This was an appeal from the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of first instance (7 November 2014, 2014/427-2014/432).

NI Ltd, an intervener, objected to the provisional attachment of the ship E (formerly AA), and applied for the decision on attachment to be overturned. NI Ltd claimed that it was a company registered in the M[arshall] Islands, and that it was the registered legal owner of the E, which was subject to the decision on provisional attachment taken by the first instance Court.

NI Ltd argued that the decision on provisional attachment taken by the Court did not comply with the law. Provisional attachment of the ship was regulated in art 1369.1.a of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC), [which is based on art 3.1.a of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999 (the Arrest Convention 1999)]. In accordance with this article, the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose must be liable for the claim, and must be the owner of the ship when the provisional attachment is effected. In accordance with an agreement signed between NI Ltd and West Island Maritime Ltd, the former owner of the ship, the ship subject to provisional attachment was sold to NI Ltd before the Consulate of P on 19 June 2014. Thereafter, the ship was transferred and delivered to NI on 2 July 2014, and was registered to the ship registry of P on 1 October 2014 under the name of E on behalf of NI Ltd, who became the new owner of the ship. NI Ltd did not have a legal relationship with the debtor responsible for the maritime claim; therefore, there was no maritime claim that could be used as a basis for the attachment of its ship.

The plaintiff creditor requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that it was owed money for premium payments in respect of an insurance policy issued for a ship with the IMO number 9045699, which was then named AA and belonged to West Island Maritime Ltd. A provisional attachment was requested for the collection of the premium of USD 40,032 in accordance with art 1352.r of the TCC [which is based on art 1.1.q of the Arrest Convention 1999]. The application was accepted by the Court, and a decision was made on provisional attachment. The creditor also argued that there was no real sales transaction in relation to the ship; that the transactions entered into were collusive; that the transactions were registered in the name of the former owner of the ship, who was the debtor when the decision on provisional attachment was effected; and that the provisional attachment of the vessel was thus in accordance with the law.

The Court decided to overturn the earlier decision on provisional attachment on the ground that the ship then named AA, which was subject to the request for provisional attachment, was transferred by West Island Maritime Ltd to NI Ltd on 2 July 2014 by a notarised agreement. In accordance with art 1369.1.a of the TCC, provisional attachment of any ship is permissible in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted if the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the owner of the ship when the provisional attachment is effected. Here, the ship was not a property of West Island Maritime Ltd on 30 October 2014, and therefore, the conditions of provisional attachment were not met.

The creditor appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

Due to the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 15 June 2015 that all the creditor's appeals were rejected. The decision of the first instance Court, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and law, was approved.