This was an appeal from the judgment of the Izmir Court of Appeal, 17th Civil Chamber (1 October 2019, 2019/2232 E - 2019/2016 K) on appeal from the Bodrum 1st Civil Court of first instance (15 February 2018, 2018/13 E - 2018/15 K).

The plaintiff applied for provisional attachment of the MV Melissa flying the Malta flag, claiming that the defendant owed it EUR 103,847.56 due to a berth charter agreement under which the plaintiff provided port chartering and maintenance and repair services to the defendant's vessel MV Melissa. The plaintiff argued for the imposition of a maritime lien on the defendant's ship due to its maritime claim, according to arts 1352 and 1353 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC) [which is based on the list of 'maritime claims' in arts 1 and 2 of the Arrest Convention 1999].

The first defendant, Pal Malta Yachting 4 Co Ltd, objected to the provisional attachment, stating that there was no agreement between the parties, and that there was no legal transaction that gave rise to the debt, and therefore requested that the plaintiff's application for provisional attachment be dismissed.

The second defendant, İş Finansal Kiralama AŞ, claimed to be the owner of the MV Melissa and also requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's provisional attachment request.

The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff's claim was included among the maritime claims listed in art 1352 of the TCC, and that the plaintiff had submitted documentation evidencing the value of the claim under art 1362 of the TCC. Hence the Court decided on the placement of a provisional attachment on the ship subject to the value of the claim.

However, following an objection raised by the defendant, İş Finansal Kiralama AŞ, the Court arranged a hearing and issued an additional judgment numbered 2019/13 on 2 May 2019. The Court affirmed that the claim for unpaid port services fell within the scope of the listed maritime claims, and that the contract and invoices presented on the case file provided approximate proof of the claim. It was not feasible to investigate who the actual owner of the MV Melissa was on the maritime lien case file. In fact, the first defendant acted as a lessee or charterer of the vessel, and, unquestionably, the charterer concluded the port charter agreement with the plaintiff which gave rise to the maritime lien [based on art 3.1.e of the Arrest Convention 1999, referring to maritime liens arising under art 1320 of the TCC, which is based on art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993]. Given that, the Court disregarded the objection.

The second defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Izmir Court of Appeal.