This was an appeal from the judgment of the Bandirma 1st Civil Court of first instance (10 February 2015, 2014/171-2014/170.

The defendant objected to the provisional attachment of its ship, stating that the debtor of the invoice, which was the basis for the lien, was HQ M S Ltd and P MSA. The defendant argued that it purchased the ship in question on 10 April 2014; there was no debt in the registry on the date of its purchase of the ship. The defendant further argued that the claim should be addressed to the former owner of the ship and therefore requested that the plaintiff's application for provisional attachment be dismissed.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's arguments and demanded that its maritime claim be secured.

The Court of first instance found that some of the plaintiff's claim was included among the maritime liens listed in art 1320 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC) [which is based on art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993]. However, the Court found that the issue of whether the plaintiff's claim qualifies as a maritime lien attached to a vessel to secure a claim, or an ordinary maritime claim, would be determined following the Court's examination and evaluation throughout the judicial process. 

The Court referred to art 1369.1.e of the TCC [which is based on art 3.1.e of the Arrest Convention 1999]. According to art 1369.1.e, the arrest of any ship is permissible in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted against the owner, demise charterer, manager, or operator of the ship, and is secured by a maritime lien which is granted or arises under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for. The Court found that the new owner might be liable for the debt even if the ownership of the vessel had changed. Further, the sale of the ship might be collusive, considering the addresses of the new owner and the former owner were the same. The plausible proof requirement was thus met within the scope of the file. Hence the Court dismissed the objection raised by the defendant and decided to place a provisional attachment over the ship.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Bandirma 1st Civil Court of first instance.