This was an appeal from the judgment of the Istanbul Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber (14 November 2019, 2019/1454-2019/1454) on appeal from the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of first instance (5 March 2018, 2014/1413-2018/75).

The plaintiff creditor applied for provisional attachment of a Turkish-registered ship, the MV Nil-K, claiming that the defendant owed it USD 100,000 for salvage services plus interest under art 1304 ff of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC), which defines the criteria for fixing the salvage reward [equivalent to art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989].

The plaintiff claimed that the MV Nil-K, which had been anchored in the Çanakkale Strait since 1 May 2014, started to drift in the port area on 28 September 2014 and then ran aground. The plaintiff further claimed that a rescue request was officially forwarded to the ship's master. However, the master refused to enter into a salvage and rescue agreement, or to authorise the rescue operation to be undertaken.The plaintiff was operating on the authority of a letter from the Port of Çanakkale Authority. Although the master refused to conclude a rescue agreement, he allowed the salvage operation. The ship was rescued and secured as a result of the plaintiff's successful service. The plaintiff claimed that the actual appraised value of the vessel was approximately USD 350,000, and it had 1,267 tons of onions on board. However, this was not included in the salvage reward amount since the cargo did not have an economic value.

The first defendant, Canalship Denizcilik Hizmetleri San ve Tic Ltd Şti, the agent of the registered legal owner of the MV Nil-K, objected to the provisional attachment of the ship, stating that the master of the vessel issued a distress signal for a tugboat when the MV Nil-K was in danger of being dragged aground. In particular, the first defendant claimed that the Coast Guard arrived and offered their salvage services long after the ship had run aground. The requested amount was excessive. The first defendant argued that the MV Nil-K was dragged again on 29 December 2014 and ran aground in Bozcaada after the rescue operation. The MV Nil-K ship was not secured by the Coast Guard, and was not towed to a safe and secure area. The first defendant further argued that the Coast Guard was responsible for the MV Nil-K's second grounding. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for provisional attachment should be dismissed.

The second defendant, Garanti Finansal Kiralama AŞ, claimed that it had applied for the abandonment of the MV Nil-K, and had never been the owner of the vessel at any stage. The second defendant claimed that the salvage remuneration was exorbitant and asked for the plaintiff's provisional attachment request to be dismissed. The second defendant further argued that the plaintiff did not provide any salvage operations. In particular, the master of the vessel clearly and reasonably expressed his opposition to entering into a salvage and rescue agreement and the operations carried out by the Coast Guard.

The Court of first instance held that the service provided to MV Nil-K was a salvage operation, according to art 1298.1 of the TCC [which is based on art 1.a of the Salvage Convention 1989]. The Court further held that the plaintiff's claim was included among the maritime liens listed in art 1320.1.c of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC) [which is based on art 4.1.c of the MLM Convention 1993]. The Court observed that the registered legal owner of the MV Nil-K in the Turkish International Ship Registry on the date of the incident was Garanti Finansal Kiralama AŞ. Although it seemed that the actual owner of the MV Nil-K might be the first defendant, the Court held that since the plaintiff's claim was a maritime claim, it had a legal interest in filing a lawsuit against both defendants.

The first defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiff's claim constituted a maritime lien arising under art 1320 of the TCC [which is based on art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993]. The Court further observed that the legal right of a maritime lien arising out of a maritime claim can be claimed against anyone who is in possession of the ship. Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim against the first defendant.

The first defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is admissible. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed in favour of the first defendant on the grounds below.

The Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed that the merits of the case are based on a maritime claim arising out of a salvage operation. The Court referred to art 1306 of TCC, which defines that the debtor of salvage reward is the owner of the vessel or other property which has been salved at the time when the salvage operation is completed. If the vessel and other property does not belong to the same person, the salvage reward should be divided between the owners in proportion to the value of the salved vessel and property.

The Court held that the second defendant, who was the registered legal owner of the case, should pay salvage remuneration to the plaintiff. The Court further held that, since the first defendant was not the owner of the vessel, it should not be held responsible for the salvage award.