Port State Control (PSC) is designed to keep substandard ships out of international trade lanes, protect life and property at sea, prevent pollution, and enforce minimum living/working conditions on board. In practice, however, a PSC inspection can quickly become a commercial crisis: a vessel is delayed, cargo misses its window, a charterparty chain starts issuing notices, and insurers/financiers ask for immediate explanations. Understanding how PSC is implemented in Türkiye—and how commercial losses are pursued afterwards—lets shipowners, operators, charterers, and cargo interests move from “firefighting” to a deliberate legal strategy.
1) The Turkish PSC framework: what applies, to whom, and why it matters commercially
Türkiye modernized its PSC framework with the “Liman Devleti Denetimi Uygulama Yönetmeliği”, published in the Official Gazette on 20.09.2025 (No. 33023), entering into force upon publication. The regulation’s stated objective is to ensure that ships engaged in maritime transport within Turkey’s maritime jurisdiction comply with international rules on safety, security, environment, and onboard living/working conditions, and to set out procedures for inspections and inspector authorization.
Scope (who is inspected): The regulation applies primarily to foreign-flagged ships calling at port facilities or offshore facilities or anchoring there, with typical exclusions such as fishing vessels, warships, non-commercial state ships, certain traditional wooden craft, and non-commercial yachts.
This scope matters because most high-value commercial claims (delay, demurrage, off-hire, cargo deterioration) arise precisely from foreign-flagged trading ships engaged in time-sensitive operations.
International “operating system”: Med MoU + Black Sea MoU + IMO procedures. Türkiye performs PSC in alignment with the Mediterranean MoU and Black Sea MoU regimes and the IMO’s PSC procedures. The Ministry’s PSC instruction explicitly ties Turkish inspections to these MoU rules and to the IMO PSC procedures.
An IMO audit-related document also records that Turkey has been a Med MoU member since 1997 and a Black Sea MoU member since 2000, and that PSC activity levels are defined by the MoUs.
Why this is commercially important: MoU-based regimes create shared deficiency codes, targeting profiles, detention thresholds, and data exchange. That increases predictability—but also means that repeat deficiencies, company performance, and ship risk profiles can shape inspection intensity and the likelihood of detention, with direct knock-on effects on schedule reliability and charterparty performance.
2) How a PSC inspection becomes a detention (and how the detention generates loss)
Turkey’s regulation directs PSC officers to inspect in line with current IMO PSC procedures and applicable MoU/international convention rules.
From a claims perspective, you should treat the PSC process as a fact-building sequence:
- Targeting / Trigger events: Some ships are inspected as “target ships”; others are triggered by casualty/defect reports, complaints, first call after a long interval, or similar risk signals.
- Document and condition checks: Inspectors review certificates and assess the vessel’s overall condition (including machinery spaces and accommodation).
- Deficiencies and escalation: Deficiencies may lead to rectification requirements, operational restrictions, detention, or in severe cases a denial of entry regime.
- Reporting discipline: Inspection reports are prepared and signed, and the master is expected to sign the report; refusals are handled by leaving the report onboard or delivering it to the authorized agent.
- Notifications: In detention scenarios, the port authority informs the flag State (or its consular/diplomatic representative) and the recognized organization/class responsible for statutory certificates.
Commercial losses typically start accruing immediately once the vessel’s movement is restricted:
- missed laycan / cancelling dates;
- off-hire disputes under time charter;
- demurrage exposure or loss of despatch under voyage charter;
- berth congestion costs, port dues, extra pilotage/tug;
- cargo storage, reefer energy costs, quality deterioration, and sale contract penalties;
- supply-chain breakage (letters of credit deadlines, documentary presentation issues).
3) Turkey’s specific appeal route against detention: the rule you must build around
A key feature of the 2025 regulation is its explicit appeal and “unnecessary detention” language:
- Who can object: The shipowner, operator, or flag State can object to a detention decision; an agent’s application is not considered.
- Deadline: The objection must be filed with the Administration (İdare) within one month from the detention date.
- No suspensive effect: Filing the objection does not suspend the detention.
- Judicial remedy for unnecessary detention/delay: If the vessel is unnecessarily detained or delayed, the owner/operator may apply to the judiciary, and the burden of proof regarding unnecessary detention/delay lies on the owner/operator.
This is the bridge between PSC and compensation: the regulation anticipates that some detentions may be challenged as “unnecessary,” but it also makes clear that you must prove it—and you do not get an automatic release just because you object.
4) “Compensation” in practice: separating three different claim tracks
When clients say “we need to claim the losses,” they often mix three legally distinct routes. In a Turkish-file strategy, separating them early prevents wasted time and inconsistent positions.
A) Public-law route: claims against the Administration for wrongful PSC detention/delay
The regulation itself signals possible recourse to courts for unnecessary detention/delay.
In Turkish law, compensation for harm caused by the Administration is generally pursued through administrative judiciary mechanisms (full remedy actions), built around concepts such as service fault (hizmet kusuru) and, in some situations, no-fault administrative liability; core elements are wrongful act/operation, damage, and causation.
Procedurally, where the claim is based on an administrative act/operation, Turkish administrative procedure rules impose pre-application requirements and time constraints. For example, rules commonly referenced for administrative acts require applying to the relevant administration within specified limits (e.g., learning date and absolute cut-offs).
Practical reality: These claims are high-threshold. To succeed, you typically need to show more than “the detention was expensive.” You need a compelling, technical narrative that the detention was unnecessary (or unlawfully prolonged), supported by contemporaneous evidence and expert confirmation.
B) Private-law route: charterparty / contract chain allocation (who bears PSC delay risk)
Even if a detention is arguably “unnecessary,” commercial counterparties will usually litigate/arbitrate based on contract allocation first: off-hire clauses, exceptions, implied obligations to maintain class/certificates, due diligence standards, and warranty regimes.
Key points:
- PSC detention caused by pre-existing unseaworthiness, expired certificates, crew non-compliance, or poor maintenance is commonly treated as an owner/operator risk in many charter forms.
- PSC detention caused by unexpected administrative interpretation, sudden targeting, or arguably incorrect deficiency classification may be argued as an “authorities” event—but outcomes turn on clause drafting and evidence.
C) Tort/recourse route: third-party fault (class, repair yard, management company, supplier)
Where detention stems from a technical defect tied to recent repairs, mis-issued certificates, or negligent management, recourse actions may lie against third parties. These are evidence-heavy and often run in parallel with charter disputes.
5) Building a Turkish “commercial loss file” after PSC: an evidence-first blueprint
Because Article 20(4) puts the burden of proof on the owner/operator for “unnecessary detention/delay,” the winning approach is to treat PSC like a litigation-ready incident from hour one.
Core documents to secure immediately
- PSC inspection report, deficiency list, detention notice, release notice, correspondence with the port authority (and timestamps).
- Flag State / RO / class communications; records of surveys and corrective actions.
- Photos/videos and engineer statements addressing each deficiency (before/after).
- Log extracts: arrival, NOR, berth, stoppages, tests, drills, repairs, class attendance.
- Port/terminal documents: berth schedules, pilotage/tug receipts, port dues, stevedore stand-by.
- Commercial chain notices: off-hire notices, demurrage claims, cancellation threats, cargo claims.
Causation mapping (the “but for” chart)
Create a single chronological chart showing:
- what the deficiency was,
- when it was identified,
- what action was taken,
- when the ship could have sailed absent the disputed detention/delay,
- and which costs were strictly caused by detention vs. ordinary port time.
Expert positioning
For “unnecessary detention,” a technical expert report can be decisive: it translates complex deficiencies into a court-readable conclusion on necessity, proportionality, and duration—especially where detention continued after rectification.
6) Typical heads of recoverable loss (and where they fail)
In practice, the most litigated items include:
- Hire loss / off-hire exposure (time charter)
- Demurrage / detention / terminal penalties
- Port cost escalation (tugs, pilots, shifting, berth stand-by)
- Cargo deterioration (temperature excursions, contamination, delay-sensitive commodities)
- Loss of a follow-on fixture (harder to prove; needs clear market evidence)
- Financing/documentary losses (LC deadlines, missed shipment windows—often contested on remoteness)
They fail most often on:
- weak causation (cost would have occurred anyway);
- inadequate mitigation (no reasonable efforts to rectify quickly);
- inability to prove “unnecessary” detention rather than “expensive but justified” detention.
7) Practical drafting and operational tips that prevent disputes before they start
Even a legally strong position can collapse if the contract file is sloppy. For Turkey-facing trades, consider:
- PSC-specific clause language: define who bears time/cost risk for detentions caused by (i) vessel condition, (ii) documentary/certification issues, (iii) crew/MLC matters, (iv) administrative discretion.
- Notice architecture: align timelines for notifying head owners, sub-charterers, cargo interests, and insurers—especially where the first notice triggers rights (off-hire, cancellation, demurrage).
- Pre-arrival compliance audits: because Turkey’s PSC approach is explicitly anchored in MoU and IMO procedure standards, systematic pre-arrival checks reduce “surprise deficiencies.”
Conclusion: Türkiye’s PSC is predictable—your compensation strategy must be, too
Türkiye’s PSC system is firmly structured around MoU cooperation and IMO procedures, backed by a modern national regulation.
For commercial actors, the legal turning point is that the regulation provides an objection mechanism and recognizes the possibility of judicial recourse when a ship is unnecessarily detained or delayed, while placing the proof burden on the owner/operator.
Yanıt yok