The appellants brought this appeal against the respondent regarding judgment 2008/15-2011/97 issued by the Istanbul 51st Commercial Court (Specialised Maritime Court) of first instance. In the Court of first instance, the respondent had argued that two radar systems belonging to the Ministry of Defence were insured by the respondent against risks that might arise during their transportation from Portland, USA, to Türkiye; they were transported on the Aron under the joint and consecutive responsibility of the appellants and under two bills of lading; and damage to the radar systems occurred during transportation. The respondent claimed damages of USD 115,144 for the radar system assigned to Cigli Military Airport, and USD 613,720 for the radar system assigned to Kayseri/Erkilet Airport.

In the Court of first instance, the appellants had requested a dismissal, arguing that the respondent had not proven that it had paid its insured before 21 February 2002, which was the statute of limitations; the compensation paid to the insured was determined by looking at the external appearance of the container on discharge; it was not clear at this stage whether the cargo in the container had really suffered damage; the compensation paid by the respondent was ex gratia due to this reason; the alleged damage occurred due to bad weather conditions and thus, according to art 1063.1 of the Turkish Code of Commerce, they were not liable for damage caused by this reason. There was also a dispute as to which of the appellants (the contractual or actual carrier) was liable, if there was any liability to the respondent.

The appellant Alko Dış Ticaret ve Denizcilik AŞ (Alko) contended that it was the 'performing carrier', rather than itself, who would be responsible for any damage; Alko showed the care and diligence sought in a cautious carrier in accordance with art 1061 of the Turkish Code of Commerce; if there was fault in the incident, this fault was related to the ship's crew and the technical dispatch and management of the ship. Thus, Alko could not be held responsible unless it was its own fault according to art 1062.2 of the Turkish Code of Commerce and art 4.2 of the Brussels Convention 1924 (the Hague Rules); Alko could not be held responsible according to art 1063.1.b of the Turkish Code of Commerce and art 4.2.c of the Hague Rules; and even if the inspection and notice specified in arts 1065 and 1066 of the Turkish Code of Commerce and art 3.3.b of Hague Rules were not made in time and properly, Alko's liability was limited, and the respondent's claim was extortionate.

The Court of first instance held that the insured commodity transported from the USA to Türkiye on the Aron was not properly loaded onto the ship. The positioning of the damaged commodity and other cargoes on board was not suitable for transportation. It was not taken into consideration that lashing with wire cables could damage the cargo. There was also no documentation that any measures had been taken related to this risk. The type, weight, and qualities of the cargoes, as well as the export reference details, were included in the bills of lading, the carrier was notified about the letters of credit and invoice details, and it was also stipulated in the contract concluded between the seller and the insured to notify the type, weight and volume of the material to be shipped to the agent or offices of the carrier companies a month prior to carriage. Thus, the carrier knew the value of the cargo. The Court found the appellants liable for the full damages and decided that the claim would be accepted and the amount of USD 728,864 collected jointly and severally from the appellants together with interest.

Held: The appeal is dismissed and the first instance judgment is confirmed.

The judgment was given in accordance with the decision followed by the Court and there was no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence.