Dr. Av. Sema Yerlikaya phd Nisan 2019

TÜRKİYE’de DENİZCİLİĞİN FİNANSMANI ,HUKUKU ve MAHKEMELERİ TARİHİ ve TATBİKATI

A ) FİNANSMAN

1. 1923’DEN GÜNÜMÜZE TÜRK ARMATÖRLERİ

2. DENİZCİLİĞE YATIRIMLAR FİNANSMAN KREDİ KAYNAKLARI

3. DENİZCİLİKDE FİNANSMAN TEMİN EDEN BANKALAR

4. 1989 TÜRK PARASININ KIYMETİNİ KORUMA KANUNUNUN GETİRDİĞİ OLANAKLAR

5. EMLAK BANKASI ve YABANCI BANKALARIN DESTEĞİ

6. AVRUPA BANKALARI VE ABD FİNANS KURUMLARININ ROLÜ

7. TURK ULUSLAR ARASI GEMİ SİCİLİNİN KURULUŞU

B . DENİZ HUKUKU VE MAHKEMELER

1. OSMANLI’DA KONSOLOSLUK MAHKEMELERİ , Kararlar , Çatma ve Haciz davaları

2. OSMANLI’DA BAHRİYE MAHKEMELERİ

3. CUMHURİYET DÖNEMİ ÖNEMLİ DAVALAR

a) LOTUS –BOZKURT davası

b) Las Mercedes –Abidin Daver davası

c) Independanta –

d) Sakarya vapuru Güven Sigorta

4.Deniz İHTİSAS MAHKEMESİNİN KURULUŞU

5. Günümüz tatbikatı

) FİNANSMAN

FİNANSMAN VE HUKUK ALANINDA SON 10 YILDA VARILAN Nokta NETİCE

CUMHURİYETİN KURULUŞUNDAN - 1923’den BUGÜNE TÜRK ARMATÖRLERİ

1923 yılında ,İstanbul ‘da Ticaret ve Sanayi Odası bünyesinde kayıtlı tüccarların çoğunluğu gayri müslimdir ve aralarında Armatörler de vardır. Armatör üye , Sofuzade Sudi beyin, bir açıklaması kayıtlarda mevcuttur. Seyrisefain İdaresi’nin Türk gemicilerini yabancı şirketlerle rekabet konusunda destekleyici önlemler alması ve Türk gemicilerinin korunmasını temin edecek girişimlerde bulunulmasını önermiştir. Gemiciliğin , önemli bir ticaret alanı olarak açılması, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kuruluşundan 1923 ‘den itibaren , binlerce kiometre uzunluğunda kıyıları bulunan bir ülke için, Deniz Ticaretinin önemi anlaşılmaya başlamıştır. Daha önce Osmanlı İmparatorluğu döneminde , devletin kendi kıyılarında , limanları arasında , kabotajı , kendi bayrağını taşıyan gemilerle yapma hakkı yoktur. KABOTAJ KANUNU …tarihinde çıkarılmıştır. Lozan Antlaşması ile Türk denizlerinde gemi işletme hakkı (kabotaj hakkı) Türklere bırakıldı. Kabotajhakkının tam olarak uygulanmaya konulması, 1 Temmuz 1926 tarihinde çıkarılan Kabotaj Kanunu ile gerçekleşti. Bu kanunla Türk karasularında yolcu ve yük taşıma hakkı sadece Türk gemilerine verildi.

SEYRİSEFAİN İDARESİ , o tarihlerde Deniz Ticaretinin temel şirketidir. Şirket?i Hayriye İdaresi Hilal Şirketi Gümüşyan şirketi –İttihd-i Syrisefain Şirketi

Kaynaklarda adı geçen şirketlerdir. Bkz ( Osman Öndeş . Türk armatörleri tarihi 1. Cilt ) SEVR ANLAŞMASININ 334. Maddesi ile İtilaf devletlerinin gemilerinin , Limanlarda serbest dolaşımı ve Osmanlı halkının sahip olduğu tüm haklardan yararlanması ve yolcu ve eşya nakliyesinin serbestisi sağlanmıştı. SEYRİSEFAİN İDARESİ ,Vapur almak zorunda kalıyor. Balkanlardan Türklerin , LOZAN KONFERANSI çerçevesinde Türkiye’ye nakledilmeeri sözkonusu ve şart olunca , Türk kökenli bu vatandaşların nakli , yani ülkeler arasında mübadelesi için, MÜBADELE ve İMAR ve İSKAN Vekaleti bu göçmenleri taşımak için, demiryoulundan daha çok Deniz yoluyle taşınması uygun görülmüş ve nakliyeci gemici şirketler ile anlaşmalar yapılmıştır. Türk vapurları yetersiz olduğundan yabancı şirketler ile anlaşmalar yapılmıştır. Ancak , Mübadele ve İmar İskan Vekili bu paranın Türk devletinde kalmasını arzu ettiğinden ,Vekalet bütçesinden Vapur satın alınmak üzere 600 000 Lira tahsisat yapılmasını talep etmiştir. 600 000 Lira Seyrisefain İdaresine 50 gemi satın almak üzere kaynak Devlet bütçesinden temin edilmiştir. Ayrıca yedi adet Türk Şirketine kaynak verilmiştir.

Sufizade Sudi bey bu taşıma işini teyid etm,ştir. Bkz TBMM zabıt ceridesi Seyrisefain İdaresi Bütçesinin vapur ve romörkör mubayaası faslına tahsisat ilavesi hakkında layihai kanuniye ile Muvazenei Maliye Encümeni mazbatası (1/394)

Vapur satın alınması mecburi olduğundan , bu paranın tahsisi ,yunanistan göçmenleri dahil Avrupa’dan Türkiye’ye göç eden Türklerin taşınmasında kullanılmak için, Hem kamu şirketine hem de diğer şirketlere para verildiği görülmektedir. TARİH 1339 ‘dur ve İSMET Paşa Başvekildir. Gemilerin kalktığı limanlar Yunanistan ‘ın Selanik, Preveze, Kavala ve Sakızi imni Midilli ve Girit adalarıdır.

Gemilerin isimleri , Hacıpaşa , Rumeli ,Bahri Cedit , Nilüfer , Dumlupınar , Timsah ,Rize, İstanbul , canik, Sürat, Sulh, Ankara, Kırzade Salih , Reşit Paşa, İsmet Paşa, Altay, Arslan, Millet, Cumhuriyet, Mahmudiye, Akdeniz , Türkiye , Kartal , Giresun, Bozkurt, teşvikiye, M. Şevket Paşa, Ümit, trabzon , Gülnihal Gülcemal’dir. 1936 yılında, Türk şilepçileri kabotaj dışına çıkmaya başlayıncai yabancı denizlerde çalışınca döviz kazanmaya başlamış ve yeni gemiler satın almaya başlamışlardır. Türk gemileri Suriye sahilleri ve Port Said , Marsilya ve İspanya limanları arasında nakliye yapan türk şileplerinin, kazançlarında önce muhacir taşımalarının büyük finans imkanı yarattığı ve kazançlarını yatırıma dönüştürdükleri anlaşılmaktadır. Nakliye ücretini , Türkiye Hükümeti ve Göçmenleri gönderen ülkeler karşıladığından bu taşımalar garantili kazanç yaratmıştır.

YAHUDİ MÜLTECİLERİ 1944 de, Avrupa ülkelerinden kaçarak Romanya üzerinden türkiye ve Filistin 2e ulaşıyorlardı.Türk armatörleri , Yahudileri taşıdılar.

Türkiye Seyri Sefain İdaresi ,Ticaret Vekaleti emrinde ve bir gnel müdürlük olarak özel bütçe ile iade edilen bir devlet kuruluşudur.

Şirket_i Hayriye İdaresi ise, bir Anonim Şirket olarak 200 000Lira sermaye ile Türk vatandaşlarının hisse senetleri ile kurulmuştur. Hükümetle , İmtiyaz anlaşması yapmış olan bu şirket, Boğaz’da İstanbul’daki iskeleler arasında muntazam hat seferi yapan bir müessesedir. Özel sektörü temsil eden bu şirketin İmtiyaz hakkı 1953 senesine kadar devam etmiştir.

Devlet ve özel sektörün satın aldığı gemilerin hemen tamamı ,Yurtdışındaki İngiltere ve Almanya’daki tersanelerde inşa edilmiş ve Türk Şirketleri tarafından ikinci el olarak satın alınan gemilerdi.

20. yüzyılda Batıda özel sektör armatörlük yapmaktadr ancak Osmanlı Devletinde ,gemiler devlet emisidir. Osmanlı Ermenileri ve diğer gayrimüslim şahıslar Armatörlük yapmaktadır. Ticaret gemisi niteliği fikren gelişmemiştir. Türkiye Denizcilik İşletmelerinin kuruluşu Fatih sultan Mehmet tersane i amired’de yapılmıştır.İlk buhar makineli gemi 1827 yılında satınalınmıştır.1843 yılında Fevaid_i Osmaniye kurulmuş ve Kadıköy ve Adalara yolcu taşımacılığı faaliyetlerine başlamıştır.1870 yılında İrade-i Şahane ve İdarei Aziziye unvanını almıştır.İsim İdare-i Mahsusa olarak değiştirilmiştir.Şirket-i Hayriye ve Şark Şimendiferleri şirketleri ile birleşerek yolcu ulaşım hatlarını genişletmiştir.1909 yılında gemi işletme imtiyazı bir İngiliz şirketine verilmiştir.İngiliz Şirketi yükümlülüğünü yerine getirmeyince ,1910 yılnda İdare-i Mahsusa ‘nın adı değişerek, Osmanlı Seyr-i sefain İdaresi olmuştur.1925 yılında 597 sayılı kanunla )Seyri Sefain İdaresi bugünkü Denizcilik İşletmelerinin temelidir.

DENİZCİLİK BANKASI T A. Ortalığı ise, 1951yılında 5842 sayılı kanunla kurularak 1 Mart 1952 tarihinde faaliyete geçmiştir..Denizcilik bankasının faaliyet alanları arasında BANKACILIK ve Türkiye ve yabancı denizlerde Nakliyat işleri yeralmaktaydıydı.Denizcilik bankasının ismi 1983 yılında Türkiye denizcilik Kurumudur.

Türk Deniz Ticaret filosu , 2018 yılı itibariyle. ( geçtiğimiz yıl ) Dead weight ağırlık olarak azalmıştır. Deniz Ticaret Genel Müdürlüğünün verilerine göre , 1999 yılında Türk Milli Gemi sicili 10 .322.000 deadweight ve 2000 yılından itibaren Türk Uluslararsı Gemi siciline kayıtlı gemiler de dahil olarak toplam 2018 de 7 495.133 DWT , (deadweight ) ‘dir. Tonajın azaldığı görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan gemi adedi olarak 1999 da 1242 adet gemi iken 2018 yılında 2025 adet kayıtlı (her iki sicilde de /Milli ve Uluslar arası Sicil olmak üzere) gemi görülmektedir.

Türk Armatörünün yabancı kolay bayrağa geçtiği anlaşılmaktadır.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSMANLI DEVLETİNDE İSTANBUL ‘DA ( KONSTANTINOPLE ) KONSOLOSLUK MAHKEMELERİ VE GEMİLERE DAİR DAVALAR TARİHİ İNCELEME

THE HISTORICAL STUDY in relation to THE CONSULAR COURTS OF ISTANBUL (KONSTANTINOPLE ) and THE LAWSUITS about the SHIPS

Turkish Shipping has developed enormously in the past 35 years.

There is no need to explain that the growing is realized by the financing of European or American (foreign) institutions, which have started to finance Turkish Flag Vessels right after the changes in the money borrowing regulations of Turkey in 1989 (the have Protection of the Value of Turkish Money – the Decree No.32). The Banks have appeared in the market. Since then, many banks

The Courts’ practices are expanded after the enforcement cases and now there are many court decisions created by the independent Turkish Courts (special Maritime Courts ) These Court decisions are now used and referred by other law firms who are trying to build practice in Shipping Finance.

Turkish Courts’ practices are developing and will continue to develop positively of which Turkish judges are hard working and are taking into consideration the adopted laws of countries of Swiss and German Code and have no prejudice against institutions who are lending money and supporting Turkey. Yerlikaya Law firm had a res judicate (final) judgment on deletion of Turkish Flag Vessels from the Turkish Registry (auctioned outside Turkey).

).

Legal opinions obtained from Professors of Law on auctions made outside of Turkey and are widely accepted by Foreign Courts,.The Country’s Legal System and Shipping sector is developing.

Dünya üzerindemevcut 1.9 milyar deadweight tonluk kapasitenin , 29 milyon deadweight tonuna sahip olan Türk Armatörlerinin , ülkeye yaptıkları katkı, 17.5 milyar dolar civarında .olduğunu IMEAK DENİZ Ticaret odası Başkanı açıklamıştır. Türkiye’nin 800 milyar olan gayri safi milli hasılasının 2/100 ‘ü Denizcilikden karşılanıyor. 28 -29 milyon deadweight ton filonun 21 milyon deadweight tonu yabancı bayrak altında çalışıyor.

Landesbank kredi mukavelesi ve ekleri taslağını 28 Mayıs 1998 tarihinde Emlak Bankasına göndermiş, Bankası Dış İlişkiler Daire Başkanlığı 1 Haziran 1998 tarihli yazı ekinde taslak metne ilişkin bankanın İstişare ve İdari Davalar Müdürlüğü’nden alınan hukuki görüşünü Landesbank avukatına göndermiştir.Bu görüş sadece çevreye verilen zararlarla ilgili olarak hükmedilecek tazminat mektuplarının belirsizliği karşısında bankanın sorumlu olmayacağına ilişkin bir hükmün konulması talebini içermektedir.

Bu kredi mukavelesinin temeli, Alman Bankası karşısında borçlunun Emlak Bankası olduğu ancak kredinin kefilinin ( garantörünün ) kredi kullanan armatörlerin gemileri olduğu şartıdır.

Yani armatörler Emlak Bankası’nın aldığı ve halen ödemeyi sürdürdüğü borca kendi gemileri ile kefil olmuşlardır.

Emlak Bankası’nın yabancı bankaya hiçbir kefaleti yoktur.Borç, Hazine Borç Kütüğüne tescil edilmiştir.

Emlak Bankası’ndan kredi alan Türk Armatörleri esasen Landesbank’ın doğrudan müşterileri olup Türk Denizcilik sektörüne, en yüksek krediyi temin eden bu bankadır ve denizcilerin çeşitli sorunlarını ihtisas bankası olması sebebiyle kolaylıklar temin ederek ve ciddi sorunlar doğmadan halletmiştir. Landesbank’ın 165.000.000 AB Doları tutarındaki Emlak Bank finasmanı riskinin teminatı armatördür.

Burada, armatör adeta kendine kredi temin etmiş, gemisini teminat olarak vermiş ancak ödeme güçlüğü içine ( navlun krizi sebebiyle ) düşünce Emlak Bankası yabancıya borcunu ifa etmiştir.

Diğer yandan sansasyonlar yaratan bu kredilerin kullanımı için armatörün tekrar teminat vermesi ( gemi ipoteği vesair ) yabancı bankanın ne surette iznine tabi olmuştur.

Olayda kötüniyet vesair konular bizim ilgi ve bilgi alanımız dışındadır ancak kredi hukuku tekniği ve uzmanlığı gerektiren bu konuda, mukavelenin inceliği ve maksadı Emlak Bankası

uzmanlarınca kavranabilmiş midir, ülkemizde bu görevlilerin nitelikleri böyle bir konuda diğer sektörlerle mukayese edildiğinde ne kadardır yeterli midir?

Emlak Bankası’nın diğer sektörlerde tahsil edemediği kredilerin oranı, denizcilik sektörünün gemilerinin gemileri ile halen garanti edilmiş ve geri ödeme planlarını hiçbir şekilde reddetmeyen, çalışan gemilere sahip denizcilik sektörü acaba neden bu kadar ilgi çekmektedir?

EMLAK BANKASI aracılığıyle Türk Armatörlerine kullandırılan 200 000 000ç- (iki yüz milyon USD tutarındaki finansman 40 tane Armatörlük şirketine tahsis edilerek bu firmalara kaynak yaratılmıştır.

Konuya biraz daha teknik ve adil bakmak gerekmektedir.

Turkish Code Amendments give banks more security

New legislation should help address issues raised by banks when lending to Turkish–flagged vessels, writes Sema Yerlikaya

The TURKISH Code of Commerce, adopted from the German Code, and the Turkish Law of Execution and Bankruptcy, have recently caused concern to financiers of Turkish-flagged vessels.

The enforceability of Turkish mortgages and the deletion of vessels sold by auction outside of Turkey have been the main issues affecting Turkish financing.

Turkish owners whose ships were arrested abroad contended that they could only be sold in Turkey subject to Turkish Laws of Execution and Bankruptcy, which were adopted from the Swiss Code. Their other argument was that if the ship was auctioned abroad, it could not be deleted from the records of the Turkish ship’s registry, although the title of the vessel had passed to a foreign party and the vessel registered in a new registry.

The fact of a vessel’s continued registration in the Turkish registry was abused by owners and constituted a threat against the new owners should they sail into Turkish waters.

Although the defaulting owners’ views were rejected by foreign courts, and were also not supported by the Turkish jurists of Execution and Maritime Law, mortgagee banks were dissatisfied with the situation. This worked to the detriment of Turkish shipowners who wanted to flag their vessels in Turkey, but whose requests for financing were in certain instances refused by foreign financiers.

Due to the efforts of various people in the shipping industry and various parliamentarians, amendments have now been effected to articles numbers 823, 824, 851, 939 and 1245 of the Turkish Code of Commerce.

Article No. 823: The restriction on the holding of shares in a Turkish shipowning company has been lifted. Only the majority of the shares need now be held by the registered shareholders.

Article No. 824: It is no longer necessary to apply to the Ministry of Transportation for permission to register bareboat-chartered foreign-flagged vessels in the Turkish registry for a period of two years. The power to make a decision in this regard has now been given to the Maritime Undersecretariat.

Article No. 851: This article provides for the deletion from the Turkish registry of a vessel that has lost its right to fly the Turkish flag by virtue of a sale to a foreign party, whether by judicial auction outside of Turkey or any other means. The fact that ownership in the vessel passes to a foreign party under such circumstances in recognized.

Article No. 939: Consent is no longer required to record mortgages in a foreign currency.

Article No. 1245: Provision is now made to extinguish maritime liens if a vessel is sold by judicial auction outside of Turkey, provided that notice of the proposed sale is given by way of publication twice-within a three day interval-in two different Turkish newspapers.

A further important development is the establishment of special Commercial Courts to deal with maritime matters. All of these amendments came into effect on April 28, 2004.

Despite these legal changes, it should be noted that Turkish laws never precluded the sale of Turkish-flagged vessels by judicial auctions in foreign jurisdictions. Indeed, here are a number of instances where Turkish mortgages have been enforced in many different jurisdictions over the last 10 years, including Gibraltar, Greece, the US (New Orleans and Philadelphia), Denmark, the Netherlands, South Africa, China, Singapore and others.

In Philadelphia, US, attorneys Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson and Goldstein and in Durban, South Africa, attorneys Garlicke & Bousfield have dealt with a range of legal arguments relating to the legality of enforcing Turkish mortgages by way of judicial sales in their respective countries. In all instances, the courts have rejected the notion that they are precluded from enforcing a Turkish mortgage or from distributing the proceeds of the sale of the vessel according to the ranking provisions of the local laws.

Turkish legal advisors and law professors in the Law of Execution and Maritime Law and Private International Law have issued opinions outlining the provisions of Turkish Law for use in various jurisdictions, in which it is stated: “Execution is one of absolute powers and authorities that each state is endowed within its territory and boundaries.”

In other words, because execution is a matter that falls within the realm of procedural law, the law applicable in such instances is the law of the court seized of the mater (lex fori).

Therefore, the sale of a Turkish-registered ship, seized and sold in execution by a creditor in a foreign country in accordance with the laws of that country, is valid.

Furthermore, following the forced auction of a Turkish vessel in a foreign country according to the lex fori and the consequent passing of title to a foreign entity, the vessel loses the right to fly the Turkish flag. The new legal status of the vessel becomes enforceable and there is now a final decision on this issue.

Foreign financiers seek legal security, not only in terms of the codified laws corresponding to parallel to EU laws, but also in terms of the capacity and knowledge of judges and officers whose role is to apply, understand and adjudicate upon the laws and disputes.

It is hoped that legal practice relating to the Laws of Execution and Bankruptcy and the Civil Law of Procedure will develop in accordance with, and parallel to, the amendments to the Turkish Code of Commerce.

This article was written by Sema Yerlikaya of the Yerlikaya Law Office in Istanbul.

Turkish Shipping June 2004 LLOYD’S LIST

ARREST OF VESSELS

Jurisdiction for arrest of vessels is possible in many other countries, as under Turkish Law.

Under Turkish Law, the arrest of vessels is possible as in many other countries.

The competent authority for arrest can vary:

- arrest as a result of enforcements are decided and executed by the Bailiff’s Office;

- conservatory arrests are decided by the courts.

The Bailiff’s Office or the court having jurisdiction for the arrest is determined pursuant to the above-cited principles contained in the Code of Civil Proceedings. However, we must point out that for foreign vessels – as the shipowners will probably have neither domicile nor residence in Turkey – the conservatory arrest can be decided by the court of the place where the vessel is lying.

There is no specific domestic rule related to arrest in case of collision or salvage.

In addition to the “arrest” as regulated in our legislation we must underline also that sometimes Turkish Courts make use of another legal remedy, namely “the conservatory measure”, in order to immobilise the vessels.

In the Turkish Code of Civil Proceedings, a special chapter is decided to the “conservatory measures” stipulating that a court can decide in order to protect rights at risk. It is obvious that in the area of maritime law the threat is never lacking, since the vessel constitutes in most cases the only asset of the shipowner in Turkey and can leave the national waters quickly being movable.

According to the interpretation that prevails in Turkish practice, a conservatory-measure decision can be obtained from any court and is not subject to appeal. Therefore, lawyers prefer to ask for a conservatory measure rather than for a conservatory arrest, since a conservatory – arrest decision once rejected by the competent court becomes an illusion. However, this is a certainly not the case for a conservatory –measure application. Its rejection by a court will not remove at all the possibility that another court will rule for the stay of the vessel in a Turkish port for an undetermined longer period.

As a conservatory arrest is, broadly speaking, a kind of conservatory measure is envisaged instead of a conservatory arrest is prima facie not alerting.

We must take care to state that generally courts are not convinced easily of the necessity for conservatory measures or conservatory-arrest decisions.

The geography of Turkey gives rise to a very interesting debate. Turkey is the state which controls the straits known as the “Turkish Straits” in international law. This expression designates the entire sea-area comprising the Bosporus, the Dardanelles and the MarmaraSea between those straits.

The transit passage through the Turkish Straits (the continuous voyage from the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea or vice versa) is regulated by the International Convention of Montreux signed in 1936. That convention adopts as an irrevocably principle in the time of peace, the freedom of navigation without restriction as to flag or cargo.

At the time when the Convention was signed and came into force, similar straits used in navigation were subject to the regime of “innocent passage through territorial waters”. The Turkish interpretation generally accepts that the Convention of Montreux restricts to a certain extent the rights of the coastal state but without limiting its jurisdiction. Based on the facts that Turkey is not a party to the 1958 Geneva Convention on territorial waters or to the 1982 UNCLOS, and taking into account the lack of a specific customary law/rule restricting the coastal state’s jurisdiction applicable to Turkey, courts, although with some reluctance, have rendered in the past arrest decisions in respect of foreign vessels while in transit passage in accordance with the Montreux Convention.

To arrest a vessel, it is necessary to have a claim in personam or in rem for which it is permissible to arrest the vessel. In addition, conditions required in general for arrests must be fulfilled.

A vessel can be arrested on different grounds:

- for claims involving personal liability of the shipowner;

- for in rem claims that may or may not involve the shipowner’s personal liability.

The personal liability of the shipowner may or may not result from the use of the vessel in sea trade. A creditor of the shipowner as a result of a loan not having any connection with sea trade (a loan granted for a construction of a farm, for example) is as entitled as the creditor who consented to a loan for the repair of the vessel to arrest it.

With respect to arrest for personal liabilities, it is essential that the vessel be an asset of the debtor. However, a personal liability can be coupled with a liability in rem: for instance a mortgage created in favour of the lender who advanced money for the construction of the farm or the repair or a maritime lien securing a sum due by the shipowner for damage to the cargo during transit.

For some of the liabilities in rem the owner need to be the debtor. For instance: a vessel mortgaged in order to guarantee the debt for a third party, or as Turkish law admits, as a lien securing a debt engendering the liability of a third-party carrier (eg a timecharterer who entered into contracts of carriage with a number of shippers) which resulted in the normal course of the sea trade.

In the case of an arrest for a claim in personam, there is no need for a connection between the claim and the arrested vessel. However, for claims in rem, it is necessary that the lien result in connection with the arrested vessel (for instance as a result of a carriage performed with that vessel or of a collision involving that vessel), or in the case of a mortgage, that the arrested vessel be the mortgaged vessel (arrest will then contribute to the enforcement of the mortgagee).

The result is that a vessel belonging to the same owner can be arrested only when the claims is in personam in the sense of a claim subject to enforcement on all assets of the defendant.

On the other hand, Turkish law requires that if a claim in rem (arising from a lien or a mortgage) is eligible to the claimant, the claimant is in principle obliged to make use of that possibility without having recourse to other legal remedies. But this rule is slightly relaxed in maritime law in order to permit conservatory arrest. Therefore, in the case of a claim subject to personal liability (ie, liability with all the assets) secured by a lien, the claimant will be in a position to arrest other assets without being obliged first to enforce the lien.

The court’s fees are 54 per mille of the sum claimed. At the beginning of the proceedings only a quarter of the total fees are paid. The rest will be paid at the finalisation of the case. The lawyer’s fees are subject to agreement with the principal. Generally they are 10 per cent of the claim. This proportion can vary with the estimated difficulty of the case. It is allowed to the parties to choose also a time-and-trouble basis.

The court’s fees and a modest part of the lawyer’s fees are recoverable from the unsuccessful party.

A foreigner who sues in the Turkish courts is obliged to put up security if not exempted from this requirement by international treaties or bilateral conventions to which Turkey is a party.

This article was written by Sema Yerlikaya, Sema Yerlikaya Law Office, Istanbul, Turkey.

The Enforcement of Turkish Mortgages in the PAST have been and the complications caused.

In parallel with the growth in Turkish Shipping, there has been a number of enforcement of Turkish Ship Mortgages which almost all have been assisted and or realised by Yerlikaya Law Office , who have acted on behalf of the Creditor Bank.

The enforceability of Turkish Mortgages and the deletion of vessels sold by auction outside of Turkey have been the argument of various lawsuits in the past 15 years. Former vessels M/T ex “B.Timur”, M/T “Mertkan Aksu”, M/T “Avar”, M/T”Göktürk”,M/V “Güzin S”, M/V “Ahmet Bey”, M/V “Edip Karahasan” have been the subject of enforcements in front of jurisdictions other than Turkey, U.S.A, South African, Denmark, Netherlands, Gibraltar, Singapore, Greece and many arguments and oppositions were raised by Turkish Borrowers referring the matter.

Although the defaulting Owners’ views were rejected by foreign Courts, it has created an unsecurity and constituted a threat against the financing Banks as the legal status is still dubious. The Draft New Code Commerce Law has not come into force not yet brought to the front of the Turkish Parliament.

The effective argument, whether the Turkish Flag vessels could only be sold in Turkey subject to Turkish Laws of Execution and Bankruptcy, which were adopted from the Swiss Code, remains an issue to be solved.

The views of the defaulting Owners’ were rejected by foreign Courts but the Owners continued their legal battle against the Banks by pursuing legal action in Turkey for compensation claiming unlawful auctions against the Financing Banks.

This action of the defaulting Owners created the refusal of financing of Turkish Flag by the financiers in certain instances.

The Ship Owners are again suffering from the slump in the freight market and are therefore unable to manage their vessels’ debt. The question comes to surface again. What ,if the European /USA Bank takes legal action against the Turksih Flag vessel ? Will the Bank face legal problems?

Will the Shipowners oppose to the application of foreign law and the foreign venue, stating that Turkey is the only venue / form where a Turkish Mortgage should be enforced and argued against other opposing views and counter claims?

The South African Court, ( in a judgment over a Turkish Flag vessel) noted the “Lex Fori” governed the questions of procedure. Turkish Laws relating to the execution of Ship Mortgages are procedural in nature and have no application to proceedings before foreign Courts relating to the arrest and sale of Turkish registered Ships.

The Owner sued the Bank in Turkey and claimed compensation for illegal and unlawful unfair arrest and auction in the case Which Mrs. Yerlikaya represented the European financing Bank in Turkey. The owners alleged that the auction is illegal.

The Turkish Court rejected the case by the decision stating that, the Turkish Private International law and International Civil Procedure refers to the right International Jurisdiction under the Articles of Turkish Procedural Law. The defendant Bank is a Foreign bank with No Branch Office in Turkey and there is no jurisdiction agreement made between the parties granting the right of jurisdiction to the Turkish Courts.

As a result of judicial, forced sale, the place where the auction is made, (as claimed to be unfair is located in South Africa and in accordance with the relevant articles of the PIL ACT, and the Procedural Code, Turkish Courts do not have the power of right to try this case.

The Owners are free to oppose in the relevant Court where the arrest and the auction is made

Turkish Law of Arrest and Enforcement

By Av.Sema Yerlikaya, Yerlikaya Law Office

The Turkish Shipping fleet has continued to develop slowly since 1995, from nearly million dwt to approximately 8.5 million dwt. The marine sector has grown more rapidly in the shipbuilding area. The yards located in the Tuzla district of Istanbul are busy with not only repair work but ships constructed for foreign ownership and contracts from various European countries.

Recently, the new Turkish Minister for Transportation declared in a newspaper interview that Turkey could meet European shipbulding demands, saving their European neighbours from flying 6.700 miles to Korea, Chine and Japan to have their vessels built. He continued that marina operation and tourism, and yacht building were also an important area of growth for Turkey, with the current income of US$ 7.8bn set to increase to US$14bn-US$15bn.

Turkish Banks are still reluctant to invest in or support the shipping industry and operation.

However, a few local banks have begun to support the shipbuilding industrial corporations and this development is expected to continue in parallel with developments in Turkish banking system and economy.

On the other hand, the purchase of new constructions from Asia and second-hand tonnage has been highly financed by some mainly European-based banks and other financing organisations.

There is no special statute or act in Turkey controlling the contractual relationships and other needs between financial institutions and shipowners, shipbuilders or their customers. Shipping finance transactions are governed by the law of the lending institution; foreign law. The security, in principle the Turkish mortgage, is created under Turkish Law. The articles of the Turkish Code of Commerce are German origin, dated November 15,1940 and confer rights to the mortgagee. The vessels registered in the Turkish Registry are considered, in the application of this Code, as immovable (real property).

The enactment of a Law in 1989, for the Protection of the Value of Turkish Money has helped the development within the shipping industry, allowing the use of foreign financing and introducing practices of enforcement law. The good news however, is that so far there have been only a few enforcements of Turkish mortgages in comparison to the last 10 years or so.

The enforcement of law practices have led to some decision from the Turkish courts which are to the advantage of the lending organisations. Some enforcements and auctions brought outside of Turkey had led to legal questions from ship-owners who were suffering from the slump in the freight market and were, therefore, unable to manage their vessel’s debt. The main point o discussion was the question of which law should apply and whether the law of a foreign jurisdiction is acceptable. Ship-owners opposed to the use of foreign jurisdiction and law stated the Turkey is the only venue where a Turkish mortgage should be enforced and argued against other opposing views and counter claims.

Turkish legal advisors and law professors experienced in the Law of Execution and maritime law, issued legal opinions outlining the conditions of Turkish Law and accepting the application of Lex Fori, stating that : “ execution is one of the absolute powers and authorities that each State is endowed with within its territory and boundaries”. In other words, because the Law of Execution falls within the wide realm of Procedural Law, the law applicable in matters of execution is the law of the court (Lex Fori). Therefore, the sale of a Turkish registered ship, which was seized and sold in execution by a creditor in a foreign country in accordance with the laws of that country, is thus valid.

One of the most important decisions regarding the deletion of a Turkish flag vessel auctioned outside of Turkish waters by a foreign bank, was made by the Turkish Commercial Court in 1999. The Turkish Commercial Court stated: “that the title of the vessel passed to a foreign body following the compulsory auction held in the foreign country in accordance with Lex Fori, and that it lost its right to fly Turkish Flag, that the title belongs to a foreign body, and compulsory execution is among the absolute powers exercised and enjoyed by each state as soon as the new legal status of the vessel becomes legally applicable, it assumes a legal effect enforceability without any necessity for legal or special disposition of any foreign authority, the status shall have a legal enforceability without any intervention by another foreign jurisdiction ( the Turkish Court in this Case)”.

This pioneering decision has since been ratified by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Ankara, establishing a Res-judicata in the area, and is often referred to and used by legal advisors.

The Turkish system is a balanced one that shows no prejudice against foreign financing institutions. To date, judicial auctions of Turkish flag vessels held by financing banks have been made in jurisdictions such as Greece, Gibraltar, US, Durban and others, and it is predicted that the Turkish Court practice will lead to many more such examples in the area of execution.

In accordance with Article 1245 of the Turkish Code of Commerce (old version HGB 764) all maritime claims over the vessel are extinguished with the official sale of the vessel. Maritime liens (crews’ wages, social security credits, salvage remuneration, and claims/credits incurred by operation of law in the ordinary course of owning and operating the ship) are provided for in the Turkish Commercial Code and have priority over the mortgages as in many other jurisdictions.

A Turkish mortgage is enforced in Turkey according to the Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy, which has been adopted from the Swiss Law of Execution (Bundesgesetz über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs). The mortgage agreement should involve an unconditional recognition of the debt, following which the mortgagee must send an execution order to the debtor/the owner/the borrower, limiting any challenges to be made by the borrower.

The request for sale must be made within two years of the execution order otherwise the pursuit is cancelled. The execution officer/Bailiff is entitled to take measures for directly managing or maintaining the vessel prior to and immediately after the sale. The sale of the vessel must be advertised at least one month in advance and if the highest offer is less than 75 % of the estimated value, the auction is extended for a 10-day period. The highest bid must not be less than 40 % of the estimated value at the second auction. The execution officer must produce a list of charges and real rights existing upon the vessel backed by evidence such as records or official documents against the sale proceeds. This list is sent to the creditor and to the debtor who should declare if they disagree with any of the list’s contents.

In Turkey, there is not abundant jurisprudence on the sale of vessels by foreign financiers and it is hoped that the need will nor arise.

THE ARREST OF VESSELS IN TURKISH WATERS

The transit passage through the Turkish Straits (the continuous voyage between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea) is regulated by the International Convention of Montreux, signed in 1936. The convention adopts, as an irrevocable principle in times of peace, the freedom of navigation without restrictions as the flag or cargo, or ‘innocent passage through territorial waters.

Turkey is not a party to the 1958 Geneva Convention on territorial waters or to the 1982 UNCLOS, and there is not a specific customary law or rule restricting the coastal state’s jurisdiction applicable to Turkey. Courts have rendered arrest decision, in respect of foreign vessels in transit passage, in accordance with the Montreux Convention. In order to arrest a vessel it is necessary to have a claim in personam or in rem, and other conditions must also be met. Arrest as a result of enforcements are decided by the courts.

A creditor of the ship-owner, as a result of a loan creating a liability in rem in personam, can apply for the arrest of the vessel.

The court’s fees are TL 54.00 in every thousand of the sum claimed. A quarter of the total fees are paid at the beginning of the main proceedings. A foreigner who sues in the Turkish courts is obliged to put up security if not exempted from this requirement by international treaties or bilateral conventions to which Turkey is a party.

A precautionary measure decision can be obtained from any Turkish Court and is not subject to appeal.

Finally, the geography of Turkey gives rise to an interesting debate. Turkey is the state which controls the straits known as the “Turkish Straits” in international law. This expression designates the entire sea-area comprising the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles and the Marmara Sea. Turkish Courts are asked to grant orders of precautionary measures, enabling the detainment of a vessel in a Turkish port.

THE HISTORICAL STUDY in relation to THE CONSULAR COURTS OF ISTANBUL (KONSTANTINOPLE ) and THE LAWSUITS about the SHIPS

20. yüzyılın başında Dersaadet’de Ticaret-I Bahriye Mahkemesi bulunmaktadır. Denizcilik davalarına bakmakta olan bir Mahkemedir.

Konsolosluk Mahkemeleri ya da eski deyişle Konsoloshane mahkemeleri Kapitulasyonlardan ayrıcalıklarla donatılmış mahkemelerdir. Bu Mahkemelerin görevi menkul ve gayrimenkul olmak üzereiki tür davaya bakmaktı. Menkullere dair davalarda her iki taraf da yabancı ise davalının mensup olduğu Konsolosluk Mahkemesinde görülürdü. Osmanlı Mahkemeleri bu davalara bakamazdı.

Taraflardan biri Osmanlı tebaası ve dava bin kuruşa kadar bir meblağı içeriyor ise ya da icarla vaya isticarla ilgili ise Osmanlı hukuk mahkemesinde görülürdü. Ancak Mahkemede tercüman bulundurulması zorunluydu.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Av. Alev Elif Beller