This was an appeal from a judgment of the Commercial Court of First Instance (2020/135-2023/110).

The plaintiff, the captain of the X, moored the vessel at Albatros Marina, operated by the first defendant, Albatros Turizm Yat ve Marina İşletmeciliği AŞ, alongside the Diamond Beach, owned by the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that a storm, forecast in advance by meteorological reports, began on 22–23 January 2009. Due to inadequate mooring arrangements by the marina operator and the unseaworthy condition of the Diamond Beach, its mooring ropes snapped, causing it to drift and collide with the X. The plaintiff alleged that the X remained trapped between the Diamond Beach and the dock for approximately three hours, resulting in significant damage. Due to prolonged repairs, the vessel was unable to operate during the summer season and remained under repair until July 2009. The plaintiff claimed that both defendants were liable and sought EUR 155,014.64 in compensation, plus interest.

The first defendant argued that the plaintiff's vessel was not moored at a marina but at a shipyard area, where there was no obligation or authority to deploy mooring buoys. The defendant contended that the plaintiff independently chose the mooring position and failed to take necessary precautions despite storm warnings. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s personnel contributed to the damage through their actions during the storm and that the claimed repair costs were excessive. As such, the defendant requested the dismissal of the case.

The second defendant argued that the plaintiff chose to moor on the leeward side of Diamond Beach, which contributed to the damage. The defendant stated that crew were not present on the plaintiff’s vessel at the time of the storm and that its captain arrived late. It asserted that any liability rested with the first defendant and the plaintiff. Accordingly, the second defendant requested the dismissal of the claim.

The Commercial Court of First Instance held that all three parties bore fault in equal proportions and partially upheld the claim. The Court ordered the defendants to pay EUR 79,964.16 in compensation, with interest under art 4(a) of the Law on Legal Interest and Default Interest (No 3095), and granted a statutory lien over Diamond Beach in favour of the plaintiff.

Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court, in its decision dated 14 January 2020 (2018/3314-2020/373), reviewed the case and found inconsistencies between expert reports submitted before and after its previous decision of 27 June 2014. The initial expert report concluded that Diamond Beach had remained stationary while the plaintiff’s vessel had changed position, leading to additional strain on mooring lines. However, a subsequent report found that strong winds caused Diamond Beach's mooring ropes to snap and its anchor chain to fail due to increased strain. The later report attributed fault equally to both defendants and found no fault on the part of the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court held that the Commercial Court of First Instance failed to determine fault apportionment clearly and should have reassessed the factual circumstances based on all available evidence, including video footage. The Court therefore ordered a retrial.

Upon rehearing, the Commercial Court of First Instance determined that the first defendant bore primary responsibility for failing to ensure that the plaintiff's vessel was moored securely. The Court held that, under art 96 of the former Code of Obligations (No 818), the defendant bore the burden of proving that it was free of fault. The second defendant was found partially at fault for leaving Diamond Beach in an unseaworthy condition for over two years, failing to respond to storm warnings, and not reinforcing its mooring lines.

The Court, based on Art 1218 of the Turkish Commercial Code (No 6762) [based on art 4 of the Collision Convention 1910], apportioned fault as follows: 70% to the first defendant, 15% to the second defendant, and 15% to the plaintiff for improper mooring. The total damage was assessed at EUR 119,946.24. The Court ordered the first defendant to pay EUR 83,962.36, plus interest, and the second defendant to pay EUR 17,991.93, plus interest.

Both parties appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding no error in the Commercial Court of First Instance’s reasoning.