014, respectively. The TCC, TCO and Turkish Consumer Protection Law are the main domestic laws applicable to the resolution of maritime passenger claims. Under the preamble of the TCC, it is explicitly stated by the legislature that the relevant articles are based on the 2002 Protocol.

Time Limit of Maritime Passenger Claims

Pursuant to Article 1257 of the TCC, all compensation claims arising from the death of or personal injury to passengers shall be caught by the time bar after ten years. It is further stipulated that all other claims arising from passenger contracts, including receivables for loss of or damage to luggage, are subject to a time bar of two years as of the date the passenger disembarks or ought to have disembarked. For all other receivables, the two-year time bar begins on the date of maturity.

In the case of an international voyage, the time limits under the Athens Convention 1974 and the 2002 Protocol shall apply.

Limitation of Liability on Owners

The carrier is liable for the damages arising from the death of or injury to passengers on the ground of a shipping incident. Liability of the carrier is limited to SDR250,000 per passenger for each shipping incident. The carrier is released from liability if it proves that the incident resulted from war, terrorism, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional natural event that could not be avoided or prevented, or from an act or omission of a third party committed with the intent to cause the accident. If the carrier is at fault, it is also liable for the portion of the passenger’s damage exceeding the above-mentioned limits. The burden of proving the absence of fault rests with the carrier.

However, the carrier’s liability is limited to SDR400,000 for the death of or injury to passengers howsoever caused.

The carrier’s limit of liability for luggage claims is regulated under Article 1263 of the TCC, and the applicable limit varies between SDR2,250 and SDR13,700 depending on the circumstances and the location of luggage damaged.

Maritime Lien

Loss of life or personal injury to passengers would give rise to maritime lien claims, whereas other claims would qualify as maritime claims.

Turkish courts generally recognise and enforce law and jurisdiction clauses stated in bills of lading. However, there has been an ongoing debate regarding whether Turkish courts could seize jurisdiction where a bill of lading with a foreign law and jurisdiction clause has been executed on behalf of a foreign carrier by a Turkish agency in Türkiye. This debate stems from Article 105 of the TCC.

Further, a risk exists that an asymmetric jurisdiction clause granting one of the parties the right to refer to different courts in different jurisdictions could be found invalid by Turkish courts.

Turkish courts recognise and enforce the law and arbitration clause of a charterparty incorporated into the relevant bill of lading, on the condition that the bill of lading contains a specific reference to the charterparty and a copy of the charterparty has been shared with the ultimate holder of the bill of lading. Under Article 1237(3) of the TCC, if it cannot be proven that the charterparty has been represented to the ultimate holder of the bill of lading, the provisions of the charterparty shall not bind such person.

Türkiye is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Under Turkish law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are regulated under the provisions of International Private and Procedure Law 5718.

The TCC adopts the lex fori principle regarding the arrest of a vessel. Therefore, the Turkish courts would order the arrest of a vessel even if the claim is governed by a foreign law, and would respect application of foreign law by the competent foreign court or arbitration panel abroad to the substantive proceedings.

Türkiye does not have a domestic arbitration institute that specialises in maritime claims, although the Istanbul Arbitration Centre has a shortlist of maritime law specialists for handling maritime claims.

The defendant can raise a “lack of jurisdiction” objection, which would be considered a preliminary objection that requires the court’s immediate attention and decision.

Pursuant to Article 12 of the Law on the TISR, income generated by the operations or from the transfer of vessels and yachts registered with the TISR are exempt from corporate income tax. Owners of such vessels and yachts are only obliged to pay registry fees and annual tonnage tax. However, if the vessel or the yacht is classed with Turkish Loyd (Türk Loydu), these amounts will be reduced by 50%. Transactions relating to vessels and yachts registered with the TISR – including sale, purchase, mortgage, registration, financing, chartering, time charter, and all freight contracts – are exempt from stamp tax and fees. Amounts received in connection with such transactions are also exempt from banking and insurance transaction tax and from any applicable funds.

Articles 136 and 137 of the TCO regulate partial and total impossibility of performance. Article 138 deals with cases where performance is still possible but has become excessively burdensome due to unforeseen extraordinary events. Whether events, causes or circumstances resulting in non-performance of a shipping contract constitute force majeure or frustration must be assessed by the court for each dispute.

Turkish courts have dealt with many matters concerning the non-performance of contractual obligations. There are precedents where Turkish courts have considered the following circumstances as force majeure or frustration:

• severe sea and weather conditions in Karadeniz Ereğli;
• flooding in Mersin resulting from a natural disaster;
• heavy wind, waves and current conditions at the Bosphorus; and
• civil war at the port of discharge.

MARPOL is in force in Türkiye. IMO 2020, which regulates the global upper limit on the sulphur content of fuel oil used by vessels, is set out under MARPOL Annex VI. As Türkiye is a party to MARPOL and all its annexed protocols, IMO 2020 is implemented accordingly.

The limit under MARPOL VI, which is 0.5%, is implemented in Turkish territorial waters, although a lower limit of 0.1% would apply in certain scenarios. For vessels in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs), the limit is 0.1%, and the entire Mediterranean Sea up to the Dardanelles has been designated as a SECA.

Port authorities and therefore the related ministry are the responsible authorities to enforce the MARPOL VI limits. Recently, disputes arising from the use of substandard fuel oil have increased.

In the event of pollution, the vessel and the relevant coastal facility are jointly liable for compensating all damage arising from the pollution. Moreover, administrative sanctions (such as administrative fines) are imposed on parties causing environmental pollution.

Türkiye has not incorporated international trade sanctions as part of its domestic law. Regarding co-operation with the enforcement of trade sanctions, Türkiye generally follows the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. While US/EU sanctions are not legally enforced, the Turkish Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency as well as major Turkish banks have implemented strict compliance protocols to avoid secondary sanctions. 

Trade sanctions have had impacts on the Turkish market. For instance, sanctions were imposed against a Turkish ship-yard but were later removed after successful delisting efforts.

The effects largely mirror global shipping industry challenges. Turkish carriers and logistics companies have faced delayed voyages, cancellations of bookings and additional documentation requirements, including the issuance of letters of indemnity. Operators have encountered additional handling costs, slower processing, and restrictions on certain financial and trade transactions, leading to operational delays. Additionally, as a commercial impact of the Ukraine war, Turkish carriers and ship-owners have been affected in their trade at Black Sea ports, and more recently there have also been physical attacks on Turkish vessels in the Black Sea.

Legislative work is currently being carried out by a committee of maritime trade and law experts in order to regulate maritime enforcement matters. Upon completion of this legislative work, updated maritime enforcement law provisions will enter into force. A detailed explanation of this is available in the Türkiye Trends and Developments article in this guide.