This was an appeal from the judgment of the Iskenderun 1st Civil Court of First Instance (30 January 2013, 2013/12-2013/12).

The plaintiff applied for the arrest of the ship X1 and an imposition of provisional attachment, claiming that it was an agent of the relevant ship, that its client's agency receivables had not been paid, that the ship was anchored off the coast of Iskenderun, and was detained due to other debts.

The Court decided that the plaintiff seeking provisional attachment had provided agency services to the X1 and decided to accept the application for provisional attachment for USD 32,725,00, representing the creditor's agency and port services including docking, departure fees, pilotage, lighterage, water supplies, etc, to the ship according to the documents presented in evidence.

The shipowner objected to the provisional attachment, stating that it did not owe the relevant agency receivables, and that its ship, the X1, was chartered to F1 Shipping & Trading SA. The owner applied for the ship arrest to be lifted and the decision on provisional attachment to be reversed.

The Court of first instance rejected the shipowner's objection on the grounds that, while the agency service subject to provisional attachment was the result of an agency agreement signed between the plaintiff and F1 Shipping & Trading SA, the plaintiff's claim, which was the subject of the action for which the shipowner was responsible, was a maritime claim according to art 1352.1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), [which is based on art 1 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999 (the Arrest Convention 1999)].

The shipowner appealed.

Held: The appeal is upheld.

The Court decided on the arrest of the ship by placing a provisional attachment on the ship due to the maritime claim. Pursuant to the second sentence of art 1353.1 of the TCC (numbered 6102), it is not possible to impose provisional measures on the ship or otherwise apply the arrest of the ship. [The relevant provision states: 'In order to secure maritime receivables, only the precautionary arrest of the relevant ship can be made. Placing an injunction on the ship for these receivables or preventing the ship from sailing in any other way, cannot be requested.'] In this respect, it was unjust to decide on the arrest of the ship, for which a provisional attachment decision had been made, and the decision must be reversed.

In order to secure a maritime claim with a provisional attachment, the charterer of the ship at the time the maritime claim arises must be responsible for this debt, and must be the owner of the ship at the time of the application of the provisional attachment in accordance with art 1369.1.b of the TCC, [which is based on art 3.1.b of the Arrest Convention 1999]. It was unjust for the first instance Court to reject the shipowner's objection to provisional attachment by mentioning art 1061 of the TCC [which provides a definition of who the 'shipowner' is], which did not apply in the case, without investigating whether the charterer was the owner of the ship at the time of application for provisional attachment, and it was necessary to decide the reversal of the decision by upholding the shipowner's appeal.