1) Why Turkey’s cargo liability regime matters in practice
Cargo disputes in sea transport rarely turn on a single dramatic event. They are typically decided through a sequence of “small” legal and evidentiary decisions: when the carrier’s period of responsibility starts and ends, which party carries the burden of proof, which statutory defences are triggered, whether limitation applies, and whether the claimant missed a notice or time-bar deadline.
Turkey’s framework is particularly important because it combines (i) a modern statutory structure in the Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC” / “TTK”), and (ii) an international background influenced by the Hague family of rules. Turkey is a party to the 1924 Hague Rules, but not to the Hague-Visby, Hamburg, or Rotterdam regimes; at the same time, the TCC contains a hybrid set of provisions inspired by those models.
What this means for practitioners: you must read Turkish cargo claims as statute-driven, with defences and limits that look familiar to international shipping lawyers but operate through TTK article mechanics, presumptions, and procedural traps.
2) The legal backbone: where the carrier’s core obligations come from
2.1 Seaworthiness / fitness of the ship (a recurring “defence killer”)
Turkish law imposes an express duty on the carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy and fit for the voyage and cargo. In broad terms, the carrier is liable for losses stemming from lack of seaworthiness unless it can show that—despite the diligence expected from a prudent carrier—the deficiency could not be discovered before the voyage began.
Practical effect: even where the carrier raises a classic “perils of the sea” narrative, claimants often win (or break limitation) by proving an underlying seaworthiness failure: hatch cover integrity, ventilation, reefer functionality, lashing/stowage defects, stability issues, crew competency, or maintenance gaps.
2.2 The carrier’s “prudent carrier” standard and the custody period
The TCC frames performance as a duty of care consistent with what a prudent carrier would do, including loading, stowage, handling, carriage, custody/safekeeping, and discharge. Liability attaches if loss, damage, or delay occurred while the goods were within the carrier’s control (the TCC defines the custody window broadly, from receipt for carriage to delivery or lawful/contractual placement at the consignee’s disposal, including handover to mandated authorities at the discharge port).
This “control period” concept is not a mere theory: it dictates the first battlefield question in Turkish courts—did the damage occur during the carrier’s period of responsibility? If yes, the carrier must then fight on defences/causation/limits.
3) The liability architecture: burdens of proof and causation logic
Turkish cargo litigation is often decided through presumptions:
- Cargo interests typically prove:
- a contract of carriage (often via B/L),
- delivery to the carrier in apparent good order (or at least without relevant reservations), and
- outturn loss/damage/delay at discharge.
- Once the cargo claimant establishes that the harmful event happened during the carrier’s custody window, the carrier’s escape route is causation + fault logic: show that the loss did not arise from the carrier’s or its servants’ intent/negligence, or that a statutory defence applies, or that only a portion is attributable to carrier fault.
Because this is a statute-heavy area, Turkish courts tend to structure reasoning as:
- Which defence category applies?
- Is the defence defeated by carrier-caused contribution?
- If mixed causes, can the carrier prove apportionment?
4) The main defences and exceptions under Turkish law
Turkish law does not treat “defences” as a single bucket. It creates multiple layers of exoneration and presumption, each with its own proof dynamics.
4.1 General “not attributable to carrier/servants” defence
The carrier is not liable for damage arising from causes not resulting from the carrier’s or its servants’ intent or negligence, and the carrier bears the burden to prove the relevant absence of causative fault.
In practice, carriers try to satisfy this via:
- contemporaneous logs,
- stowage plans and lashing certificates,
- weather routing,
- surveyor findings blaming inherent vice/packing,
- port congestion records (for delay),
- terminal handover documents (to shift the “control period”).
4.2 Technical management / navigation and fire (a special carve-out)
A key Turkish feature is the special handling of damage arising from acts related to the ship’s navigation or other technical management, or from fire—in such cases the carrier is typically liable only for its own fault (i.e., the rule narrows vicarious exposure).
How disputes are actually argued: claimants try to re-characterise the root cause as “cargo interest management” rather than “technical management”, or as unseaworthiness (maintenance) rather than a navigational mishap. Carriers do the opposite and frame events as technical decisions by master/crew.
4.3 Salvage / rescue operations
The carrier is not liable for damage resulting from rescuing life or property at sea (subject to general average rules), and rescue attempts aimed only at property must still be reasonable.
This defence is particularly relevant in weather deviation cases where cargo damage is linked to rescue manoeuvres or route changes.
4.4 Enumerated “no-fault and causation” presumptions (TTK’s defence list)
Turkish law also provides a list of causes where the carrier and its servants are treated as faultless (and where causation is presumptively aligned), including:
- perils/accidents of the sea (or other navigable waters),
- war events, unrest, actions of public enemies, orders of competent authorities, quarantine restrictions,
- judicial seizure/attachment orders,
- strikes/lockouts/other labour impediments,
- acts/omissions of shipper/charterer/cargo owner and their agents,
- natural loss by volume/weight, hidden defects, inherent nature of the goods,
- insufficient packing,
- insufficient marks.
Two “claimant tools” matter here:
(i) Contribution rule: if the claimant proves that the listed event was itself triggered by something for which the carrier is responsible, the carrier cannot rely on that defence.
(ii) Rebuttability: even where the situation “looks like” a listed cause, the opposing party can rebut the presumption with concrete proof.
4.5 Mixed causes and apportionment (often decisive)
Turkish law expressly addresses combined causation: if carrier fault combines with another cause, the carrier is liable only for the portion attributable to its fault—but the carrier must prove what portion is not attributable.
This is where evidence strategy becomes case-winning:
- Claimant: show an indivisible causal chain (e.g., poor lashing + heavy weather).
- Carrier: quantify and isolate the non-fault component (e.g., extraordinary weather magnitude, third-party terminal mishandling).
5) Liability limitation: when the carrier can cap exposure
5.1 Loss/damage limits (package/unit or kilogram) and SDR mechanics
For loss/damage, Turkish law caps liability by reference to Special Drawing Rights (SDR): a per-package/unit threshold and a per-kilogram threshold, applying whichever is higher, unless value is duly declared and inserted into the sea carriage document.
Important practice point: limitation is not only a numbers issue; it is a definition issue:
- What counts as a “package/unit” in the transport document?
- Is it a container with “said to contain” descriptions, or are the individual cartons enumerated as units?
- Was the cargo value declared properly?
5.2 Containers and “unit counting”
If goods are consolidated in a container/pallet/transport unit, Turkish law looks to what is written in the sea carriage document: each package/unit listed inside can count separately; otherwise, the container may be treated as a single unit for limitation purposes.
This makes B/L drafting and accuracy litigation-critical. Cargo claimants should push for clear enumeration; carriers often prefer vaguer descriptions (but those can create other problems, including evidential credibility issues).
5.3 Delay limitation: cap tied to freight
For delay, the carrier’s exposure is capped at a multiple of the freight payable for the delayed goods, with an overall cap not exceeding total freight under the contract.
In Turkish litigation, delay claims are frequently under-pleaded because parties focus on physical damage. Yet delay can be the largest component in commodity/seasonal goods, project cargo, or just-in-time supply chains—so pleading and proving consequential loss becomes central (and carriers will respond by invoking statutory caps and causation limits).
5.4 Declared value and misdeclaration risk
If cargo value and nature are declared before loading and inserted into the sea carriage document, the carrier may lose the ability to rely on statutory limits. Conversely, intentional misdeclaration can eliminate the carrier’s liability entirely for loss/damage.
6) Breaking limitation: “reckless/intentional” conduct
Turkish law deprives the carrier of limitation if the claimant proves that the damage or delay was caused intentionally or by reckless conduct committed with awareness that damage/delay would probably occur. The same loss of limitation can extend to the carrier’s servants in the conditions defined by statute.
Practical examples where limitation is attacked:
- knowingly sailing with defective hatch covers,
- ignoring known reefer alarms or temperature deviations,
- systematic lashing non-compliance despite prior incidents,
- falsifying cargo condition entries,
- reckless stowage of incompatible cargoes (e.g., wet cargo above hygroscopic goods).
7) Procedural pressure points: inspection, notice, and time bars
7.1 Inspection rights and fast evidence collection
Turkish law allows cargo interests to request determination of cargo condition (measurement/count/weight/condition) and expects cooperation between the parties to facilitate inspection.
In practice, claimants should secure:
- joint surveys at discharge,
- tally records,
- photos/videos with timestamps,
- seal condition logs,
- reefer data downloads,
- statements from terminal operators.
7.2 Notice deadlines (a frequent reason claims fail or shrink)
Turkish law requires written notice to the carrier:
- by the time of delivery if loss/damage is apparent,
- within three days after delivery if not externally apparent,
- and within sixty days for delay claims, otherwise compensation for delay is not payable.
If neither notice nor formal determination is made, presumptions arise that delivery occurred as stated in the sea carriage document and that any proven damage stems from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible—though these presumptions can be rebutted.
7.3 One-year forfeiture (hak düşürücü süre) and recourse timing
Claims against the carrier for loss, damage, or late delivery are subject to a one-year period within which judicial proceedings must be initiated; otherwise the right is forfeited. The period generally runs from delivery (or when delivery should have occurred).
For recourse claims by a party held liable, Turkish law also provides a ninety-day recourse window tied to payment or service of the claim petition (depending on scenario), and it permits extension by agreement after the cause arises.
Additionally, if the liable party misleads the claimant in a way that causes them to miss the deadline, the time-bar objection may be unavailable.
8) “How it is handled in Turkey”: litigation posture and evidence strategy
8.1 Forum and case framing
Cargo claims are typically treated as commercial disputes under the TCC. In practice, case outcomes depend heavily on whether pleadings are structured around:
- the statutory custody window,
- the defence list (and how it is defeated),
- concurrent cause allocation (and which side bears proof),
- limitation mechanics (package/unit counting),
- and compliance with notice and one-year filing deadlines.
8.2 A Turkey-focused evidence checklist (what courts and experts actually look for)
For cargo interests (claimant-side):
- B/L content: clean vs claused; package/unit enumeration; description consistency.
- Outturn evidence: joint survey, exception lists, tally sheets, terminal damage reports.
- Causation anchors: lashing/stowage photos, hatch cover tests, ventilation/condensation patterns, reefer logs, temperature excursions, humidity indicators.
- Seaworthiness angles: maintenance records, prior defects, class/PSC history if obtainable, crew actions showing knowledge.
- Notice proof: written notices within the statutory windows, delivery receipts with remarks, notarial protests where useful.
For carriers (defendant-side):
- Control period boundaries: terminal handover timing, custody transfer documents.
- Defence triggers: weather data, voyage reports, port records, quarantine/authority orders, strike notices.
- Packing/marks: shipper-provided packing specs, photographs at receipt, container stuffing reports, seal integrity.
- Apportionment: expert modelling attributing damage percentages to non-carrier causes.
8.3 Why “perils of the sea” is rarely enough by itself
Under Turkish practice, a pure “heavy weather” narrative often fails unless paired with:
- proof of extraordinary conditions, and
- proof that cargo was properly stowed/lased and vessel was seaworthy.
Otherwise, claimants successfully argue that the weather was foreseeable and that the real cause was preventable (lashing, stowage, maintenance), defeating defences and sometimes breaking limitation.
9) Common critical mistakes in Turkish cargo claims (and how to avoid them)
- Missing the three-day hidden damage notice and later trying to rely on informal emails without clear delivery linkage.
- Pleading only physical damage and forgetting a separate delay theory—then losing delay compensation due to the sixty-day notice rule.
- Failing to secure unit/package enumeration evidence, then being capped at “one container = one unit.”
- Not pleading mixed causation properly—and allowing the carrier to frame the entire event as a defence cause without confronting carrier contribution.
- Waiting too long and falling into the one-year forfeiture period.
10) Closing: a practical “Turkey-ready” roadmap
A strong Turkish cargo case—claimant or defence—usually succeeds by doing five things early:
- Lock down the custody window and the moment of outturn loss/damage/delay.
- Build causation around seaworthiness + prudent carrier diligence.
- Treat defences as structured statutory presumptions, then attack contribution and rebuttability.
- Run limitation as a document-interpretation dispute (units/packages, container rules, declared value) and assess limitation-breaking.
- Never miss the notice and one-year filing pressure points.
Yanıt yok