This was an appeal from the judgment of the 1st Commercial Court of First Instance (7 July 2015, 2010/701-2015/563).

The claimant chartered a vessel X under a time charter dated 4 February 2010, made several payments for charter hire and fuel, and was compelled to terminate the voyage due to malfunctions of the vessel, The claimant alleged that the defendant shipowner's contractual obligations had not been fulfilled. During the charter period, the claimant had incurred various expenses on behalf of the shipowner, including payment for repairs requested by the master, and had procured fuel worth USD 301,000 on various dates. Additionally, the claimant had paid for food, water, spare parts, port and lighthouse dues, health fees, ship maintenance, towing, crew, and agency fees, amounting to a total of USD 942,888.04. Ultimately, the claimant claimed USD 695,173.58 from the defendant, alleging the vessel could not complete its voyage due to reasons attributable to both the ship and the shipowner. The claimant applied for the recognition and establishment of a maritime lien for the principal sum, interest, and costs on the X, among others, under art 1235.7 of the abrogated Turkish Commercial Code (no 6762, TCC) [based on art 2.4 of the MLM Convention 1926], in instances where the carriage contract was not executed despite prepaid freight having being paid; such payments are included in maritime liens. [Note: In the new Turkish Commercial Code (no 6102), which regulates maritime liens under art 1320 [based on art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993], this type of claim is not classified as a maritime lien.]

The defendant contended that as the vessel was registered in another country, in accordance with art 22 of the Turkish Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Law (no 5718, MOHUK), proprietary rights over air, sea, and rail transport vehicles are governed by the law of the country of registry, and therefore, that country’s law should be applied. It asserted that it owed no debt to the claimant, requesting the dismissal of the case.

The former owner of the vessel stated that the claimant had made advance payments to it, covering freight and fuel, and that the ownership of the vessel was transferred to Hankook Co, the defendant, on 1 June 2012. It stated that Hankook Co was informed of the claimant’s demands pursuant to cl 8 of the charterparty and assumed these demands along with the vessel, acknowledging the claims subject to the lawsuit.

The Court of First Instance found that Turkish Law applied to the subject matter of the case pursuant to art 21 of the MOHUK. It found that the fuel purchased by the claimant from Dan Bunkering at the Novorossiysk Port was still on board when the vessel was declared off-hire. The claimant had the right to demand payment for the fuel cost of USD 231,300.00. However, since the claimant could not prove the other claims, the lawsuit was only partially accepted. The Court ordered that a maritime lien be established on the vessel for an amount of USD 231,000, plus interest.

The decision was appealed by the parties and the former owner of the vessel.

Held: Appeal upheld in favour of the defendant.

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the right to appeal a decision is exclusively granted to the parties involved in the case, to those upon whom the judgment imposes obligations, to those whose rights have been violated, or to entities explicitly designated by law. The appeal filed by the former owner of the vessel is invalid as it was neither listed as a defendant in the judgment’s heading nor had a judgment made against it. Therefore, its appeal must be dismissed.

The Supreme Court found no procedural or legal errors in the evaluation and discussion of the evidence upon which the Court of First Instance’s decision was based, contained in the case file. Thus, all of the appeals by the claimant’s attorney, and those appeals by the defendant’s attorney not covered by the subsequent discussions, were unfounded.

The Court of First Instance partially accepted the lawsuit because the claimant had the right to claim USD 231,300 for fuel that had been supplied by Dan Bunkering while still on board when the vessel was declared off-hire. However, the Supreme Court found that under art 1235 of the abrogated TCC [based on art 2 of the MLM Convention 1926], the claimant, being the vessel’s charterer, does not earn a maritime lien just by paying the fuel supplier. According to the former provisions of the TCC, a maritime lien for supplies or services provided to the vessel belongs only to the party that provided the goods or services. Therefore, considering that the claimant does not have the right to claim a maritime lien for the fuel cost, the decision should have been written differently, necessitating the reversal of the judgment in favour of the defendant.