Maritime and Shipping Arbitration in Turkey: Charterparty, Cargo and Freight Disputes

Introduction

Türkiye’s strategic position between the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Aegean Sea and major international trade routes makes maritime transport an important part of commercial activity connected with the country. Shipowners, charterers, cargo interests, freight forwarders, insurers, commodity traders, ship managers, port operators and financial institutions may become involved in disputes concerning vessels, cargo, freight and related maritime services.

Maritime disputes frequently require rapid and commercially informed decision-making. A vessel may call at several jurisdictions during a single voyage, while the shipowner, charterer, cargo owner, insurer and consignee may all be established in different countries. The governing law, arbitration seat, port of loading, port of discharge and location of the vessel may also be different.

For this reason, arbitration is widely used in shipping contracts. Maritime and shipping arbitration in Turkey may be selected for disputes arising from:

• Time charterparties;
• Voyage charterparties;
• Contracts of carriage;
• Bills of lading;
• Freight and deadfreight;
• Laytime and demurrage;
• Cargo loss and damage;
• Late delivery;
• Off-hire;
• Vessel redelivery;
• General average;
• Towage and salvage;
• Shipbuilding and repair contracts;
• Marine insurance and subrogation.

Arbitration provides the parties with the opportunity to select maritime specialists, determine the language and seat of the proceedings, adopt a commercially appropriate timetable and obtain an award that may qualify for international enforcement.

However, maritime arbitration must be coordinated with mandatory Turkish maritime law and judicial remedies. An arbitral tribunal may decide the merits of a charterparty or cargo dispute, while the arrest of a vessel, compulsory sale of maritime property or implementation of rights against third parties may still require the assistance of Turkish courts and enforcement offices.

This guide explains the legal framework governing maritime arbitration in Türkiye, including charterparty disputes, cargo claims, freight, demurrage, bills of lading, carrier liability, vessel arrest, limitation periods and enforcement of arbitral awards.

What Is Maritime and Shipping Arbitration?

Maritime arbitration is the resolution of a private maritime dispute by one or more arbitrators instead of a national court.

The tribunal’s jurisdiction usually arises from a written arbitration clause contained in:

• A charterparty;
• A bill of lading;
• A contract of affreightment;
• A booking note;
• A ship management agreement;
• A shipbuilding contract;
• A ship repair agreement;
• A towage contract;
• A marine insurance policy;
• A settlement agreement.

The arbitration agreement may provide for institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration or a specialised maritime arbitration procedure.

The tribunal may determine matters such as:

• Whether the vessel complied with the charter description;
• Whether the ship was seaworthy;
• Whether hire or freight was properly calculated;
• Whether the vessel was off-hire;
• Whether laytime expired;
• Whether demurrage became payable;
• Whether cargo was damaged while under the carrier’s control;
• Whether a liability limitation applies;
• Whether the carrier or charterer validly terminated the contract;
• Which party must bear damages and arbitration costs.

The tribunal does not generally exercise the coercive authority of a national enforcement office. It may determine contractual liability, but it cannot simply prevent a vessel from sailing, compel a port authority to alter official records or sell a ship through compulsory execution without judicial assistance.

Turkish Legal Framework for Maritime Arbitration

Maritime disputes connected with Türkiye may involve several bodies of law.

The principal sources include:

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102;
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098;
• Turkish International Arbitration Law No. 4686;
• Articles 407 to 444 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100;
• Turkish International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718;
• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law;
• International maritime conventions applicable to the dispute;
• Institutional arbitration rules;
• The charterparty, bill of lading or other maritime contract.

The Fifth Book of the Turkish Commercial Code contains the main Turkish maritime-law provisions. It regulates vessels, shipowners, chartering, contracts for carriage of goods by sea, bills of lading, carrier liability, general average, limitation of liability, maritime claims and vessel arrest.

The arbitration legislation applicable to a Turkey-seated proceeding depends principally on whether the dispute contains a foreign element.

Domestic maritime arbitration

Articles 407 to 444 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure apply where:

• The arbitration is seated in Türkiye; and
• The dispute does not contain the foreign element defined under the International Arbitration Law.

Turkish domestic arbitration law requires a written arbitration agreement. The written-form requirement may be satisfied through a signed document, electronic correspondence or incorporation by reference to another document containing an arbitration clause.

International maritime arbitration

The Turkish International Arbitration Law principally applies where the arbitration is seated in Türkiye and the dispute contains a statutory foreign element.

Most cross-border shipping disputes are likely to contain an international element because the parties, vessel, cargo, contractual performance or voyage commonly connect more than one jurisdiction.

The parties may select Turkish substantive law while choosing a foreign seat, or choose foreign substantive law while selecting Istanbul as the legal seat. The governing law of the maritime contract and the procedural law of the arbitration should therefore be identified separately.

Why Maritime Businesses Choose Arbitration

Maritime transactions have several characteristics that make arbitration commercially attractive.

Specialist decision-makers

Shipping disputes may involve technical terminology and industry practices that are unfamiliar outside the maritime sector.

A tribunal may need to understand:

• Notice of readiness;
• Laytime calculations;
• Weather working days;
• Off-hire;
• Safe port obligations;
• Cargo ventilation;
• Stowage;
• Deadfreight;
• Despatch;
• General average;
• Bunker consumption;
• Vessel performance warranties.

The parties can appoint arbitrators with experience in maritime law, ship operations, commodity trading or marine insurance.

Neutrality

A charterparty may involve a Turkish shipowner, a foreign charterer, cargo loaded in one state and discharged in another. Arbitration allows the parties to avoid giving either side an automatic home-court advantage.

Procedural flexibility

The parties can agree that the case will be decided through:

• Written submissions;
• Documentary evidence;
• Maritime expert reports;
• A short evidentiary hearing;
• Online hearings;
• A sole arbitrator for smaller claims;
• A three-member tribunal for high-value disputes.

International enforcement

The New York Convention provides common standards for recognising arbitration agreements and enforcing foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards, subject to limited refusal grounds. This can be particularly valuable where vessels, bank accounts and commercial assets move between jurisdictions.

Types of Maritime Contracts under Turkish Law

Turkish maritime law distinguishes among several types of agreements concerning the use of a ship and carriage of cargo.

Time Charterparties

Under a time charter arrangement, the commercial use of the vessel is allocated to the charterer for a specified period, while the party providing the vessel retains its technical management.

The Turkish Commercial Code provides that either party may request a time charterparty containing the contractual terms. The party making the vessel available retains technical management, while the charterer controls commercial employment within the limits of the agreement. The charterer generally bears expenses arising from commercial operation, while hire is paid according to the agreed period.

Common time charter disputes include:

• Non-payment of hire;
• Off-hire periods;
• Underperformance;
• Excessive bunker consumption;
• Unsafe port instructions;
• Damage caused during commercial employment;
• Unlawful orders;
• Late redelivery;
• Condition of the vessel on redelivery;
• Bunker quantities and pricing;
• Withdrawal of the vessel.

Off-hire disputes

An off-hire clause determines when the charterer may suspend hire because the vessel cannot provide the agreed commercial service.

Disputes may concern:

• Machinery breakdown;
• Dry-docking;
• Crew deficiencies;
• Detention;
• Port restrictions;
• Cargo damage;
• Reduced speed;
• Failure of equipment;
• Time lost due to the charterer’s orders.

Article 1136 of the Turkish Commercial Code provides, within the statutory framework, that hire is not payable for periods of at least 24 hours during which the vessel is not commercially usable. The parties may nevertheless regulate off-hire in greater contractual detail.

Redelivery disputes

A charterer must return the vessel at the place and in the condition required by the charterparty.

Under Article 1137, where the vessel is returned late, the charterer may be required to pay twice the hire applicable at the expiry date for the delayed period unless a higher loss is proved.

The parties may dispute:

• Whether redelivery notice was valid;
• Whether redelivery was premature or late;
• Whether the vessel was within the permitted geographic range;
• Whether the contractual condition requirements were satisfied;
• Whether market losses exceeded the statutory amount.

Voyage Charterparties

Under a voyage charterparty, the carrier undertakes to carry cargo for freight by allocating all or part of the vessel, or a specified space, to the charterer for an agreed voyage.

Article 1138 distinguishes voyage charter carriage from liner or space-based carriage of identified goods. Article 1139 allows either party to request a voyage charterparty recording the contractual terms.

Typical voyage charter disputes include:

• Failure to nominate a vessel;
• Failure to tender cargo;
• Unsafe port or berth;
• Notice of readiness;
• Laytime;
• Demurrage;
• Deadfreight;
• Freight;
• Cargo quantity;
• Cancellation;
• Deviation;
• Delay;
• Failure to discharge.

Freight and Deadfreight Disputes

Freight is the contractual payment for maritime carriage.

The parties may calculate freight according to:

• Cargo weight;
• Cargo volume;
• Number of packages;
• Lump-sum freight;
• Duration;
• Distance;
• Commodity value.

Article 1193 provides that where freight is calculated by measurement, weight or number, the amount is generally determined according to the cargo delivered to the consignee unless the agreement establishes another rule. Article 1194 separately regulates freight calculated according to time.

Freight disputes may concern:

• Whether freight was earned on loading or delivery;
• Whether freight is payable despite cargo loss;
• Currency;
• Exchange rate;
• Prepaid or collect freight;
• Deductions;
• Set-off;
• Additional port costs;
• Freight tax;
• Agency deductions.

Deadfreight

Deadfreight may arise where the charterer fails to provide the full cargo quantity promised under the voyage charter.

The carrier may claim the freight it would have earned on the missing cargo, subject to:

• The contractual wording;
• Mitigation;
• Substitute cargo;
• Expenses saved;
• Causation.

Under Article 1160, where the full agreed cargo has not been loaded after the loading and demurrage periods, the carrier may in defined circumstances claim full freight, accrued demurrage and losses caused by short loading, subject to credit for freight earned from substitute cargo.

Laytime and Demurrage Disputes

Laytime is the period allowed for loading or discharging cargo.

Demurrage, known as sürastarya in Turkish maritime law, is the amount payable for detention of the vessel after the agreed laytime has expired.

These disputes are among the most common forms of maritime arbitration because a difference of several hours or days can produce a significant monetary claim.

Relevant questions may include:

• Was the vessel an arrived ship?
• Was the berth safe and accessible?
• Was a valid notice of readiness tendered?
• Was the vessel physically and legally ready?
• When did laytime begin?
• Did weather interruptions count?
• Were weekends or holidays excluded?
• Did congestion interrupt laytime?
• Did the carrier cause the delay?
• Did demurrage run continuously?

Under Articles 1154 and 1155, loading demurrage applies where the agreement requires the carrier to remain beyond laytime. If demurrage is mentioned but no duration is stated, the statutory default period is ten days. Contractually agreed demurrage limits the carrier to the agreed amount, while the statutory framework provides a method for calculating the claim where no rate has been fixed.

Articles 1170 and 1171 contain corresponding provisions for demurrage arising during discharge.

The Turkish Commercial Code also provides that demurrage generally runs continuously despite several interruptions that may affect laytime, unless the carrier caused the relevant event.

A successful demurrage claim normally requires a clear chronological calculation supported by:

• Statement of facts;
• Notice of readiness;
• Port logs;
• Bills of lading;
• Weather reports;
• Cargo documents;
• Loading and discharge records;
• Emails;
• Laytime calculation sheets.

Seaworthiness and Cargo-Worthiness

A carrier has an obligation to provide a vessel that is fit for the voyage and the cargo.

Article 1141 requires the carrier to ensure that the vessel is seaworthy, voyage-worthy and cargo-worthy. The carrier may be liable for loss caused by unseaworthiness unless the defect could not have been discovered before the voyage despite the care expected of a prudent carrier.

Disputes may involve:

• Machinery condition;
• Hatch covers;
• Refrigeration equipment;
• Cargo holds;
• Ventilation;
• Stability;
• Navigation systems;
• Crew competence;
• Required certificates;
• Suitability for dangerous or temperature-sensitive cargo.

A vessel may be seaworthy in a general navigational sense but not cargo-worthy for the particular goods.

For example, a vessel carrying grain may require clean and dry holds, while a reefer cargo may require functioning temperature-control systems.

Carrier Liability for Cargo Loss and Damage

Article 1178 requires the carrier to exercise the care expected from a prudent carrier in loading, stowing, handling, carrying, protecting, supervising and discharging the cargo.

The carrier is liable for cargo loss, damage or delay occurring while the cargo is under the carrier’s control, subject to the statutory defences and limitations.

A cargo claimant commonly needs to establish:

1. The carrier received the cargo in apparent good order and condition;
2. The cargo was damaged, lost or delivered late;
3. The loss occurred during the carrier’s period of responsibility;
4. The claimant has title to sue;
5. The amount of loss.

The carrier may argue that the loss resulted from:

• Inherent vice;
• Insufficient packing;
• Incorrect cargo information;
• Perils of the sea;
• Government action;
• Strikes;
• Conduct of the shipper;
• Another excluded or non-attributable cause.

Article 1182 identifies several circumstances in which the carrier may benefit from presumptions concerning absence of fault and causation, while Article 1183 regulates situations in which carrier fault combines with another cause.

Cargo Damage Notice Requirements

Cargo damage should be recorded immediately.

Article 1185 requires written notification no later than delivery where the damage is externally apparent. If the damage is not externally visible, written notice must generally be sent within three uninterrupted days from delivery. The notice should identify the general nature of the loss or damage.

Failure to notify does not necessarily make a claim legally impossible, but it creates statutory presumptions that can make the claimant’s case significantly more difficult.

Delay claims are subject to a separate notice requirement. Written notice of loss caused by late delivery must generally be given within 60 days following delivery.

Cargo interests should therefore:

• Place the carrier on immediate written notice;
• Obtain a survey;
• Invite the carrier to participate;
• Preserve packaging and damaged goods;
• Record seals and container condition;
• Preserve temperature data;
• Obtain photographs and videos;
• Avoid disposing of evidence prematurely.

Limitation of Carrier Liability

Turkish maritime law limits the carrier’s liability for cargo claims in specified circumstances.

Under Article 1186, liability for cargo loss or damage is generally limited to the higher of:

• 666.67 Special Drawing Rights per package or unit; or
• Two Special Drawing Rights per kilogram of gross weight of the lost or damaged cargo.

The limitation may not apply where the nature and value of the cargo were properly declared and recorded before loading. The same article limits liability for delay to two and a half times the freight payable for the delayed goods, without exceeding the total freight under the contract.

Under Article 1187, the carrier may lose the right to limitation where the loss resulted from an intentional or reckless act committed with knowledge that the loss or delay would probably occur.

Disputes may therefore concern:

• What constitutes a package or unit;
• Containerised cargo;
• Gross weight;
• Declared value;
• Currency conversion;
• Recklessness;
• Conduct of senior management;
• Combined cargo and delay claims.

Time Limits for Cargo and Charterparty Claims

Maritime limitation periods are often short.

Under Article 1188, cargo loss, damage and late-delivery compensation claims against the carrier are extinguished unless legal proceedings are commenced within one year. The period generally runs from delivery or, where no delivery occurred, from the date when delivery should have taken place. The parties may extend the period by an agreement made after the cause of action arose.

Article 1246 also provides a one-year limitation period for claims arising from ship leases, time charterparties, contracts of carriage, bills of lading and their issuance, subject to the special cargo-claim rule in Article 1188.

The claimant should not assume that negotiations, survey correspondence or settlement discussions automatically protect the claim.

Where arbitration applies, counsel should check what action is required to commence proceedings validly under:

• The arbitration clause;
• Institutional rules;
• Governing law;
• Applicable limitation provision.

An informal notice of claim may not be sufficient.

Bills of Lading and Arbitration Clauses

A bill of lading may perform several functions. It can evidence receipt of the cargo, contain or evidence contractual terms and operate as a transferable document controlling delivery.

Article 1237 provides that the bill of lading governs the legal relationship between the carrier and the bill-of-lading holder. The relationship between the carrier and the original charterer remains governed by the contract of carriage.

Article 1238 regulates identification of the contractual carrier. The person signing the bill of lading as carrier, or on whose behalf it was signed, is treated as the carrier. Where the carrier is not properly identified, the shipowner may in certain circumstances be treated as carrier.

Incorporation of charterparty terms

A bill of lading may refer to a voyage charterparty.

Article 1237 provides that where the bill of lading refers to the voyage charter, a copy of the charterparty must be presented to the new holder when the bill is transferred for the charterparty provisions to be asserted against that holder to the extent their nature permits.

Whether an arbitration clause contained in a charterparty binds a subsequent bill-of-lading holder should not be assumed automatically. The analysis may require examination of:

• The clarity of the incorporation wording;
• Identification of the charterparty by date;
• Whether a copy was supplied;
• The written-form requirement;
• The law governing the arbitration agreement;
• Whether the arbitration clause is suitable for incorporation;
• The holder’s legal status.

Turkish domestic arbitration law recognises incorporation by reference where the reference is intended to make the document containing the arbitration clause part of the principal agreement.

A clause referring only generally to “all terms and conditions” may generate jurisdictional objections. Express wording referring specifically to the arbitration clause is commercially safer.

Mandatory Carrier-Liability Rules

The parties cannot freely exclude every statutory responsibility through a bill of lading or carriage contract.

Article 1243 provides that clauses removing or reducing in advance specified statutory obligations and liabilities of the carrier, shipper and consignor are invalid. Clauses expanding or increasing carrier liability remain valid. Article 1245 establishes a specific exception for voyage charterparties but confirms that mandatory protection applies in the relationship between the carrier and a bill-of-lading holder who is not the charterer.

This distinction is important.

The original charterer and carrier may enjoy broader contractual freedom under the voyage charterparty. Once a bill of lading is transferred to a third-party holder, mandatory cargo liability protections may restrict reliance on charterparty exemptions.

Actual Carrier and Contractual Carrier

Maritime transport may be performed by a party different from the contractual carrier.

A contractual carrier may subcontract all or part of the voyage to another shipowner or operator.

Article 1191 provides that the contractual carrier remains responsible for the entire carriage even where performance is entrusted to an actual carrier. The statutory carrier-liability rules also apply to the actual carrier for the part of the carriage it performed.

A cargo claimant may therefore need to determine:

• Who issued the bill of lading;
• Who operated the vessel;
• Who physically controlled the cargo;
• Whether the actual carrier is bound by the arbitration clause;
• Whether claims should be pursued against one or both carriers;
• Whether limitation is shared or separate.

The arbitration clause may bind the contractual carrier without automatically binding the actual carrier. Consent must be analysed for each respondent.

Maritime Claims and Vessel Arrest in Türkiye

An arbitration clause does not necessarily prevent a party from seeking security through vessel arrest.

The Turkish Commercial Code defines a broad category of maritime claims for the purpose of ship arrest. Article 1352 includes claims arising from:

• Operation of a vessel;
• Chartering or use of a vessel;
• Carriage of goods or passengers;
• Cargo loss or damage;
• General average;
• Towage;
• Pilotage;
• Ship supplies;
• Construction and repair;
• Port charges;
• Crew wages;
• Insurance premiums;
• Ownership and possession disputes.

Charterparty, freight and cargo claims may therefore qualify as maritime claims capable of supporting an arrest application, subject to the statutory conditions.

Vessel arrest and arbitration can proceed together

The court may order arrest to secure the claim while the merits are determined in arbitration.

Article 1361 expressly recognises that the substantive maritime claim may already be pending before a domestic or foreign court or an arbitral tribunal.

This allows the claimant to separate:

• The merits forum: arbitration;
• The security forum: the Turkish court where arrest is sought.

Security for arrest

Article 1363 generally requires the arrest applicant to provide security of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights, subject to the statutory exceptions and the court’s authority to increase or reduce the amount.

Execution deadline

A vessel arrest order must generally be submitted for execution within three working days from the date of the order. Otherwise, the order automatically lapses.

Shipping claims therefore require immediate coordination among arbitration counsel, maritime counsel, bailiffs, port authorities and local agents.

Maritime Claim and Maritime Lien Are Not Identical

A maritime claim is a claim within the statutory list capable of supporting vessel arrest.

A maritime lien is a more limited proprietary security right attaching to the vessel by operation of law.

Article 1320 identifies claims giving rise to maritime-lien rights, including specified crew claims and certain other protected maritime obligations. The list is narrower than the maritime-claim list in Article 1352.

Accordingly:

• Every maritime lien may support a maritime claim;
• Not every maritime claim creates a maritime lien;
• Priority on judicial sale depends on the legal classification;
• Arrest does not by itself establish lien priority.

A charterparty freight claim may qualify as a maritime claim for arrest without necessarily enjoying the priority of a maritime lien.

Evidence in Maritime Arbitration

Maritime cases are highly dependent on contemporaneous records.

Relevant documents may include:

• Charterparty and riders;
• Bills of lading;
• Mate’s receipts;
• Statements of facts;
• Notices of readiness;
• Noon reports;
• Deck and engine logs;
• Port records;
• Survey reports;
• Weather data;
• Cargo manifests;
• Stowage plans;
• Temperature records;
• Bunker delivery notes;
• Hire statements;
• Freight invoices;
• Emails and messaging records;
• Automatic Identification System data.

The parties should issue document-preservation instructions as soon as a dispute becomes foreseeable.

Electronic records may establish:

• Vessel location;
• Speed;
• Course;
• Machinery status;
• Fuel consumption;
• Time of arrival;
• Weather conditions;
• Duration of port operations.

Expert Evidence

Maritime arbitration may require evidence from:

• Master mariners;
• Marine engineers;
• Naval architects;
• Cargo surveyors;
• Average adjusters;
• Chemists;
• Meteorologists;
• Port-operation specialists;
• Maritime accountants.

A performance claim under a time charter may require comparison between:

• Contractual speed and consumption warranties;
• Actual weather;
• Currents;
• Vessel draft;
• Engine condition;
• Excluded periods;
• Good-weather criteria.

A cargo claim may require technical analysis concerning:

• Cause of moisture;
• Refrigeration failure;
• Inherent vice;
• Packaging;
• Contamination;
• Temperature excursion;
• Ventilation;
• Stowage.

The expert should explain the methodology and assumptions transparently. The tribunal, not the expert, decides the contractual and legal issues.

Multi-Party and Multi-Contract Problems

A maritime casualty or cargo claim may involve:

• Shipowner;
• Disponent owner;
• Time charterer;
• Voyage charterer;
• Shipper;
• Consignee;
• Bill-of-lading holder;
• Actual carrier;
• Freight forwarder;
• Insurer;
• Port operator;
• Surveyor.

Each contract may contain a different dispute resolution clause.

For example:

• Head charter: foreign maritime arbitration;
• Sub-charter: ISTAC arbitration;
• Bill of lading: incorporated charter clause;
• Terminal contract: Turkish courts;
• Insurance policy: separate arbitration.

This fragmentation may produce parallel proceedings.

Parties should review whether the applicable rules permit:

• Joinder;
• Consolidation;
• Coordinated hearings;
• Common arbitrators;
• Contribution or indemnity claims.

Consent remains essential. A commercially connected party does not automatically become bound by an arbitration clause signed by another entity.

Drafting a Maritime Arbitration Clause

A maritime arbitration clause should specify:

• The arbitration institution or ad hoc rules;
• The seat;
• The language;
• The number of arbitrators;
• Arbitrator qualifications;
• Governing law;
• Scope of disputes;
• Appointment procedure;
• Service methods;
• Interim measures;
• Vessel arrest and security;
• Consolidation;
• Time-bar protection.

ISTAC publishes a model clause under which disputes arising out of or connected with the contract are finally settled under the ISTAC Arbitration Rules. The parties may add the seat, language, number of arbitrators, governing law and the treatment of emergency arbitration.

An expanded clause may provide:

Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Charterparty, including any dispute concerning its formation, validity, interpretation, performance, freight, hire, laytime, demurrage, cargo operations, termination or redelivery, shall be finally resolved under the Istanbul Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules.

The seat of arbitration shall be Istanbul, Türkiye. The tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators with substantial experience in maritime and shipping disputes. The language of arbitration shall be English. Turkish law shall govern the merits.

The clause should also state:

Nothing in this arbitration agreement prevents either party from applying to a competent court for the arrest of a vessel, interim attachment, evidence preservation or another conservatory measure.

Interim Measures and Evidence Preservation

A maritime dispute may require urgent intervention before the main tribunal is constituted.

Potential measures include:

• Vessel arrest;
• Preservation of damaged cargo;
• Joint survey;
• Inspection of machinery;
• Preservation of electronic logs;
• Prevention of disposal of evidence;
• Security for a claim;
• Protection of sale proceeds;
• Confidentiality orders.

Under Article 414 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a domestic arbitral tribunal may order interim measures or evidence preservation and may require security. Turkish courts may enforce qualifying arbitral measures or intervene where the tribunal cannot act effectively or in time.

Court assistance is likely to remain necessary where the measure:

• Must bind a port authority;
• Prevents a vessel from sailing;
• Requires official seizure;
• Concerns a non-signatory;
• Must be executed through an enforcement office;
• Is sought without prior notice.

Annulment of Turkey-Seated Maritime Awards

A Turkey-seated award is not subject to an ordinary appeal on the merits.

For domestic arbitration, Article 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure limits challenges to an action for annulment based on grounds such as:

• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• Improper tribunal constitution;
• Expiry of the arbitration period;
• Jurisdictional excess;
• Serious procedural irregularity;
• Violation of equality or the right to be heard;
• Non-arbitrability;
• Public policy.

The annulment court should not ordinarily recalculate demurrage, reinterpret the vessel-performance warranty or reassess cargo-survey evidence merely because one party disagrees with the award.

Recognition and Enforcement of Maritime Awards

A maritime award may need enforcement against:

• Vessel sale proceeds;
• Bank accounts;
• Freight receivables;
• Insurance proceeds;
• Company shares;
• Other commercial assets.

Foreign and non-domestic awards may qualify for recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention, subject to grounds such as invalid arbitration agreement, lack of notice, inability to present a case, jurisdictional excess, irregular tribunal constitution, non-arbitrability and public policy.

Asset strategy should begin before the award.

A ship may leave the jurisdiction quickly, change employment or become subject to competing claims. The claimant should therefore consider:

• Arrest before or during arbitration;
• Alternative security;
• Protection-and-indemnity undertakings;
• Bank guarantees;
• Security deposited with the court;
• Enforcement against freight;
• Recognition in other jurisdictions.

Practical Maritime Arbitration Checklist

Before commencing maritime arbitration, the claimant should determine:

1. Which contract contains the arbitration clause;
2. Which parties are bound;
3. Whether the bill of lading incorporates the charterparty clause;
4. The legal seat and governing law;
5. The applicable limitation or time-bar period;
6. Whether cargo notice was given in time;
7. Whether a survey was conducted;
8. Whether the claim qualifies as a maritime claim;
9. Where the vessel is located;
10. Whether arrest or alternative security is available;
11. Whether actual and contractual carriers should both be pursued;
12. Whether experts are required;
13. Whether related disputes can be consolidated;
14. Where the debtor owns enforceable assets;
15. Whether settlement or security can be negotiated before substantial costs are incurred.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can charterparty disputes be arbitrated in Türkiye?

Yes. Time charter, voyage charter, hire, freight, demurrage, off-hire and redelivery disputes are generally private commercial disputes suitable for arbitration where a valid written arbitration agreement exists.

Can Istanbul be selected as the seat of maritime arbitration?

Yes. The parties may select Istanbul as the legal seat and may conduct the arbitration in Turkish, English or another agreed language.

Does choosing arbitration prevent vessel arrest in Türkiye?

No. A party may seek arrest from a competent Turkish court while the merits are determined in arbitration. Turkish maritime law expressly recognises that the substantive claim may be pending before an arbitral tribunal.

What is demurrage under Turkish law?

Demurrage is the amount payable for the period during which the carrier is contractually required to wait beyond the permitted loading or discharge laytime.

How long is the time limit for cargo damage claims?

Claims against the carrier for cargo loss, damage or late delivery are generally subject to a one-year extinguishing period under Article 1188.

When must cargo damage be notified?

Visible damage should generally be notified in writing no later than delivery. Hidden damage should generally be notified within three uninterrupted days after delivery.

Can a charterparty arbitration clause bind a bill-of-lading holder?

Potentially, but incorporation should not be assumed. The wording of the bill, identification and delivery of the charterparty, written-form requirements and governing law must be examined.

What is the carrier’s statutory liability limit?

For cargo loss or damage, the limit is generally the higher of 666.67 Special Drawing Rights per package or unit or two Special Drawing Rights per kilogram of gross weight, subject to statutory exceptions.

Is every maritime claim a maritime lien?

No. The statutory maritime-claim list used for arrest is broader than the narrower list of claims creating maritime liens and priority rights.

Can an arbitral tribunal order the sale of a vessel?

A tribunal may determine the debt and contractual rights, but compulsory arrest and sale of the vessel require the procedures and authorities established under the applicable enforcement law.

Can a foreign maritime award be enforced in Türkiye?

A qualifying foreign award may be recognised and enforced under the New York Convention or applicable Turkish private international law, subject to limited refusal grounds.

Conclusion

Maritime and shipping arbitration in Turkey provides an effective mechanism for resolving charterparty, cargo and freight disputes involving Turkish and international parties.

Time charter disputes may concern hire, off-hire, performance, bunkers and redelivery. Voyage charter disputes commonly involve freight, deadfreight, laytime, demurrage, cargo quantity and port obligations.

Cargo arbitration frequently requires interpretation of bills of lading, carrier identity, seaworthiness, cargo-worthiness, loss, damage, delay and statutory liability limitations.

Turkish maritime law imposes important procedural requirements. Cargo damage should be notified promptly, and many charterparty and cargo claims are subject to one-year periods. Parties should not rely on negotiations alone to preserve their claims.

The arbitration clause must also be drafted carefully. It should identify the seat, institution, language, tribunal size, governing law and scope of disputes. Bills of lading should incorporate charterparty arbitration provisions clearly and specifically.

Arbitration does not remove the importance of Turkish courts. Vessel arrest, evidence preservation, compulsory execution and measures affecting port authorities or third parties may require judicial intervention.

Turkish law recognises charter, carriage and cargo claims among the maritime claims capable of supporting vessel arrest. The arrest proceeding may secure the claim while the merits continue in domestic or foreign arbitration.

The strongest maritime dispute strategy combines:

• Early evidence preservation;
• Immediate calculation of time limits;
• Technical maritime expertise;
• Accurate identification of contractual parties;
• Carefully drafted arbitration clauses;
• Vessel and asset investigation;
• Timely applications for security.

For shipowners, charterers, cargo interests, insurers, traders and maritime service providers involved in disputes connected with Türkiye, specialised maritime arbitration counsel can coordinate charterparty claims, cargo evidence, vessel arrest, arbitral proceedings and enforcement of the final award.