Can a foreign vessel leave Turkey while a maritime investigation is pending? Learn about sailing clearance, port authority restrictions, prosecutor investigations, PSC detention, collisions, pollution cases, security and emergency vessel-release remedies in Turkey.

A foreign-flagged vessel becomes involved in an incident while calling at a Turkish port. It may be a collision, pollution allegation, cargo accident, crew injury, death onboard, grounding, machinery failure or suspected breach of maritime regulations.

Statements are taken from the master and crew. Documents are collected. Turkish authorities begin an investigation.

Meanwhile, the vessel has another fixture and the owner needs to know:

Can the ship leave Turkey while the investigation is still pending?

The answer is potentially yes—but not automatically.

The existence of a maritime investigation does not by itself mean that every vessel must remain physically in Turkey until the investigation or subsequent proceedings are completed. However, a vessel cannot lawfully depart if a competent Turkish authority has imposed a restriction, if the Port Authority refuses or cancels sailing clearance, if the vessel is under Port State Control detention, if a judicial arrest exists, or if another legally effective measure prevents departure.

Under Turkey’s current framework, every commercial vessel crossing the administrative limits of a Turkish port requires authorization from the relevant Port Authority. If information reaches the authority showing that the vessel is unseaworthy or that another circumstance prevents its departure, sailing permission may be refused. (T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı)

For foreign shipowners, the crucial question is therefore not merely:

“Is there an investigation?”

It is:

“Is there currently a legal or administrative restriction preventing this vessel from sailing?”

Does a Pending Investigation Automatically Detain a Vessel in Turkey?

Not necessarily.

A maritime investigation and a vessel detention are legally different matters.

Authorities may investigate an incident while allowing the vessel to continue its voyage once necessary evidence has been secured and all applicable departure requirements have been satisfied.

In another case, however, authorities may conclude that the vessel must remain because its physical condition requires inspection, evidence still needs to be collected, a competent authority has communicated a departure restriction, or another legal measure exists.

The shipowner should therefore obtain written confirmation of the vessel’s actual status rather than relying on statements such as:

“The investigation is still open, so you cannot leave.”

The legal basis of the restriction matters.

Turkish Port Authority Controls Vessel Departure

The Port Authority plays a central role in departure.

Under Turkey’s current technical framework, regardless of flag, a commercial vessel intending to sail beyond port administrative limits requires Port Authority authorization through a sailing clearance document.

The rules further provide that if the vessel is found not to be seaworthy or information reaches the Port Authority concerning another circumstance preventing departure, clearance is not issued. (T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı)

The current Ports Regulation similarly provides that where unseaworthiness or other information preventing departure becomes known, sailing permission may be refused or an existing departure document cancelled. (Kocaeli Liman Başkanlığı)

Therefore, even if no court has formally “arrested” the vessel, another competent authority’s restriction can effectively prevent departure through the sailing-clearance process.

What Is a Liman Çıkış Belgesi?

The Liman Çıkış Belgesi, or Port Departure/Sailing Clearance Document, is fundamental to lawful departure from a Turkish port.

Turkish law provides that commercial ships sailing beyond port administrative limits are subject to Port Authority permission. (LEXPERA)

Before issuing clearance, authorities consider matters including the vessel’s seaworthiness, manning, passenger and cargo conditions and mandatory documentation.

The current Ports Regulation also requires vessels that have received clearance to complete their procedures with other relevant institutions before departing. (LEXPERA)

This means the Port Authority cannot always be viewed in isolation from other authorities involved in an ongoing investigation.

Maritime Accident Investigation

Suppose a foreign bulk carrier collides with another vessel inside Turkish waters.

An investigation begins immediately.

Authorities may need to obtain VDR data, AIS information, bridge records, charts, logbooks, photographs, technical records and witness statements.

The master, officers, pilots and other personnel may need to provide information.

The fact that these investigative steps are continuing does not necessarily mean that the physical vessel must remain in Turkey throughout the entire investigation.

The practical question is whether investigators still require access to the ship or whether a competent authority has imposed a restriction preventing departure.

Evidence Should Be Secured Before Requesting Departure

A shipowner seeking rapid release should make evidence preservation easy for investigators.

Depending on the incident, this may include securing:

VDR data,

ECDIS records,

AIS information,

engine-room logs,

deck logs,

cargo records,

oil record books,

photographs,

CCTV,

pilot cards,

passage plans,

crew lists,

maintenance records,

and communications.

Where authorities are satisfied that evidence has been preserved and necessary inspections completed, one potential reason for keeping physical access to the vessel may disappear.

Collision Investigation

After a collision, several proceedings can develop simultaneously.

There may be an administrative maritime investigation, a prosecutor investigation if injury, death or another suspected offense is involved, civil claims between shipowners, cargo claims and potentially judicial arrest proceedings.

These are legally separate.

A vessel may overcome one restriction while remaining unable to depart because another still exists.

Foreign owners should therefore identify every proceeding affecting the vessel before requesting release.

Prosecutor Investigation

Serious maritime incidents can also trigger a criminal investigation by a Turkish public prosecutor.

This is particularly possible following fatalities, serious injuries, major pollution events or allegations of criminal conduct.

The investigation may focus on individuals such as the master, officers or other persons.

The legal position of the crew and the legal position of the vessel should be analyzed separately.

A restriction affecting the master does not necessarily mean that the vessel itself is judicially arrested, although replacing key personnel may create separate operational issues.

Crew Travel Restrictions

A crew member may potentially become subject to judicial measures even where the ship itself can eventually depart.

For example, a master or officer may need to remain available to Turkish authorities.

If an individual cannot leave Turkey but the vessel can sail, the owner may need to arrange replacement personnel while complying with safe-manning and certification requirements.

This should be addressed before requesting final sailing clearance.

Serious Injury or Death Onboard

Where a maritime accident results in death or serious injury, the investigation can become considerably more complex.

Prosecutors may require forensic evidence, statements and technical expert examination.

The owner should immediately coordinate maritime and criminal-law representation.

Crew members should understand whether they are being questioned as witnesses or suspects and should have appropriate interpretation and legal assistance where required.

The vessel’s release should be pursued separately from the defense of individual crew members.

Marine Pollution Investigation

Pollution allegations can create particularly serious departure problems.

A vessel suspected of causing an oil spill or other marine pollution may face administrative investigation, environmental penalties, evidence collection and potentially criminal proceedings.

Financial security may also become relevant depending on the nature of the claim.

A foreign shipowner should therefore identify whether the vessel is being held for investigative reasons, an administrative measure, a judicial measure or because security has not yet been provided.

Pollution Fine Does Not Always End the Matter

Paying an administrative fine does not necessarily mean every investigation or private claim disappears.

The incident may still generate civil compensation claims or criminal proceedings.

Conversely, an ongoing investigation does not automatically mean the vessel must remain indefinitely if no valid restriction on departure continues to exist.

Each legal process must be examined separately.

Port State Control Detention Is Different

A vessel may also be unable to leave because of Port State Control detention.

This is different from remaining in port because authorities are investigating a maritime casualty.

Under Turkey’s current Port State Control regime, a detained vessel cannot simply sail because its owner disagrees with the detention.

The 2025 Port State Control Implementation Regulation provides particularly serious consequences where a vessel departs without authorization despite a detention decision: a vessel leaving despite detention, or failing to proceed to a repair yard it declared it would attend, can face a six-month ban from Turkish ports. (LEXPERA)

The owner should therefore establish whether the vessel’s status is technically:

investigation pending, PSC detention, administrative sailing restriction, or judicial arrest.

PSC Detention Must Be Cleared Properly

If PSC deficiencies exist, technical rectification and follow-up inspection may be required before departure.

A criminal or administrative investigation being completed does not override an independent PSC detention.

Likewise, resolving PSC deficiencies does not necessarily eliminate a prosecutor’s or court’s separate restriction.

This is why vessel-release work frequently requires coordination among several authorities.

Ship Arrest Is Also Different

A judicial ship arrest is another separate legal mechanism.

A maritime creditor may have obtained precautionary arrest to secure a maritime claim.

For example, the vessel may face a bunker claim, collision claim, cargo claim, crew wage claim or repair claim.

In that situation, even if the maritime investigation itself presents no obstacle to departure, the judicial arrest can continue to prevent the vessel from sailing.

The arrest must be separately lifted or replaced by acceptable security through the appropriate procedure.

Investigation and Ship Arrest Can Exist Simultaneously

Consider a tanker involved in a collision in Turkey.

The authorities begin an accident investigation.

The prosecutor opens a criminal investigation because a crew member was seriously injured.

The other vessel owner obtains judicial arrest for a collision damages claim.

PSC inspectors also identify safety deficiencies.

There are now potentially four separate legal problems:

the accident investigation,

the criminal investigation,

the judicial arrest,

and the PSC detention.

Solving one does not automatically solve the others.

The owner must obtain a clear legal map of every restriction before expecting departure clearance.

Can Security Allow the Vessel to Leave?

In some maritime disputes, providing adequate security can be central to obtaining release.

For example, where a vessel has been judicially arrested to secure a maritime claim, appropriate security may permit the arrest to be lifted while the underlying dispute continues.

Depending on the circumstances, security can involve cash, a bank guarantee or another acceptable security arrangement.

P&I Club involvement can therefore be particularly important.

P&I Club Letter of Undertaking

In international maritime disputes, a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking may sometimes be negotiated as security for claims.

Whether it is sufficient depends on the particular proceeding and whether the relevant claimant or authority accepts the proposed security.

The owner should never assume that submitting an LOU automatically creates a right to sail.

Acceptance should be confirmed.

Flag State and Classification Society

After a serious incident, the vessel’s flag administration and classification society may also become involved.

If the accident caused physical damage affecting seaworthiness, class surveys or flag-State approvals may be necessary.

Even where investigators have no objection to departure, the Turkish Port Authority can still refuse sailing clearance if the vessel is not seaworthy.

Turkish law expressly ties departure permission to seaworthiness and other required documentation. (LEXPERA)

Damage Affecting Seaworthiness

Suppose a vessel suffers hull damage in a collision.

Investigators complete their onboard examination and indicate that they no longer require the ship.

That does not necessarily mean it can immediately sail internationally.

The damage may require repairs or a technical assessment.

The owner should coordinate with class, flag and Turkish authorities to determine what repairs or permissions are necessary.

Can the Vessel Sail to a Repair Yard?

Potentially, depending on the technical circumstances and approval obtained.

Turkish technical rules recognize certain situations in which a vessel may proceed under special permission to another port for repair or survey purposes.

Such voyages may be subject to specific safety conditions and restrictions. (İzmir Denizdibi)

The owner should therefore propose a technically detailed voyage and repair plan rather than merely asking authorities:

“Can we leave Turkey and repair somewhere else?”

Cargo Onboard

A detained vessel may still carry valuable cargo.

If departure is delayed, cargo interests may begin raising claims concerning late delivery, deterioration or missed contractual deadlines.

The owner should therefore review bills of lading and charterparty obligations immediately.

Where cargo is perishable or particularly time-sensitive, alternative arrangements may need to be considered urgently.

Charterparty Consequences

A maritime investigation can also create substantial charterparty disputes.

A time charterer may assert off-hire.

A voyage charterer may claim damages resulting from delay.

A subsequent fixture may be lost.

The owner should issue contractual notices promptly and preserve evidence showing the precise cause and duration of the delay.

Whether detention time falls on owners or charterers depends on the charterparty wording and circumstances.

Document Every Day of Delay

If a shipowner believes Turkish authorities are unnecessarily preventing departure, contemporaneous documentation becomes critical.

The owner should record when inspections were completed, when statements were taken, when evidence was delivered, when repairs were completed, when security was offered and when sailing clearance was requested.

Port charges, additional crew expenses, lost hire and other losses should also be documented.

A later compensation argument is much harder to establish without a precise chronology.

Do Not Attempt to Leave Without Clearance

A foreign shipowner should never instruct a vessel to sail simply because it believes the investigation has taken too long.

Commercial vessels require the applicable Turkish departure authorization.

Current Turkish law provides that sailing beyond port administrative limits is subject to Port Authority permission, and clearance may be refused where information exists preventing departure. (LEXPERA)

Where the vessel is under PSC detention, unauthorized departure can also trigger a six-month Turkish port entry ban. (LEXPERA)

Self-help can therefore transform a manageable investigation into a substantially more serious regulatory problem.

Ask for the Legal Basis of the Restriction

Where the owner is told that the vessel cannot leave, Turkish maritime counsel should determine precisely:

Which authority imposed the restriction?

When was it imposed?

What is the legal basis?

Is there a written decision?

Is the restriction directed against the vessel or an individual?

What condition must be satisfied for departure?

Can security replace continued detention?

Is there an objection or judicial remedy?

This distinction is fundamental to selecting the correct emergency procedure.

Written Release Request

Once necessary evidence has been collected and other requirements have been satisfied, the owner may consider submitting a structured request for departure.

The request should not simply state that detention is expensive.

It should demonstrate why continued physical presence of the vessel is no longer necessary.

Supporting material may include evidence preservation confirmations, class reports, flag-State communications, repair documents, security proposals and undertakings concerning continued cooperation.

Continued Cooperation After Departure

Allowing a vessel to leave does not necessarily prevent an investigation from continuing.

Documents can potentially continue to be exchanged, experts may conduct further analysis and lawyers can represent relevant parties.

The investigation may continue long after the vessel has resumed commercial operations.

The owner should therefore establish a reliable communication and representation mechanism in Turkey.

Power of Attorney for Foreign Shipowners

A foreign shipowner facing an ongoing Turkish investigation should arrange appropriate authorization for Turkish counsel quickly.

This can be particularly important where the vessel may leave but the investigation continues.

Local representation can allow authorities, prosecutors and courts to communicate through an established legal channel while the owner remains abroad.

Practical Example: Collision in a Turkish Port

Assume a foreign-flagged container ship collides with another vessel while maneuvering inside a Turkish port.

The Turkish authorities begin an investigation.

VDR data, bridge logs, AIS records and statements are collected.

The ship suffers minor damage but remains technically capable of sailing after class inspection.

The owner wants the vessel to depart within 48 hours.

The legal team should first determine whether any prosecutor, court, Port Authority or PSC restriction exists.

Evidence requested by investigators should be secured promptly.

Class and flag documentation concerning seaworthiness should be obtained.

Any civil arrest application arising from the collision should be checked.

If security is requested for a maritime claim, the owner and P&I interests should address it immediately.

Once every separate obstacle has been resolved, sailing clearance can be requested from the Port Authority.

The investigation itself may potentially continue after the vessel departs.

Practical Example: Pollution Allegation

Assume a foreign tanker is accused of causing marine pollution.

An administrative investigation begins and the master is questioned.

The owner pays an administrative penalty but is informed that another investigation remains open.

Payment of the fine should not automatically be treated as proof that the vessel can sail.

Counsel should verify whether there is any continuing prosecutor restriction, judicial arrest, administrative measure or PSC issue.

If no legal obstacle remains and the vessel satisfies departure requirements, sailing clearance should be pursued immediately.

Practical Example: Crew Member Dies Onboard

Assume a crew member dies following an onboard accident while the vessel is in Turkey.

A prosecutor opens a criminal investigation.

The master and several officers give statements.

Technical evidence is collected.

The prosecutor may still need particular individuals to remain available even if continued detention of the entire vessel is unnecessary.

The owner should therefore address the crew members’ individual legal status separately from the vessel’s departure.

Replacement officers may be required if a person necessary for safe manning cannot sail.

Emergency Vessel Release Strategy

For a foreign shipowner whose vessel is being held during an investigation, the fastest strategy is generally to identify and remove each legal obstacle separately.

The owner should establish whether the problem is an administrative investigation, prosecutor investigation, PSC detention, seaworthiness problem, judicial arrest or another departure restriction.

Evidence requested by investigators should be secured rapidly.

Flag, class and P&I interests should be coordinated.

Where monetary claims exist, security options should be investigated.

Where technical deficiencies exist, repairs and inspections should proceed immediately.

Once the relevant obstacles have been addressed, the owner should seek formal sailing clearance rather than relying on verbal statements that the vessel is “free to go.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign ship leave Turkey while an investigation is still open?

Potentially yes. A pending investigation does not necessarily require the vessel to remain in Turkey until the entire case is completed. The decisive issue is whether a legally effective restriction or other obstacle to sailing clearance remains.

Does the Port Authority have to approve departure?

Yes. Commercial vessels sailing beyond Turkish port administrative limits require Port Authority departure permission. (LEXPERA)

Can the Port Authority refuse sailing clearance?

Yes. If the vessel is unseaworthy or information reaches the Port Authority concerning another circumstance preventing departure, clearance may be refused. (LEXPERA)

Can a ship leave while a prosecutor investigation continues?

Potentially, provided there is no restriction preventing the vessel from departing and all other departure requirements have been satisfied. The legal status of individual crew members may be different.

Can the master be required to remain in Turkey while the ship leaves?

Potentially. Measures affecting an individual should be distinguished from measures affecting the vessel. Safe-manning and replacement arrangements would also need to be addressed.

Can providing security help release a vessel?

Potentially, particularly where a judicial ship arrest secures a maritime monetary claim. The form and amount of security depend on the particular proceeding.

Can the ship leave if it is under PSC detention?

Not until the applicable detention/release requirements are satisfied. Unauthorized departure despite PSC detention can lead to serious consequences, including a six-month Turkish port entry ban under the current regime. (LEXPERA)

What if the vessel needs repairs?

Depending on the circumstances, Turkish technical rules can permit specified voyages under special authorization for repair or survey purposes. (İzmir Denizdibi)

Is a maritime investigation the same as ship arrest?

No. An investigation concerns examination of an incident or possible violation. Judicial ship arrest is a separate measure securing a maritime claim.

What should a foreign shipowner do first?

Obtain written confirmation of exactly what prevents departure. Once the responsible authority and legal basis are identified, the appropriate release, security, objection, repair or clearance procedure can be pursued.

Emergency Maritime Legal Assistance in Turkey

When a vessel is prevented from leaving Turkey during a maritime investigation, the first objective should be to determine whether the ship is actually legally detained or whether authorities simply need additional investigative steps completed before issuing departure clearance.

Under Turkey’s current framework, a commercial vessel cannot simply sail without Port Authority authorization. The Port Authority may refuse clearance where the vessel is not seaworthy or where it receives information establishing another obstacle to departure. (LEXPERA)

For foreign shipowners, a rapid release strategy may therefore require simultaneous coordination with the Port Authority, prosecutor, courts, flag administration, classification society and P&I interests.

The investigation itself does not necessarily have to end before the vessel can resume trading. What matters is whether every legal, technical and security-related obstacle to departure has been removed.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shipowners, operators, managers, charterers and P&I interests with vessel release in Turkey, maritime investigations, collision investigations, pollution cases, prosecutor investigations, Port State Control detention, ship arrest, sailing restrictions, security arrangements and emergency maritime proceedings.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower, Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey