Has your vessel been detained at a Turkish port? Learn how foreign shipowners can challenge Port State Control detention, correct deficiencies, request release, appeal detention decisions and protect against losses in Turkey.

A foreign-flagged vessel enters a Turkish port for loading, discharge, bunkering, repairs or another commercial operation. Turkish maritime authorities conduct an inspection and identify deficiencies. The master is then informed that the vessel cannot sail.

Every additional day can generate substantial losses.

Charter hire may continue, cargo interests may submit claims, port expenses accumulate, the next fixture may be lost and the vessel’s detention history may affect future Port State Control inspections.

For a foreign shipowner, a detention in Turkey therefore requires immediate technical and legal action at the same time.

Turkey introduced a new Port State Control Implementation Regulation (Liman Devleti Denetimi Uygulama Yönetmeliği) in September 2025. Under the current framework, the owner, operator or flag State has a right to challenge a Port State Control detention. Importantly, the ship’s agent cannot itself make the formal objection, and filing an objection does not automatically suspend the detention. (LEXPERA)

Why Can a Foreign Ship Be Detained in Turkey?

Foreign vessels calling at Turkish ports can be inspected under Port State Control procedures.

Turkish port regulations authorize inspections of vessels within port administrative areas for navigation, life, property, environmental safety and security under applicable national and international rules. (LEXPERA)

A detention generally means that authorities consider identified deficiencies sufficiently serious that the ship should not continue normal navigation until the relevant safety or compliance concerns are addressed.

Official Turkish port guidance uses action code 30 for a detained ship and 30/70 where the ship is detained and classification is informed. (Aliağa Liman Başkanlığı)

For the owner, the first priority should therefore be obtaining and analyzing the complete inspection record.

Port State Control Detention in Turkey

Port State Control allows Turkish authorities to inspect foreign-flagged ships calling at Turkish ports for compliance with applicable international maritime requirements.

Depending on the vessel and circumstances, deficiencies may concern SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, MLC, Load Line requirements, ISM, ISPS or other applicable international instruments.

A detention should not be treated merely as a local port administrative inconvenience.

It can have broader consequences for the vessel’s commercial and regulatory profile.

Common Reasons for Ship Detention

Detention can result from serious deficiencies concerning fire safety, lifesaving equipment, navigation equipment, machinery, pollution prevention, emergency systems, certificates, crew qualifications, working and living conditions or safety-management implementation.

Multiple individually smaller deficiencies can also become important where they indicate that the vessel is generally substandard.

Turkey’s current regulation requires the Port State Control officer, when deciding whether detention is necessary, to take into account relevant criteria in IMO procedures and applicable memoranda of understanding. (Legalbank)

First Emergency Step: Obtain the Inspection Report

The master and shipowner should immediately secure the complete PSC inspection documentation.

Do not rely solely on verbal explanations such as:

“The inspector has problems with the fire system.”

Each deficiency should be identified precisely.

The emergency legal team should determine which deficiencies constitute grounds for detention, which convention provisions are cited and what corrective action the authority requires.

The official Turkish PSC inspection form specifically records deficiencies, convention references, grounds for detention and follow-up actions. (Tuzla Liman Başkanlığı)

Create a Deficiency-by-Deficiency Response

The owner should create a response matrix immediately.

For every deficiency, identify the inspection code, convention provision, technical issue, corrective measure, responsible person, supporting evidence and expected completion time.

This is far more effective than making a general request saying:

“Please release the vessel because all major problems have been solved.”

The objective should be to demonstrate objectively that each detention ground has been removed or otherwise appropriately addressed.

Contact the Flag State

The flag administration can play an important role following detention.

Under Turkey’s current PSC framework, when a vessel is detained, the port authority must promptly inform the flag State administration in writing and include the inspection report. If direct notification is impossible, notification can proceed through the relevant consular or diplomatic representation. The recognized organization responsible for relevant statutory certificates is also informed where applicable. (Legalbank)

Shipowners should therefore coordinate their response with the flag administration rather than treating detention solely as a dispute between the master and local inspector.

Contact the Classification Society

Where deficiencies concern matters falling within the involvement of the vessel’s recognized organization or classification society, immediate attendance may be necessary.

The owner should determine whether class confirmation, surveyor attendance, certificate verification or technical approval is required.

Waiting until repairs are completed before involving class can create additional delay if authorities later require class confirmation before release.

Technical Correction Is Often Faster Than Legal Argument

Where a deficiency genuinely exists and can be corrected rapidly, the fastest route to commercial release may be technical rectification rather than prolonged legal argument.

The owner should therefore separate deficiencies into three categories:

those that can be corrected immediately,

those requiring substantial repairs,

and those that the owner believes were incorrectly identified or do not justify detention.

Legal objections can then focus on genuinely disputed issues while technical teams address legitimate deficiencies.

Request Follow-Up Inspection Quickly

Once detention deficiencies have been corrected, the owner should seek the required follow-up inspection without unnecessary delay.

Repairs should be documented.

Depending on the issue, evidence can include photographs, service reports, test records, class documents, certificates, invoices and crew records.

The objective is to make verification straightforward for the PSC officer.

Can the Vessel Leave Before Every Deficiency Is Corrected?

In certain circumstances, potentially.

Turkey’s current PSC regulation recognizes situations where deficiencies cannot be corrected at the inspection port.

The PSC officer may allow the vessel to proceed to an appropriate nearby port or repair yard under specified conditions. The current regulation also provides a follow-up framework where deficiencies cannot be corrected at the detention port and the vessel may be permitted to proceed to the nearest repair yard selected by the master and approved by the port authority, subject to relevant conditions accepted by the PSC officer. (LEXPERA)

This is not an automatic right.

The shipowner must establish that the proposed voyage can occur under acceptable safety conditions.

Repair Yard Permission

Suppose a vessel is detained in Turkey because a defect requires dry-docking and cannot realistically be repaired at the commercial berth.

The owner should immediately identify the nearest suitable repair facility.

The proposed repair plan should be coordinated with the flag administration, classification society and Turkish maritime authorities as appropriate.

A technically credible repair plan is much stronger than simply requesting permission to sail.

Never Sail Without Authorization

A detained vessel should never simply leave the Turkish port because the owner believes the detention is unjustified.

This can make the regulatory situation significantly worse.

Under the current Turkish PSC regulation, a vessel that leaves despite a detention decision without authorization, or fails to proceed to the repair yard it declared it would attend, can face a six-month ban from Turkish ports. (LEXPERA)

The owner should therefore challenge the detention through legal and administrative channels rather than attempting self-help.

Can the Shipowner Appeal a Detention Decision?

Yes.

Under Article 20 of Turkey’s current Port State Control Implementation Regulation, the shipowner, operator or flag State has the right to challenge a detention decision. (LEXPERA)

This is an important remedy where the owner believes that:

the deficiency did not exist,

the deficiency was incorrectly classified,

the relevant international requirement was misapplied,

the deficiency did not justify detention,

or detention continued after the relevant deficiencies had been corrected.

The Ship’s Agent Cannot File the Formal Objection

This is a particularly important change for foreign shipowners to understand.

Under the current regulation, an objection made by the ship’s agent is not taken into consideration. The formal right belongs to the owner, operator or flag State. (LEXPERA)

Foreign owners should therefore avoid assuming that their Turkish port agent can independently handle the legal challenge.

The agent remains operationally important, but the objection should be structured through an authorized party.

One-Month Deadline for Objection

The current Turkish regulation establishes a clear deadline.

The objection must be submitted to the Administration within one month from the date of detention. (LEXPERA)

This deadline should be calendared immediately.

However, foreign shipowners should normally not wait anywhere near one month where the vessel remains physically detained.

Every day can create substantial commercial losses.

Does Filing an Objection Release the Ship?

No.

This is one of the most important points in the Turkish detention procedure.

An objection against the detention decision does not suspend the detention. (LEXPERA)

Therefore, filing an appeal alone is not an emergency release strategy.

The owner should normally pursue parallel tracks:

technical rectification and release efforts on one side, and administrative/legal challenge on the other.

What Should a Detention Objection Contain?

The objection should be evidence-based.

It may address the vessel’s technical condition, inspection findings, relevant convention requirements, class documentation, flag-State position, corrective measures and reasons the detention ground was allegedly incorrect or disproportionate.

Where appropriate, expert technical material should support the legal argument.

Maritime detention disputes are rarely won through abstract legal submissions alone.

Wrong Convention Provision Applied

Sometimes the dispute concerns the legal basis rather than the physical condition of the ship.

The owner may argue that the PSC officer applied an incorrect convention provision or interpreted a technical requirement incorrectly.

In that situation, the legal submission should identify the precise international rule and explain why it does not support detention in the circumstances.

Flag-State and class input can be particularly valuable.

Deficiency Corrected but Ship Still Detained

A different dispute arises where the owner accepts the original deficiency but argues that it has now been fully corrected.

The evidence should establish exactly when correction occurred and when authorities were notified.

Service reports, test results, photographs and class confirmation should be preserved.

This chronology can later become important if the owner alleges unnecessary delay in release.

Unnecessary Detention or Delay

Turkey’s current regulation expressly addresses unnecessary detention or delay.

Where a ship is unnecessarily detained or delayed, the owner or operator may pursue judicial remedies. However, the burden of proving unnecessary detention or delay lies with the shipowner or operator. (LEXPERA)

This makes contemporaneous evidence essential.

The owner should document every inspection, repair, notification, follow-up request and authority response.

Can the Shipowner Claim Compensation?

Potentially, depending on the circumstances and applicable legal basis.

Where an owner alleges that detention or continued delay was unlawful or unnecessary, a compensation claim may need to establish both the wrongful conduct and resulting losses.

The current Turkish PSC regulation expressly recognizes access to judicial proceedings for unnecessary detention or delay while placing the burden of proof on the owner or operator. (LEXPERA)

A damages claim should therefore be prepared from the first day rather than reconstructed months later.

What Losses Can a Detention Cause?

A commercial vessel can generate substantial losses while immobilized.

Potential financial consequences may involve lost hire, lost freight, port costs, additional bunkers, crew expenses, tug expenses, survey costs, repair costs, storage or cargo expenses and lost future fixtures.

Whether any particular loss is legally recoverable requires separate causation and damages analysis.

The owner should nevertheless preserve evidence of every detention-related cost.

Charterparty Consequences

PSC detention can create disputes between owners and charterers.

A time charterer may claim that the vessel became off-hire.

A voyage charterer may raise delay or performance issues.

Cargo interests may allege losses caused by late delivery.

The shipowner should therefore review charterparty obligations immediately after detention.

The regulatory detention and private contractual consequences should be handled simultaneously.

Notify P&I Insurers

The owner should notify relevant P&I interests promptly where detention may generate third-party claims or covered legal expenses.

Late notification can create unnecessary insurance disputes.

The notice should identify the detention, deficiencies, cargo implications, charterparty exposure and anticipated legal proceedings.

Hull and machinery insurers may also need to be informed where the underlying deficiency involves insured machinery or physical damage.

Cargo on Board

A detained vessel may have valuable or perishable cargo onboard.

The owner should immediately assess whether detention threatens cargo condition or contractual delivery deadlines.

Reefer cargo, livestock, dangerous goods and time-sensitive commodities may require particularly urgent planning.

Decisions concerning discharge, transshipment or storage should be coordinated with cargo interests and insurers where appropriate.

Environmental Deficiencies

Detentions involving MARPOL or pollution-prevention issues can be especially serious.

A technical deficiency may develop into an administrative or criminal investigation if authorities suspect an actual pollution incident, unlawful discharge or falsified records.

The owner should therefore determine whether the case remains a pure PSC matter or whether separate environmental enforcement proceedings have begun.

Oil Record Book and Documentation Issues

Documentation deficiencies can create substantial risk.

Authorities may examine oil record books, garbage records, bunker documentation and other statutory records.

If there is concern that records are inaccurate or falsified, the owner should preserve originals and obtain immediate legal advice.

Crew members should not alter historical records after an investigation begins.

ISM Deficiencies

A detention may identify problems suggesting failure of the Safety Management System.

This can have consequences beyond a single technical repair.

The owner may need to involve the Designated Person Ashore, classification society and safety-management personnel.

Corrective action should demonstrate that the underlying management problem has been addressed rather than merely repairing one defective component.

ISPS Security Issues

International ship-security rules also allow control measures where serious security deficiencies exist.

The ISPS framework recognizes measures including inspection, delay, detention, operational restrictions and, in appropriate circumstances, expulsion from port. (Denizcilik Genel Müdürlüğü)

Security-related detention should therefore be treated as a specialized issue requiring coordination with the relevant ship and company security personnel.

Crew and STCW Deficiencies

Crew certification, safe manning and watchkeeping deficiencies can also lead to serious PSC findings.

The owner should verify original certificates, endorsements, safe-manning documentation and crew records.

If replacement crew members are required, immigration, travel and port-access arrangements should begin immediately.

MLC Complaints

Crew working and living conditions may also trigger PSC action.

Unpaid wages, repatriation issues, accommodation deficiencies and other Maritime Labour Convention concerns can require urgent remediation.

Where detention results from crew-related deficiencies, resolving the underlying employment or welfare problem may be necessary before release.

Classification Problems

A vessel with class or statutory certificate problems can face significant difficulties obtaining release.

The owner should determine whether certificates remain valid, whether surveys are overdue and whether identified defects affect class status.

If class attendance is required, arrangements should be made immediately.

Ship Arrest Is Different From PSC Detention

Foreign owners must distinguish administrative detention from judicial ship arrest.

PSC detention is imposed by maritime authorities for regulatory and safety reasons.

Ship arrest is a judicial measure connected with maritime claims and security.

The 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships defines arrest as detention or restriction on removal of a ship by court order to secure a maritime claim. ( Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi)

A vessel can potentially face both types of restriction at different times.

The remedy depends on which legal mechanism is preventing departure.

How Do I Know Whether It Is Detention or Arrest?

Ask for the written legal basis.

If the vessel cannot sail because of a PSC inspection report and maritime authority decision, the case is primarily regulatory.

If a Turkish court has ordered arrest because of a bunker claim, collision claim, crew wages or another maritime claim, judicial arrest procedures apply.

Using the wrong remedy can waste critical time.

Detention Plus Criminal Investigation

Some maritime incidents can produce several parallel proceedings.

For example, a collision or pollution incident may lead to:

PSC detention,

administrative penalties,

a prosecutor’s investigation,

and private damages claims.

Obtaining release from PSC detention does not necessarily terminate the other proceedings.

Each legal restriction must be identified separately.

Port State Control History Matters

A detention can affect future regulatory scrutiny.

Repeated detentions and serious compliance problems may contribute to increasingly severe consequences.

Turkey’s current framework also includes measures concerning refusal of access and entry bans in specified circumstances. (LEXPERA)

Owners should therefore consider whether challenging an incorrect detention is important not only for the current voyage but also for the vessel’s future inspection record.

Blacklisted and Poor-Performing Flags

Flag performance can affect regulatory scrutiny.

Foreign owners operating vessels under flags with poor detention records should anticipate greater PSC attention and ensure that certificates, equipment and safety-management documentation are fully prepared before entering Turkish waters.

Pre-arrival compliance reviews can significantly reduce risk.

Pre-Arrival Notifications

Turkish port regulations require international-voyage vessels to make prescribed notifications before entering port. The general rule requires notification at least 24 hours before arrival, with separate treatment where the voyage duration is less than 24 hours. Notifications are made electronically through the relevant system, although the port authority may request physical documents where necessary. (LEXPERA)

Operational compliance before arrival can help avoid unnecessary regulatory problems.

Practical Example: Bulk Carrier Detained in Turkey

Assume a foreign-owned bulk carrier calls at a Turkish port.

During PSC inspection, authorities identify deficiencies involving fire dampers, emergency equipment and safety-management implementation.

The vessel receives a detention decision.

The owner should immediately obtain the complete inspection report and determine which findings constitute detention grounds.

Class and the flag administration should be contacted.

Technical teams should begin corrective work immediately.

Evidence of repairs should be assembled as each deficiency is closed.

Once corrections are completed, a follow-up inspection should be requested without delay.

If the owner believes one of the principal detention grounds was incorrectly imposed, an administrative objection can be prepared simultaneously.

Under the current Turkish regulation, that objection must be made within one month, but it does not suspend detention. (LEXPERA)

If the owner later alleges that the vessel remained detained unnecessarily after every relevant deficiency had been corrected, the exact chronology of correction and release requests will become critical evidence.

Practical Example: Repair Cannot Be Completed at the Port

Assume a vessel requires specialized repairs that cannot safely or practically be completed at the detention port.

The owner identifies a suitable nearby shipyard.

Under the current PSC framework, movement to an appropriate repair location may potentially be permitted under specified conditions involving the relevant authorities, flag State and PSC officer. (LEXPERA)

The owner should therefore submit a structured repair-yard proposal rather than simply requesting permission to sail.

Emergency Action Plan for a Foreign Shipowner

During the first hours following detention, the owner should obtain the written detention decision and inspection report, identify every detention ground, notify flag and class, appoint local maritime counsel where legal challenge is contemplated and begin technical correction immediately.

The owner should simultaneously notify P&I interests, review charterparty consequences and preserve evidence of financial losses.

If deficiencies cannot be repaired at the detention port, an approved repair-yard solution should be explored.

Where the detention itself is disputed, the owner, operator or flag State should prepare the objection rather than relying on the ship’s agent. The current deadline is one month from detention, and the objection does not suspend the detention. (LEXPERA)

Most importantly, the owner should never allow the legal challenge to delay technically straightforward repairs that could secure earlier release.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Turkey detain a foreign-flagged ship?

Yes. Foreign ships calling at Turkish ports can be inspected under Port State Control procedures, and serious deficiencies can result in detention.

Who can challenge a PSC detention in Turkey?

Under the current regulation, the shipowner, operator or flag State may object. An application made by the ship’s agent is not considered for this purpose. (LEXPERA)

How long do I have to challenge the detention?

The current regulation provides one month from the date of detention for the objection. (Legalbank)

Does an appeal automatically release the ship?

No. Filing the objection does not suspend the detention. (LEXPERA)

Can the vessel sail to another shipyard for repairs?

Potentially, where deficiencies cannot be corrected at the detention port and the conditions established under the applicable PSC framework are satisfied. (LEXPERA)

What happens if a detained vessel leaves without permission?

The current regulation provides for a six-month Turkish port entry ban in specified circumstances where a detained ship leaves without authorization or fails to proceed to the declared repair yard. (LEXPERA)

Can the owner sue for wrongful detention?

Potentially. The current regulation provides that the owner or operator may pursue judicial remedies for unnecessary detention or delay, but the burden of proof lies with the owner or operator. (Legalbank)

Should the classification society be contacted?

Usually immediately where class or statutory certification issues are involved. Turkish authorities also notify the relevant recognized organization in applicable detention cases. (Legalbank)

Is ship detention the same as ship arrest?

No. PSC detention is an administrative safety or compliance measure. Ship arrest is a judicial measure used to secure a maritime claim. ( Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi)

Should a shipowner appoint a Turkish maritime lawyer immediately?

Where the detention is disputed, significant commercial losses are accumulating, additional administrative or criminal proceedings exist, or an urgent legal remedy is required, early local maritime-law assistance can be important.

Emergency Maritime Legal Support for Foreign Shipowners in Turkey

A vessel detained in Turkey creates a technical, regulatory and commercial emergency.

The most effective response is usually not to choose between repairing the ship and challenging the decision. Both tracks can proceed simultaneously.

Technical teams should address legitimate deficiencies as quickly as possible, while the legal team examines whether the detention grounds were correctly imposed, whether release is being unnecessarily delayed and whether an administrative or judicial remedy should be pursued.

Under Turkey’s current Port State Control framework, the owner, operator or flag State may challenge a detention decision within one month, but the objection does not suspend detention and an application by the ship’s agent is not considered. The framework also permits judicial recourse where a ship is allegedly detained or delayed unnecessarily, with the burden of proof resting on the owner or operator. (LEXPERA)

For foreign shipowners, documentation is therefore critical from the first hour. Inspection reports, repair records, class communications, flag-State correspondence, follow-up inspection requests, port communications, charterparty notices and evidence of financial losses should all be preserved.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shipowners, operators, managers, charterers and P&I interests with ship detention in Turkey, Port State Control disputes, PSC detention appeals, vessel release procedures, port entry bans, maritime administrative penalties, ship arrest, pollution investigations, maritime claims and emergency shipping litigation in Turkey.

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