This was an appeal from the judgment of the Istanbul 52th Commercial Court of First Instance (14 June 2011, 2011/93-2011/93).

The plaintiff claimed that its vessel, the KYI, sustained damage due to a negligent collision caused by the defendant's vessel, the M/V H ...-3. The plaintiff sought TRY 614,021.18 in damages from the defendant under art 1320 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC No 6102) [based on art 4.1. of the MLM Convention 1993], which provides a list of maritime claims against the owner, demise charterer, manager, or operator of the vessel that are secured by a maritime lien on the vessel.

Moreover, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant’s vessel had been sold and renamed P ... B ... Katmar, and was expected to be scrapped shortly at Ambarlı Port. Concerned that the scrapping would render its claims unsecured and prevent the enforcement of its maritime lien arising from the collision, the plaintiff requested the arrest of the defendant’s vessel to secure its maritime claim, in accordance with art 1352 of the TCC [based on art 1.1 of the Arrest Convention 1999].

The defendant did not respond to the claim.

The Court of First Instance held that a maritime accident occurred on 28 May 2011 due to the collision between the two ships. While the claim is recognised as a maritime claim under art 1352 of the TCC, art 1369.1.a of the TCC [based on art 3.1.a. of the Arrest Convention 1999] requires that the owner of the ship at the time the maritime claim arose must also be the owner when the arrest is requested. Since the relevant ship was sold to T ... M ... Ltd in March 2013 and renamed, and was not owned by the defendant at the time of the arrest request, the Court ruled that an arrest on the ship was not feasible given under art 1369.1.a of the TCC, and thus, the request was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance should have evaluated the arrest application under art 1369.1.e of the TCC [based on art 3.1.e of the Arrest Convention 1999], since the arrest application was made on the basis of the creation of a right to a maritime lien arising from the collision. Article 1369.1.e allows for the arrest of any ship against which a maritime claim is asserted if the claim is secured by a maritime lien under art 1320 of the TCC [based on art 4.1 of the MLM Convention 1993]. The Court of First Instance erroneously based its decision on Article 1369.1.a of the TCC, which is irrelevant to the case. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff’s appeal, overturned the lower Court’s decision, and allowed the arrest application.