Shipping 2026

TÜRKIYE Law and Practice Contributed by: Türker Yıldırım, Semih Sander, Gülistan Baltacı Hatay and Selçuk Sencer Esenyel, Esenyel|Partners Lawyers & Consultants

3. Marine Casualties and Owners’ Liability 3.1 International Conventions: Pollution and Wreck Removal Pollution Türkiye is a party to the following international con - ventions, 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 Internation - al Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Dam - age, and the Protocol of 2003; and • the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001. Regarding the owners’ liability for pollution, adminis - trative fines are imposed under the Turkish Environ - mental 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. 3.2 International Conventions: Collision and Türkiye is a party to the Convention on the Interna - tional 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 Salvage Collision Türkiye is a party to the International Convention on Salvage, 1989. The provisions of various international conventions, including the aforementioned Conven - tion, have been incorporated into the TCC. Claims for

commonly preferred financing option for ship-owners or financial institutions in Türkiye. Accordingly, there is not a strong shift away from traditional bank lend - ing towards private equity and alternative credit pro - viders. 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 tra - ditional 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 dur - ing 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 financ - ing 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 con - stitutes 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. There - fore, 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 agree - ment by pursuing the assets of the lessee, albeit with - out enjoying any priority rights.

611 CHAMBERS.COM