Charter Party Disputes in Turkey: 2026 Owners & Charterers Guide

A vessel waits eleven days off Ambarlı because the receiver's berth is occupied. Hire is withheld mid-voyage after a generator failure during a Bosphorus transit. A bunker supplier who was never paid by the charterer applies to arrest the owner's ship in Aliağa. Each of these begins as a commercial argument and ends as a legal one, and the document everyone reaches for — the charter party — was usually drafted with London in mind, not Türkiye.

This guide sets out how charter party disputes in Turkey are resolved in 2026: the statutory framework in Book Five of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), the dispute categories that fill the Istanbul commercial court docket, the forum question that decides whether your case is heard in Istanbul, at ISTAC or in London, the security tools available while the merits are argued somewhere else, and the time bars and evidence habits that decide otherwise winnable claims. It is written for foreign owners, charterers, operators, P&I correspondents and overseas counsel who already understand charter party mechanics under English law and need to know what changes when a Turkish port, a Turkish counterparty or Turkish-flagged tonnage enters the picture.

Key Takeaways

• Charter parties are governed by Book Five (Maritime Trade) of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Articles 931 to 1400 — adopted in 2011 and in force since 1 July 2012 — read together with the parties' chosen form (Gencon, NYPE, BALTIME, Shelltime, Asbatankvoy, Barecon).

• Turkish courts enforce foreign law and foreign arbitration clauses: Article 24 of the International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK, Law No. 5718) protects the choice of law, and under Article 5 of the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 an arbitration objection raised in time and upheld obliges the court to dismiss the Turkish action on procedural grounds — it does not stay the proceedings.

• Enforcing that clause does not block a Turkish arrest. A vessel can be arrested in a Turkish port for security under TCC Articles 1352 to 1376 while the substantive claim proceeds in London or at ISTAC; Article 1356 says so in terms.

• Demurrage, off-hire, hire arrears, bunkers and cargo damage are the five heads of claim foreign parties bring to Istanbul most often; Turkish judges decide almost all of them on the contract wording plus documentary evidence, assisted by a court-appointed maritime expert (bilirkişi).

• Two separate one-year clocks run, and neither is negotiable. Claims against the carrier for loss of, damage to or late delivery of cargo are forfeited after one year under TCC Article 1188, and all claims arising out of bareboat charters, time charters, contracts of affreightment, or out of a bill of lading, prescribe in one year under TCC Article 1246. The longer general periods of the Code of Obligations do not apply.

• Türkiye has no separate admiralty court system, but it does have a designated maritime court. Under TCC Article 5(2) the Council of Judges and Prosecutors may assign one or more Commercial Courts of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) to hear maritime trade and marine insurance cases exclusively. In Istanbul that court is the 17th Commercial Court of First Instance, sitting as the Maritime Specialised Court (Denizcilik İhtisas Mahkemesi), and its jurisdiction covers the whole province — the Anatolian side included — so a charter dispute or ship arrest filed in the wrong commercial court will be dismissed for lack of competence. In Izmir the designated court is the 5th Commercial Court of First Instance; where no maritime court has been designated, the case goes to the general commercial court. Appeals run to the Regional Court of Appeal (İstinaf) and finally to the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi).

The Legal Framework

What Book Five of the TCC Actually Governs

Book Five of the TCC, Articles 931 to 1400, is a complete maritime code: the ship and its registration, maritime liens, the contract of affreightment (navlun sözleşmesi) under a charter party, the bill of lading, laytime and demurrage, general average, collision, salvage, arrest and limitation of liability. It separates two regimes that foreign parties often merge in their own minds — the charter party, which is a freely negotiated commercial contract between owner and charterer, and the carriage of goods evidenced by a bill of lading, which brings in mandatory rules protecting third-party cargo interests. The same casualty can put you in both regimes at once.

Three other statutes are in play in almost every file. The International Ship Registry Law No. 4490 governs tax-privileged Turkish-flagged tonnage under the TUGS regime. The Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) governs proceedings, evidence and provisional measures. The Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code (İİK) supplies precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) under Article 257, which is the route a bunker supplier or an unpaid creditor takes against non-vessel assets.

The Conventions Riding Alongside

Türkiye is party to SOLAS, MARPOL, COLREG, the 1989 Salvage Convention and the 1976/1996 LLMC, which underpins the owner's limitation defence in the TCC. It is not a party to the 1952 Brussels Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, and Turkish arrest practice does not rest on that instrument. The regime is domestic: Articles 1352 to 1376 of the TCC, drafted on the model of the 1999 Arrest Convention. The list itself proves the point — the catalogue of maritime claims in Article 1352 contains heads the 1952 Convention never had, among them environmental damage and the cost of preventive measures (sub-paragraph d), wreck raising and removal (e), insurance premiums including mutual calls (r), commission, brokerage and agency fees (s) and any dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the ship (y). On cargo, the TCC tracks the Hague-Visby Rules in substance — package and kilo limitation, the catalogue of excepted perils including nautical fault, fire, perils of the sea and inherent vice. Türkiye has not adopted the Hamburg Rules and has not ratified the Rotterdam Rules, so arguments built on those instruments go nowhere here. Türkiye is also a party to the New York Convention 1958, which is what makes a London award worth pursuing against Turkish assets.

One convention is uniquely Turkish in effect: the Montreux Convention 1936, governing the regime of the Turkish Straits. Straits traffic management, pilotage practice, and suspensions for fog, heavy traffic or restricted periods generate delay that lands squarely in off-hire and laytime arguments. Charters with a Black Sea leg should address Bosphorus and Dardanelles transit risk expressly rather than leaving it to a general exceptions clause.

Voyage, Time and Bareboat: Three Risk Profiles

In a voyage charter (yolculuk çarteri sözleşmesi, TCC Article 1138), the owner carries a defined cargo between named ports. Freight is treated as earned on delivery unless the contract says otherwise, and the owner's lien on cargo for freight, demurrage and general average contributions is expressly recognised in the TCC. Disputes cluster around laytime, demurrage quantum and deviation.

In a time charter (zaman çarteri sözleşmesi, TCC Article 1131), the charterer buys the use of the vessel for a period and pays hire. Turkish courts read NYPE, BALTIME and Shelltime forms as ordinary commercial contracts and will respect an English law and London arbitration clause if it is drafted clearly. The battlegrounds are off-hire, the speed and consumption warranty, and the condition of the ship on redelivery.

A bareboat charter (gemi kira sözleşmesi, TCC Article 1119) transfers possession and operational control; the charterer crews and operates the ship as disponent owner. In Türkiye there is a registry point foreign owners regularly get wrong. Law No. 4490 has no bareboat register: Article 5 provides only that vessels and yachts obtained from abroad under a financial lease are recorded in a special column of the Turkish International Ship Registry, and a finance lease is not the same contract as a bareboat charter. Nor does TUGS registration open cabotage. Article 7 states that vessels and yachts which do not qualify to fly the Turkish flag under the Commercial Code cannot benefit from the Cabotage Law No. 815 — so the register does not give foreign-owned tonnage access to reserved domestic trade.

The Disputes That Fill the Docket

Demurrage and Laytime

Demurrage (sürastarya) is by a wide margin the most frequent claim passing through Turkish ports. Congestion, weather and customs holds at Ambarlı, Aliağa, Mersin, İzmir and Tekirdağ push vessels past agreed laytime; the owner invoices, and the charterer attacks the validity of the Notice of Readiness, berth availability or the cause of delay. Turkish courts apply the laytime clause as drafted, accept "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" and give effect to a WIBON (whether in berth or not) provision where the contract contains one. Where the contract is silent, laytime for loading is fixed by TCC Article 1153(2) and laytime for discharge by Article 1169(2) — in each case the time a continuous twenty-four-hour operation would need in that port. Where the charter mentions demurrage but does not fix its length, the demurrage period is ten days: Article 1154(2) for loading and Article 1170(2) for discharge.

What decides these cases is paper. The tendered NOR, the time-stamped Statement of Facts countersigned by the agent and the shipper or receiver, pilotage and tug records, and weather data carry more weight than argument. The Court of Cassation has repeatedly treated a master's reservation recorded on the SOF in real time as significant. Where the SOF is contested, the judge appoints a maritime bilirkişi — usually a master mariner or naval architect — to rebuild the laytime calculation, and that report drives the outcome.

Off-Hire

NYPE clause 15 and BALTIME clause 11 are the most litigated provisions in Turkish time charter work. The recurring pattern: engine breakdown, deficient crew, failed hold inspection, a medical deviation or detention by port state control under the Paris MOU, and the charterer stops the clock while the owner insists hire runs. Turkish courts ask three questions — does the event fall within the enumerated off-hire grounds, was the loss of time full or partial, and did the charterer place the vessel off-hire properly and in writing. There is no generalised frustration-of-purpose overlay, and the burden of showing the ship was genuinely off-hire, not merely inefficient, sits on the charterer.

Hire Arrears and Withdrawal

Late or short hire remains the sharpest flashpoint, because the owner's remedy is drastic. Turkish courts enforce withdrawal clauses but expect the contractual notice machinery, including any anti-technicality clause, to be followed to the letter. They are also less mechanical than the classical English position: the good faith principle in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code lets a judge look at the pattern of payments and the owner's commercial conduct. Withdrawing prematurely converts the owner into the defaulting party and exposes it to a substantial damages claim, particularly where the market has moved since fixture.

Bunker Disputes

Bunker claims take two forms. The first is off-spec fuel, argued as a breach of the supply contract and, in time charters, as a cause of off-hire or machinery damage. The second is the unpaid physical supplier — the charterer ordered bunkers in the owner's name, never paid, and the supplier now looks to the ship. Turkish law does not grant an automatic maritime lien for bunkers the way some jurisdictions do, but bunkers supplied for the operation, management, preservation or maintenance of the vessel are a maritime claim under TCC Article 1352(1)(l). Against the ship itself that is the only route open: Article 1353 provides that a maritime claim may be secured solely by arrest of the vessel, and that no injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) or other measure detaining the ship may be sought for such a claim. Precautionary attachment under İİK Article 257 remains available to the supplier, but only against the debtor's assets other than the ship. For owners, the practical defence is drafting and a prompt no-lien notice, not litigation after the fact.

Cargo Damage, Shortage and the Inter-Club Route

When cargo is damaged or short-delivered, liability normally runs under the bill of lading rather than the charter party, even where the charter governs the underlying commercial relationship. Cargo interests' subrogated insurers frequently sue the carrier in Türkiye, and the court then runs a parallel analysis of the bill of lading — which may incorporate the charter party by reference — and the charter itself. Where owner and charterer have incorporated the NYPE Inter-Club Agreement, Turkish courts and ISTAC tribunals respect that agreed allocation as a contractual choice, which is usually far faster than litigating fault.

Redelivery Condition and Bunkers on Redelivery

Hold cleanliness, ROB bunker quantities and general condition on redelivery are routinely arbitrated rather than litigated. Tribunals apply the plain terms of the charter, but will not let either side weaponise a minor non-conformity to escape a commercial obligation; the good faith rule in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code — and, as a separate standard, the duty of a merchant to act as a prudent businessman under Article 18(2) of the TCC — remains the interpretive backdrop.

Forum: Istanbul, ISTAC or London?

Foreign Clauses Are Enforced — and Then People End Up in Istanbul Anyway

Most charters touching Türkiye carry English law and London arbitration, especially when the owner is Greek, Norwegian or German. Turkish law respects that choice. Where a claim covered by an arbitration agreement is nevertheless filed in a Turkish court, Article 5 of the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 allows the defendant to raise an arbitration objection, and if the objection is upheld the court dismisses the action on procedural grounds. That is worth pausing on, because it is not the English position: the Turkish court does not stay its proceedings pending the arbitration and does not refer the parties to the tribunal — the case is thrown out. The objection is a preliminary objection and must be raised at the first opportunity; a defendant who argues the merits first may find the point lost.

Even so, several routes pull the matter into Turkish jurisdiction. An arrest in a Turkish port is the most common. Claims by Turkish receivers under bills of lading, and subrogated cargo insurers' recourse actions, can proceed here notwithstanding a charter party arbitration clause. And where the jurisdiction clause is silent, defective or simply absent, the commercial courts in Istanbul, İzmir and Mersin become the default forum.

ISTAC as a Middle Path

The Istanbul Arbitration Centre has positioned itself as a neutral, English-language seat for shipping work, with an expedited Fast Track procedure capable of producing an award within six months in smaller disputes. For demurrage and bunker claims where the amount at stake would be consumed by London costs, and for Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean trade where one party is Turkish, an ISTAC clause is a serious option worth putting into the recap rather than an afterthought.

Enforcing a Foreign Award

A London Maritime Arbitrators Association award, like any foreign award, is recognised in Türkiye under the New York Convention as implemented through MÖHUK No. 5718. The application goes to the competent Commercial Court of First Instance; grounds for refusal are narrow and largely procedural — invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, arbitrability, public policy. Recognition commonly takes six to twelve months, after which the award is executed against the debtor's Turkish assets through the Enforcement Office. The mechanics are set out in more detail in our guide to enforcing foreign arbitral awards and on our recognition and enforcement page.

Security While the Merits Are Argued Elsewhere

This is where Turkish jurisdiction earns its place in a foreign lawyer's strategy. Ship arrest under TCC Articles 1352 to 1376 is available for the listed maritime claims even where the substantive dispute is governed by English law and destined for arbitration abroad; Article 1356 puts it beyond argument that a jurisdiction clause, an arbitration clause or a foreign governing law does not deprive the competent Turkish court of the power to order arrest as security. The arrest court does not decide the merits: under Article 1362 it is enough that the claimant satisfies the court as to the nature of the maritime claim and its money value, and under Article 1363 the claimant must post counter-security of SDR 10,000, which the other side may apply to have increased at any stage. Sister-ship arrest is governed by Article 1369(2), not by any convention: a second vessel may be arrested if it belongs, at the moment the arrest is executed, to the person liable for the maritime claim, and that person was — at the time the claim arose — the owner, bareboat charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer of the ship on which the claim arose. Where the dispute concerns the ownership or possession of a ship, Article 1369(3) confines arrest to the ship in dispute; there is no sister-ship arrest in that case.

Two limits matter. First, an arrest must be followed by substantive proceedings — arbitration or suit — within one month: TCC Article 1376 applies the periods in Article 264(1) and (2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code as one month in ship arrest cases, and missing that deadline both lapses the arrest and exposes the arrestor to a wrongful arrest claim. Second, Turkish provisional relief is territorial: courts grant ihtiyati haciz and ihtiyati tedbir over assets situated in Türkiye, and do not issue worldwide freezing orders of the English Mareva type. Flag is largely irrelevant to all of this; foreign-flagged and Turkish-flagged vessels are treated the same for jurisdiction, arrest and prescription, and flag matters only for cabotage and tonnage-tax questions.

Time Bars, Evidence and How Long It Takes

Every claim against the carrier for loss of or damage to cargo, or for late delivery, is extinguished unless proceedings are commenced within one year. TCC Article 1188 runs that year from the date the goods were delivered, or from the date they should have been delivered where nothing was delivered at all. The label matters: this is a forfeiture period (hak düşürücü süre), not a prescription. It does not stop or restart because a demand letter went out or a part payment was made, the court applies it of its own motion, and Article 1188(4) allows the parties to extend it only by an agreement made after the cause of action has arisen. A recourse claim is treated separately — Article 1188(3) gives the party held liable ninety days from payment or from service of the claim against it.

Charter party claims run on their own one-year clock, and the point is settled by statute rather than argued. TCC Article 1246 provides that, subject to Article 1188, all claims arising out of bareboat charters, time charters and contracts of affreightment, or out of a bill of lading or its issue, prescribe in one year, running from the date the claim falls due. Demurrage, hire and freight all sit inside that rule; the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation applied Article 1246 directly to a demurrage claim in E. 2023/5883, K. 2024/3560 of 6 May 2024. The ten-year general period of the Turkish Code of Obligations will not rescue a late charter party claim. Treat one year as the deadline, not the floor.

Build the file early. What Turkish counsel needs at first assessment is the charter party with all addenda and the fixture recap, broker correspondence, the bills of lading, the NOR and Statement of Facts, the demurrage or off-hire calculation and the counterparty's response, survey and class reports, port and pilotage logs, and corporate documents for both parties. Copies in the original language are enough to assess the case; sworn Turkish translation, and apostille or consular legalisation for foreign public documents, is required only when the material is filed. Emails and port logs that were never preserved are the single most common reason a strong claim fails.

On timing: a first-instance decision in a charter party case commonly takes 14 to 24 months, driven largely by how long the expert report cycle runs. An İstinaf appeal adds roughly 12 to 18 months, and a further review by the Court of Cassation can add another year. Arrest applications, by contrast, are decided in days — which is precisely why security in Türkiye and merits abroad is such a common combination.

The pattern across all of this is consistent. Turkish courts and tribunals give effect to what the parties wrote, then decide the facts on documents created at the time — the NOR, the SOF, the off-hire notice, the survey. Owners and charterers who lose in Türkiye usually lose because the clause was loose, the paper trail was thin or the one-year clock ran out, not because Turkish law surprised them. If a dispute is developing on a vessel calling at a Turkish port, the decisions worth taking early are the cheap ones: preserve the documents, protest in writing, diarise the one-year deadline, and check whether security is available here before the ship sails.

Common questions about charter party disputes in Turkey

Forum, Jurisdiction and Arbitration: Where Will Your Dispute Be Heard?

Foreign owners and charterers regularly ask the same question: if the charter is on a Gencon form with London arbitration, why does anyone end up in Istanbul? The answer is that several routes can pull a charter party dispute into Turkish jurisdiction. A ship arrest in a Turkish port (the most common route) triggers limited Turkish substantive jurisdiction over the secured claim. Counter-claims under bills of lading addressed to Turkish receivers can also be brought in Turkey notwithstanding a charter party arbitration clause. Cargo interests' subrogated insurers frequently sue the carrier in

Can a foreign owner sue a Turkish charterer in Turkey under a charter party with an English law and London arbitration clause?

Generally no — the arbitration clause will be enforced and the Turkish court will refer the parties to arbitration on the defendant's timely objection. However, a ship arrest in Turkey for security and certain bill of lading claims can still proceed in Turkish courts even where the underlying charter party contains a London arbitration clause.

How long does a maritime case take in the Istanbul Commercial Courts?

A first-instance decision on a charter party dispute typically takes between 14 and 24 months, depending on the complexity of the expert reports. An appeal to the Regional Court of Justice ( Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi ) adds another 12-18 months, and a further review by the Court of Cassation may add a further year.

Is sister-ship arrest available in Turkey?

Yes. Turkey is a party to the 1952 Arrest Convention, and sister-ship arrest is expressly recognised under TCC Article 1369 in relation to specified maritime claims. The arrest must be supported by counter-security set by the court.

Will a London arbitration award be enforced in Turkey?

Yes, under the New York Convention 1958, to which Turkey is a party. Recognition is sought before the competent Istanbul Commercial Court of First Instance. Grounds for refusal are narrow and largely procedural (lack of notice, public policy, arbitrability).

What is the limitation period for charter party claims under Turkish law?

The default limitation period for most charter party claims is one year from the date the cause of action accrues, in line with the carriage of goods by sea regime under the TCC. Parties should confirm the specific deadline for each type of claim with counsel, as some claims (for example, hire) are subject to different periods.

Can a Turkish court grant a worldwide freezing order in support of arbitration?

Turkish courts can grant provisional attachment ( ihtiyati haciz ) and provisional measures ( ihtiyati tedbir ) over assets located in Turkey, including against vessels in Turkish ports. They do not, however, grant worldwide freezing orders of the English Mareva style; the territorial scope of Turkish provisional measures is, in practice, Turkish-situs assets.

Does the Montreux Convention affect charter party performance in the Turkish Straits?

Yes, indirectly but often decisively. The Montreux Convention 1936 governs the regime of the Turkish Straits, and traffic management, pilotage practice and suspensions for fog, heavy traffic or restricted periods can add days to a transit. That delay feeds straight into time charter off-hire calculations and voyage charter laytime. Charters with a Black Sea leg should address Bosphorus and Dardanelles transit risk expressly rather than relying on a general exceptions clause.

Is ISTAC a realistic seat for a shipping dispute between two non-Turkish parties?

Increasingly, yes. The Istanbul Arbitration Centre offers a neutral seat, English-language proceedings, an expedited Fast Track procedure that can produce an award within roughly six months in smaller cases, and arbitrators with maritime experience. It is most attractive for Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean trade, and for demurrage or bunker claims where the amount in dispute would not justify London costs.

How long do I have to bring a charter party or cargo claim in Turkey?

One year in both cases, but under two different provisions. Claims against the carrier for loss of, damage to or late delivery of cargo are forfeited under TCC Article 1188 unless proceedings are started within one year of delivery, or of the date delivery should have been made; that period cannot be interrupted by a demand letter or a part payment and the court applies it on its own motion. Claims arising out of bareboat charters, time charters, contracts of affreightment or a bill of lading, including demurrage, hire and freight, prescribe in one year under TCC Article 1246, running from the date the claim falls due. The longer general periods of the Turkish Code of Obligations do not apply to these claims.

Can I arrest a ship in Turkey while my dispute is heading to London arbitration?

Yes. Ship arrest is regulated by TCC Articles 1352 to 1376, and Article 1356 states that a jurisdiction clause, an arbitration clause or a foreign governing law does not remove the competent Turkish court's power to order arrest as security. Türkiye is not a party to the 1952 Arrest Convention; the Turkish rules were drafted on the model of the 1999 Convention. The claimant must satisfy the court as to the nature and value of the maritime claim (Article 1362) and post counter-security of SDR 10,000 (Article 1363), and must then start substantive proceedings within one month (Article 1376) or the arrest lapses.

What documents should I send a Turkish maritime lawyer at the first assessment?

The charter party with every addendum and the fixture recap, broker correspondence, the bill(s) of lading, the Notice of Readiness and Statement of Facts, the demurrage or off-hire calculation and the counterparty's reply, any survey or class reports, port and pilotage logs, and corporate documents for both parties. Copies in the original language are sufficient to assess the case; sworn Turkish translation, and apostille or legalisation for foreign public documents, is only needed when material is actually filed.

This guide is general information on Turkish law, not legal advice on your own matter. Rules and practice change; check the position before you act.