By Sebnem SAN & Mustafa Ismail CAKAR 
Sodac Acar Law
www.sodaclaw.com
March 2026

Ship Arrest in Türkiye
Bunker Claims, Evidential Pitfalls, and Practical Lessons from Recent Turkish Court Practice

I. Why This Matters Now: A Market Under Pressure

Ship arrest remains one of the most effective interim remedies available to maritime creditors. In jurisdictions where vessels call frequently and remain within territorial waters only for a limited period, the ability to obtain security swiftly may be commercially more significant than the eventual determination of the merits.[1] Türkiye continues to be one of those jurisdictions.

In early March 2026, the global bunker market experienced one of its sharpest price movements in recent years. According to S&P Global Platts Bunkerwire data dated 5 March 2026, VLSFO prices in Istanbul stood at approximately USD 745/mt, while Fujairah was reported at around USD 700/mt. In Busan, VLSFO prices reportedly rose by as much as USD 60/mt in a single session, reaching levels not seen since the 2022 energy crisis. Against that background, unpaid bunker receivables became materially more significant in commercial terms, reinforcing the practical importance of swift ship arrest remedies for marine fuel suppliers and traders.[2] S&P Global describes Bunkerwire and Bunkerworld as widely used daily benchmark publications in the bunker market, and contemporaneous market reporting also confirms sharp bunker price dislocation and elevated premiums across major hubs in early March 2026.[3]

This is particularly true in bunker disputes. Unpaid bunker invoices commonly arise in a commercially compressed environment involving short credit periods, multiple contractual actors, and a moving asset that may leave the jurisdiction before substantive proceedings can develop. In such circumstances, the practical value of ship arrest is obvious. Yet recent Turkish court practice demonstrates that arrest in Türkiye is not granted merely because the underlying receivable is maritime in character. Courts appear increasingly attentive to the evidential structure of the application, the identity of the debtor, the legal connection between that debtor and the vessel, and compliance with the statutory conditions governing the measure.[4]

This article draws on recent Turkish first-instance decisions concerning bunker-related arrest applications and post-arrest objection proceedings. Its central point is straightforward: Türkiye remains a strong jurisdiction for maritime creditors seeking security, but successful arrest applications depend less on abstract entitlement and more on disciplined preparation, coherent documentation, and accurate legal characterisation of the claim.[5]

II. Legal Framework: What Turkish Law Provides

A. The Maritime Claim Basis

The principal legal basis for ship arrest in Türkiye is found in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”), particularly Articles 1352 to 1387. Although Türkiye is not a formal party to the 1952 International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, the TCC’s arrest regime was drafted largely in line with the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships, to which Türkiye is now a party.[6]

The relevant framework is built around three interrelated questions: first, whether the claimant has established, on a prima facie basis, the existence of a maritime claim; second, whether the vessel proceeded against may lawfully be arrested in respect of that claim; and third, whether the procedural requirements for the maintenance and enforcement of the measure have been satisfied.[7]

Under Article 1352 TCC, a claimant must show that the underlying receivable falls within the statutory list of maritime claims. In bunker disputes, that threshold is generally met without conceptual difficulty, since claims arising from the supply of bunkers, goods, materials, provisions, equipment, or services for the operation, management, preservation, or maintenance of a vessel fall within the recognised maritime-claim structure of Turkish law. Depending on the facts of the case, related claims arising from charterparty arrangements, port dues, ship management, and agency services may also fall within the broader maritime-claim framework.[8]

At the arrest stage, the claimant is not required to prove the claim conclusively in the manner required in full merits proceedings. Rather, Turkish courts apply a prima facie or approximate proof threshold (yaklaşık ispat). The evidentiary standard is lower than trial-level proof, but it is not merely formal. Recent decisions suggest that Turkish courts expect a documentary record capable of showing, with reasonable clarity, how the debt arose, against whom it is asserted, and why the vessel may lawfully be arrested in respect of that debt. In practice, a well-prepared bundle of bunker delivery receipts (BDNs), invoices, supply contracts, and acknowledgement correspondence is generally sufficient.[9]

All seven decisions reviewed for this article were advanced within the Article 1352 framework, covering claims for bunker supply (six cases) and agency services (one case). Arrest was granted in six of the seven initial applications.[10]

B. Counter-Security

Counter-security remains a mandatory element of the Turkish arrest regime. Pursuant to Article 1363 TCC, the applicant is generally required to provide security in the amount of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (“SDR”). Recent decisions confirm that Turkish courts continue to apply this requirement in a direct and relatively standardised manner, converting the SDR amount into Turkish Lira at the relevant rate on the date of the order.[11]

This statutory counter-security should be distinguished from later enforcement-stage expenses or practical disbursements, which may arise during implementation but are conceptually separate from the Article 1363 requirement. That distinction matters both doctrinally and commercially: it avoids misstating the legal framework and allows creditors to budget realistically for arrest in Türkiye.[12]

In practice, the statutory 10,000 SDR counter-security is rarely the end of the creditor’s financial exposure at the arrest stage. Although not expressly set out in the TCC, enforcement offices (icra daireleri) may request additional advance deposits or implementation-related payments before proceeding with the practical enforcement of the order. The level of such payments varies from case to case and is driven by local practice rather than statutory text. For that reason, creditors who budget only for the Article 1363 minimum may encounter unexpected funding demands once the matter moves from the court order stage to actual enforcement.[13]

C. Prompt Enforcement

The value of an arrest order depends heavily on speed of implementation. Article 1364 TCC requires prompt enforcement, and recent decisions confirm that the order must be implemented within the applicable statutory period. In practice, legal preparedness and operational readiness are therefore inseparable.[14]

III. Bunker Claims in Practice: Recent Turkish Court Decisions

The following decisions show how Turkish courts have handled bunker arrest applications in practice. These cases, drawn from courts across Türkiye including Kocaeli, Bursa, Kdz. Ereğli, and Samsun, demonstrate both the accessibility of the Turkish arrest mechanism and the practical pitfalls that may lead to grant, rejection, partial reduction, or later discharge of the arrest.[15]

Case 1 — Bunker Supply Claim Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court | July 2025

Arrest GRANTED. The court accepted the bunker receivable as a maritime claim and treated the bareboat charter documentation as decisive in identifying the respondent as the relevant donatan / operator. The decision shows that Turkish courts may look beyond registered ownership and examine the contractual chain where the bareboat charter structure is properly documented.[16]

Case 2 — Supply and Necessaries Claim Yalova 4th Civil Court | July 2025 → Objection September 2025

Arrest initially GRANTED, then LIFTED on objection. The court initially accepted the claim as a maritime claim supported by invoices, delivery records, and Equasis materials. On objection, however, the arrest was lifted after it was established that ownership had changed and that the party targeted in the application was no longer the relevant owner at the time of arrest. The decision underlines the importance of verifying current ownership immediately before filing.[17]

Case 3 — Port Agency Fees Claim Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court | October 2025 → Objection November 2025

Arrest GRANTED, objection PARTIALLY UPHELD. The court maintained the arrest in principle but excluded part of the secured amount after finding that a component corresponding to an administrative fine had been paid by a third party rather than by the claimant itself. The decision shows that Turkish courts will examine not only whether a maritime claim exists, but also whether each item included in the claimed amount is properly attributable to the claimant.[18]

Case 4 — Bunker Supply Claim Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court  | January 2026

Arrest GRANTED. This was a straightforward bunker claim before a regional court, confirming that bunker supply falls within the TCC maritime claim regime and may support arrest where the vessel is physically within the competent court’s jurisdiction. The decision also confirms that regional courts are fully competent to grant ship arrest orders.[19]

Cases 5 & 6 — Bunker Supply Claim (Two Simultaneous Applications) Bursa 1st Commercial Court + Bursa 3rd Commercial Court | January 2026

First application (Bursa 1st): GRANTED in full under TTK 1371 with sailing prohibition. Second application (Bursa 3rd): PARTIALLY GRANTED — the interest component was rejected. The rejection of the interest component is a critical reminder that interest accruing under a bunker supply contract must be separately documented and clearly attributable to the credit terms, rather than simply added to the claim figure.[20]

Case 7 — Bunker Supply Claim Samsun Commercial Court | January–March 2026

First application REJECTED. Second application GRANTED. Objection later REJECTED. The case demonstrates that incorrect respondent identification may defeat an arrest application, while a renewed application supported by clearer debtor and representation analysis may succeed. It also highlights that ISM manager status alone does not automatically establish liability or authority to act on behalf of other respondents.[21]

IV. Seven Mistakes That Creditors Make — And How to Avoid Them

Drawing on the decisions above, as well as broader Turkish court practice, the following seven mistakes are among the most common causes of failed, delayed, or vulnerable arrest applications.[22]

Mistake 1: Naming the ISM Manager as Respondent

One of the costliest mistakes in recent Turkish practice — illustrated by the initial rejection of an arrest application by the Samsun Commercial Court in January 2026 — is treating the ISM Manager as the debtor simply because it appears as “manager” in Equasis records.[23]

Recent Turkish court practice makes the position clear: ISM Manager status alone does not create liability for bunker debts. The ISM Manager may only be held liable where it:

– personally assumed the debt under a written agreement

– acted as agent with express authority to bind the vessel’s operator or other liable party

– incurred personal liability under general principles of fault or tort[24]

Equasis entries showing a company as “manager” are not, by themselves, sufficient. The claimant should produce documentation — such as a ship management agreement, charter arrangement, or specific correspondence — demonstrating the ISM Manager’s operative role and authority.[25]

The practical lesson is clear: identify the donatan (operator) and the commercial manager as primary respondents. If the ISM Manager is to be named, the contractual basis for doing so should already be in hand.[26]

Mistake 2: Failing to Verify Current Ownership

The 2025 Yalova proceedings illustrate a scenario that is becoming increasingly important in practice: ownership may change between the time the claim arises and the time arrest is sought.[27]

Under Article 1369 TCC, arrest against a vessel in the hands of its current owner is only sustainable where the current owner is also the person liable for the claim, or where the statutory conditions for arrest are otherwise satisfied. If ownership has changed, the arrest may become vulnerable and may ultimately be lifted.[28]

Best practice is therefore to verify flag state registry records — not only Equasis — in the final 24 to 48 hours before filing. Equasis may reflect changes with delay; the flag state registry is the more authoritative source.[29]

Mistake 3: Confusing the Donatan and the Registered Owner

Multiple decisions reviewed in this article turn on the distinction between the malik (registered owner) and the donatan (the person operating the vessel in its own name, broadly comparable to a disponent owner in functional terms).[30]

Under Turkish law, a bareboat charterer may assume the position of donatan and thereby become the party primarily relevant for liabilities incurred during the charter period. However, that conclusion is not automatic: the creditor must be in a position to produce the bareboat charter documentation or equivalent contractual material supporting that status.[31]

Equasis records or registry entries indicating that another company is acting as operator are not substitutes for the underlying charter documentation. Turkish courts have shown reluctance to infer bareboat charter status from circumstantial material alone.[32]

Mistake 4: Including Unsupported Interest Claims

A Bursa 3rd Commercial Court decision from January 2026 provides a practical warning in relation to interest claims. The court accepted the principal bunker receivable but refused the interest component, thereby reducing the secured amount.[33]

Interest on a bunker supply claim may be recoverable, but only where it is:

– expressly agreed in the supply contract or applicable terms and conditions

– clearly documented, including the applicable rate and calculation basis

– properly attributable to the relevant credit period or contractual default mechanism[34]

Submitting a consolidated figure that bundles principal and interest together without proper separation invites the court to question or exclude the interest element. As a matter of practice, principal and interest should be presented as separate items.[35]

Mistake 5: Over-Relying on Equasis for Sister Ship Identification

Sister ship arrest under Article 1369 TCC can be a powerful tool, but it requires evidence of an “organic connection” between vessels — not merely a shared management entry in Equasis.[36]

Turkish courts have accepted the following as supporting evidence for sister ship connections:

– identical registered addresses of ownership companies

– the same ship management company confirmed by management agreement

– shared email domains and the same individuals conducting correspondence

– invoices or contracts issued within the same corporate group

At the same time, Turkish practice also shows that address similarity or Equasis overlap alone may be insufficient. Equasis is a starting point, not a complete evidential file. The creditor should therefore build the corporate connection record before filing.[37]

Mistake 6: Ignoring the Three-Business-Day Enforcement Window

Under Turkish procedural law, an arrest order must be enforced within a short statutory period following issuance. In practice, this means that vessel tracking and enforcement planning must be aligned with the legal filing strategy from the outset.[38]

An arrest order obtained shortly before a vessel’s departure may lose much of its practical value if the enforcement process cannot be completed in time. The lesson is straightforward: timing is not merely a tactical consideration, but a structural part of the remedy itself.[39]

Mistake 7: Treating Arrest as a Standalone Remedy

Ship arrest is a provisional measure. It secures the claim; it does not resolve it. Under Turkish law, the creditor must also consider the timely commencement of substantive proceedings — whether before Turkish courts, in arbitration, or in another forum — if the arrest is to serve its wider enforcement purpose.

Arrest should therefore be conceived from the outset as the first step in a coordinated enforcement strategy, potentially including:

– parallel or subsequent arbitration or litigation on the merits

– commercial pressure and negotiation leverage arising from the detention of the vessel

– collection of substitute security, including a P&I Club letter of undertaking or bank guarantee

– contingency planning once security is provided and the vessel is released

V. Sister Ship Arrest: Türkiye’s Distinctive Approach

Sister ship arrest under Article 1369 TCC may be available where the person liable for the maritime claim is the owner of the vessel at the time of arrest, or was the owner, charterer, operator, or disponent owner at the time the claim arose.

This mechanism is particularly relevant in the present commercial environment. Fleet structures are often fragmented across multiple single-purpose companies with limited assets at the entity level. In such circumstances, a judgment against the contractual ordering entity alone may prove commercially ineffective. Sister ship arrest may therefore allow the creditor to pursue security across the debtor’s wider vessel structure, subject always to the evidential burden imposed by Turkish law.

Turkish courts — including the specialist maritime benches in Istanbul — have developed a body of practice around what is commonly described as the “organic connection” concept. Factors that may support such a finding include:

– Equasis records showing the same management company across vessels

– identical corporate addresses and registration data

– the same individuals conducting correspondence on behalf of multiple entities

– invoices and contracts issued within an identifiable corporate group

The critical evidential lesson from Turkish court practice is that Equasis alone is usually insufficient where the claimant cannot produce supporting contractual, corporate, or correspondence evidence. A creditor considering a sister ship application should therefore prepare a documented corporate profile of the debtor group — including registry records, management agreements, and correspondence chains — before filing.

VI. Conclusion: What 2026 Requires

The recent arrest applications reviewed in this article show that the Turkish arrest mechanism, as applied by courts in Kocaeli, Bursa, Samsun, Yalova, and Kdz. Ereğli, is accessible, relatively fast, and commercially effective. At the same time, the cases also show that failed or weakened applications are rarely the result of an inadequate legal framework. More often, they result from incorrect respondent identification, incomplete documentation, weak ownership analysis, or unrealistic assumptions as to what Equasis records can prove in court.

Against a backdrop of VLSFO prices reaching approximately USD 745/mt in Istanbul and a highly volatile bunker market in early 2026, the credit risk environment for bunker suppliers has become materially more acute. Turkish ports and the Turkish Straits corridor ensure that debtor vessels will continue to come within reach of the jurisdiction. The creditors most likely to recover effectively will be those who have identified the correct donatan or other liable party, assembled the contractual chain, verified current registry data, and budgeted not only for the statutory counter-security requirement but also for the practical costs of enforcement before urgent action becomes necessary.

---

[1] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, especially Articles 1352–1387; see also the general Turkish ship arrest framework reflected in Ship Arrests in Practice – Turkey chapters and recent Turkish first-instance court practice.

[2] S&P Global Platts, Bunkerwire, 5 March 2026.

[3] S&P Global describes Bunkerwire and Bunkerworld as benchmark daily bunker market publications; see also contemporaneous market reporting in early March 2026 regarding sharp bunker price dislocation and elevated bunker premiums across major supply hubs.

[4] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, especially Articles 1352, 1362, 1363, 1364, and 1369; see also recent Turkish arrest and objection decisions in bunker and related maritime claims.

[5] The decisions reviewed in this article include: Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court (July 2025; October 2025), Yalova 4th Civil Court (July 2025; September 2025), Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court (January 2026), Bursa 1st and 3rd Commercial Courts (January 2026), and Samsun Commercial Court (January–March 2026).

[6] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Articles 1352–1387; International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, 1952; International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999; see also Ship Arrests in Practice – Turkey chapters.

[7] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, especially Articles 1352, 1362, 1363, 1364, and 1369.

[8] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1352.

[9] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1362; see also recent first-instance decisions reviewed in this article concerning prima facie proof in bunker and agency-related arrest applications.

[10] Court decisions reviewed in this article: Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court (July 2025; October 2025), Yalova 4th Civil Court (July 2025; September 2025), Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court (January 2026), Bursa 1st and 3rd Commercial Courts (January 2026), and Samsun Commercial Court (January–March 2026).

[11] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1363; see also Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court, decision dated 15 January 2026; Yalova 4th Civil Court, decision dated 17 July 2025; and Bursa / Kocaeli arrest decisions reviewed in this article.

[12] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1363.

[13] Practitioner experience in Turkish arrest enforcement; see also the distinction under Turkish law between statutory counter-security and practical enforcement-stage deposits or implementation costs.

[14] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1364; see also recent Turkish arrest decisions emphasising timely implementation of arrest orders.

[15] Court decisions reviewed in this article: Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court (July 2025; October 2025), Yalova 4th Civil Court (July 2025; September 2025), Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court (January 2026), Bursa 1st and 3rd Commercial Courts (January 2026), and Samsun Commercial Court (January–March 2026).

[16] Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court, July 2025 arrest decision concerning bunker supply and bareboat charter-based operator liability.

[17] SIA UNIMARS v. NAMA, Yalova 4th Civil Court of First Instance, arrest order dated 17 July 2025 and objection decision dated 3 September 2025.

[18] Atlas Bulk v. MARILOU, arrest order dated 9 October 2025 and objection decision dated 28 November 2025.

[19] NSG v. NINOVA, Kdz. Ereğli 3rd Civil Court, arrest order dated 15 January 2026.

[20] Bursa 1st Commercial Court and Bursa 3rd Commercial Court, January 2026 arrest decisions concerning bunker supply claims; see especially the Bursa 3rd Commercial Court’s treatment of the interest component.

[21] Samsun Commercial Court, initial rejection decision dated January 2026, subsequent arrest order, and objection rejection decision dated 3 March 2026.

[22] The following observations draw on the specific court decisions reviewed in this article together with broader Turkish arrest practice.

[23] Samsun Commercial Court, January 2026 rejection decision.

[24] See generally Turkish law principles on contractual assumption of debt, agency authority, and personal fault; see also the reasoning reflected in the Samsun proceedings.

[25] Samsun Commercial Court, January 2026 rejection decision; see also practical treatment of Equasis materials in Turkish arrest applications.

[26] See generally Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1369, and the practical distinction between the registered owner, donatan, and technical / ISM manager.

[27] SIA UNIMARS v. NAMA, Yalova 4th Civil Court of First Instance, objection decision dated 3 September 2025.

[28] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1369.

[29] See generally Yalova practice reviewed in this article and the practical need to verify current ownership immediately prior to filing.

[30] See Kocaeli, Yalova, Bursa, and Samsun decisions reviewed in this article.

[31] See generally Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1369, and the treatment of bareboat charter structures in Turkish arrest practice.

[32] Kocaeli 1st Commercial Court, July 2025 arrest decision; see also the contrary implications arising from insufficient proof in later objection proceedings in other cases reviewed here.

[33] Bursa 3rd Commercial Court, January 2026 arrest decision.

[34] See generally bunker supply contract practice and the evidential treatment of interest claims in Turkish arrest applications.

[35] Bursa 3rd Commercial Court, January 2026 arrest decision.

[36] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1369; see also Turkish court practice and practitioner commentary concerning “organic connection” in sister ship arrest analysis.

[37] See generally Turkish sister ship arrest practice, including supporting factors such as common management, shared addresses, correspondence patterns, and group documentation.

[38] Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Article 1364; see also recent arrest orders requiring prompt implementation.

[39] See generally Turkish procedural practice concerning the implementation of arrest orders and the practical consequences of delay.