Can a foreign creditor arrest a vessel in Turkey for unpaid invoices? Learn which invoices qualify as maritime claims, the 10,000 SDR security rule, evidence requirements, sister-ship arrest, release security and enforcement strategy in 2026.

A foreign supplier, shipyard, bunker provider, port service company, maritime agent or other creditor holding an unpaid invoice connected with a vessel calling at a Turkish port may potentially secure its claim by obtaining a precautionary arrest of the vessel in Turkey. However, an unpaid invoice does not automatically create a right to arrest a ship. Under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, vessel arrest is a special protective remedy available for claims qualifying as maritime claims. The creditor must therefore establish not only that money is outstanding but also that the receivable falls within the statutory maritime-claim categories and that the particular vessel can legally be arrested for that debt. For foreign creditors, timing is especially important because a ship may remain in a Turkish port for only a short period. Once the vessel sails, an otherwise strong invoice claim may become significantly more difficult to secure. The practical strategy in 2026 is therefore to examine the invoice, underlying maritime transaction, identity of the debtor, ownership of the vessel, location and sailing schedule of the ship, evidence supporting the receivable and the security necessary for an arrest application before the opportunity disappears. Current 2026 shipping guidance confirms that Turkish courts require prima facie evidence both that the claim falls within Article 1352 and of the amount claimed. (Global Practice Guides)

Can Every Unpaid Invoice Be Used to Arrest a Vessel in Turkey?

No. This is the most important distinction for foreign creditors.

The existence of an unpaid invoice against a shipping company does not automatically allow the creditor to arrest one of its vessels. The underlying debt must constitute a maritime claim recognized by the Turkish Commercial Code.

The court therefore looks beyond the word “invoice.” It considers why the invoice was issued.

An unpaid invoice for bunkers supplied to a vessel may qualify. An unpaid ship repair invoice may qualify. Certain port, towage, pilotage, cargo, charterparty or ship operation claims may also fall within the statutory maritime-claim framework.

By contrast, an ordinary commercial debt unrelated to a maritime claim cannot simply be converted into a ship arrest because the debtor happens to own a vessel. Current guidance specifically notes that the special vessel-arrest regime is limited to maritime claims; creditors with non-maritime claims must consider other assets and general enforcement remedies instead. (Global Practice Guides)

Why Is Article 1352 Important?

Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code identifies the categories treated as maritime claims for ship-arrest purposes.

This classification is central to the application.

The creditor should therefore avoid filing an emergency petition that merely states:

“The defendant owes USD 400,000 under unpaid invoices.”

Instead, the application should explain the underlying maritime transaction, how the debt arose, why it falls within the statutory maritime-claim framework and how the amount is calculated.

A correctly classified claim can make the difference between obtaining emergency security while the vessel is still in Turkey and watching the vessel sail without protection.

Which Unpaid Invoices Can Potentially Support Vessel Arrest?

Many common shipping invoices may potentially arise from maritime claims, depending on the precise facts. These can include claims connected with bunkers and other goods supplied for vessel operation, ship construction and repair, port and harbour services, towage, pilotage, cargo operations, charterparty obligations, carriage of goods or passengers, salvage and certain agency-related services.

The statutory classification must nevertheless be checked for every individual claim.

A creditor should never assume that describing an invoice as “maritime” is sufficient.

Unpaid Bunker Invoices

Bunker claims are among the most commercially important examples.

Current 2026 shipping guidance confirms that a bunker supply claim can fall within Article 1352. However, this does not mean that every physical supplier of bunkers can automatically arrest the vessel that received the fuel. The identity of the contractual debtor and the shipowner’s liability must be examined separately. (Global Practice Guides)

This distinction becomes critical in chartered vessels.

What If the Charterer Ordered the Bunkers?

Suppose a vessel is owned by Company A but time-chartered to Company B. Company B orders USD 350,000 of bunkers from a foreign supplier and fails to pay.

The fact that the fuel was physically delivered to Company A’s vessel does not automatically establish that Company A owes the invoice.

The creditor must determine who entered the bunker contract and whether the statutory conditions permit arrest of the particular vessel.

Turkish case law has previously rejected a bunker-related arrest where the evidence demonstrated that purchases were made on behalf of the operator and failed to establish liability of the owner. (cmlcmidatabase.org)

For foreign bunker suppliers, this means contracting structure matters as much as physical delivery.

Master’s Signature Does Not Automatically Solve Every Liability Issue

Delivery receipts, bunker delivery notes and documents signed onboard are important evidence, but the creditor should still establish the legal basis on which the shipowner is said to owe the money.

The complete transaction should be examined:

Who requested the supply? Who received the quotation? Who accepted the terms? Who was invoiced? Who previously made payments? Who was operating the vessel? What authority did the relevant person have?

These questions can become decisive in a contested arrest.

Ship Repair and Shipyard Invoices

A foreign or Turkish shipyard may also have substantial unpaid invoices after completing repair, maintenance, conversion or technical works.

The creditor should preserve the repair agreement, quotation, work orders, variation orders, technical reports, completion records, correspondence, invoices and payment history.

Disputes frequently arise over additional works.

For example, the original repair contract may be USD 500,000, but another USD 250,000 may have been invoiced for variations. The owner may accept the original balance but dispute the additional works.

The arrest application should distinguish undisputed and disputed components clearly.

Port Service Invoices

Claims relating to qualifying port services can also create maritime-arrest issues.

The creditor should establish what services were actually provided, which vessel received them, who ordered them, the agreed tariff or contractual price and whether payment became due.

Invoices should be supported by operational records wherever possible.

Towage Claims

Unpaid towage invoices may also fall within the maritime-claim framework.

The creditor should retain the towage agreement, operational instructions, service records and invoices.

Where the circumstances involved emergency assistance rather than ordinary contractual towage, the legal classification may require closer analysis.

Charterparty Claims

Maritime claims are not limited to suppliers.

Owners, charterers and other contractual parties may have monetary claims arising from charterparty relationships. Depending on the circumstances, unpaid hire, contractual losses and other claims may require consideration under the statutory maritime-arrest categories.

The underlying charterparty should be reviewed together with any arbitration clause before an arrest strategy is implemented.

Does an Arbitration Clause Prevent Ship Arrest in Turkey?

Not necessarily.

An international maritime contract may require the merits of the dispute to be determined through arbitration outside Turkey while a vessel located in Turkey presents an immediate opportunity for security.

The creditor should therefore distinguish between where the underlying dispute will ultimately be decided and where interim security can legally be obtained.

This is especially important in international shipping because waiting for an arbitral award may allow the vessel to leave long before security is available.

Foreign Court Jurisdiction Clause

The same strategic distinction can arise where the underlying agreement selects a foreign court.

The creditor should examine the jurisdiction clause carefully while separately assessing whether Turkish maritime law allows security against a vessel currently within Turkish jurisdiction.

Where Can a Foreign Vessel Be Arrested?

For a foreign-flagged vessel, jurisdiction is closely connected with the vessel’s physical location in Turkey. The competent court must therefore be identified quickly according to the statutory rules and the vessel’s actual position. Academic analysis of the Turkish regime notes the importance of the vessel being anchored, moored, berthed or otherwise within the relevant territorial jurisdiction for arrest of foreign-flagged ships. (DergiPark)

This is why accurate vessel information is essential.

A creditor should know where the vessel is now, not where it was yesterday.

Timing Is Everything in Ship Arrest

Commercial debt litigation usually allows time to prepare.

Ship arrest often does not.

A foreign vessel may arrive in Turkey in the morning, complete cargo operations and depart the next day.

The creditor should therefore begin preparation before arrival whenever possible.

Waiting until the vessel is ready to sail can create unnecessary risk.

Monitor the Vessel’s Turkish Call

The creditor should determine the expected Turkish port, estimated arrival, berth, expected cargo operations and anticipated departure.

Legal documentation and security arrangements should be prepared in parallel.

The objective is to be capable of filing when the vessel is physically within the relevant jurisdiction.

What Must the Creditor Prove?

The creditor does not normally conduct the entire merits trial during the arrest application. Current Turkish shipping guidance describes the applicable evidentiary approach as prima facie: the claimant must demonstrate that the asserted receivable qualifies as a maritime claim and establish the amount claimed sufficiently for the arrest stage. (Global Practice Guides)

This does not mean that weak documentation is acceptable.

The creditor should present a coherent documentary chain demonstrating the transaction.

Evidence for an Unpaid Invoice Claim

Depending on the case, the creditor should prepare the underlying contract, quotation, purchase order, order confirmation, invoices, delivery documents, service reports, bunker delivery notes, shipyard completion records, correspondence, account reconciliation, payment demands, partial-payment records and written debt acknowledgments.

The court should be able to understand quickly:

What was supplied → To which vessel → Who ordered it → Who owes the money → How much remains unpaid → When payment became due → Why the claim qualifies as maritime.

Is the Original Invoice Required?

Current 2026 practice guidance indicates that original supporting documents are not necessarily required at the arrest application stage, although the supporting material must establish the claim sufficiently. Foreign-language documents must be prepared appropriately for use before the Turkish court. (Global Practice Guides)

For an emergency application, document preparation should therefore begin before the vessel arrives.

Foreign Company Documents

A foreign corporate creditor should also prepare the documentation necessary to establish representation and authority.

Current shipping practice guidance states that a power of attorney issued abroad should be notarized and apostilled for use in the Turkish arrest process, and foreign-language documents need appropriate Turkish translation for court use. (Global Practice Guides)

These formalities can consume valuable time.

A creditor expecting a vessel to arrive in Turkey should not wait until berthing to begin preparing them.

The 10,000 SDR Counter-Security Rule

One of the most important features of Turkish vessel arrest is creditor security.

Under Article 1363 of the Turkish Commercial Code, a creditor seeking ship arrest to secure a maritime claim must generally provide security of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR). (timdrayton.com)

The security requirement should be planned before filing.

An emergency arrest strategy can fail operationally if the creditor has the claim documents ready but cannot arrange the required security.

Can the 10,000 SDR Security Be Increased?

Yes. The opposing party can ask the court to increase the creditor’s security. When evaluating such a request, the court can consider the vessel’s daily operating expenses and lost earnings caused by the arrest. (timdrayton.com)

This protects shipowners against the economic consequences of potentially unjustified arrest.

For the creditor, it means that arrest should never be used casually as commercial pressure.

Can the Creditor Ask for the Security to Be Reduced?

The statutory framework also allows the creditor to request reduction of its security. (timdrayton.com)

Whether such a request is commercially worthwhile depends on the claim and urgency.

Certain Crew Claims Receive Special Treatment

The Turkish Commercial Code contains a security exemption for specified maritime lien claims involving crew wages and related entitlements. The general 10,000 SDR requirement should therefore not be assumed to apply identically to every maritime claimant. (timdrayton.com)

How Quickly Must the Arrest Order Be Executed?

This deadline is extremely important.

Article 1364 provides that the creditor must apply for execution of the arrest order within three working days from the date on which the order is granted. Otherwise, the arrest automatically ceases to have effect. (timdrayton.com)

Obtaining the order is therefore only half of the emergency process.

The creditor should already have an execution plan before the court decides.

Do Not Obtain an Arrest Order and Then Wait

The vessel may be completing cargo operations while lawyers are handling the court process.

The enforcement stage should therefore be coordinated in advance.

The practical sequence is:

Application → Arrest Order → Immediate Enforcement Application → Physical/Administrative Implementation → Vessel Prevented From Sailing.

Any unnecessary delay can defeat the entire strategy.

Must the Creditor Start the Main Proceedings?

Yes. Vessel arrest is security for the maritime claim; it is not a final judgment on liability.

The creditor must subsequently pursue the underlying claim through the appropriate proceedings within the applicable statutory framework.

Depending on the contract, this may mean Turkish litigation, foreign litigation or arbitration.

The arrest strategy should therefore be coordinated with the merits strategy from the beginning.

Can the Vessel Owner Obtain Release?

Yes. The owner may seek release by providing sufficient security or by successfully challenging the arrest.

Current 2026 shipping guidance explains that release security may be provided in forms accepted under the applicable process, while P&I Club letters of undertaking or foreign bank guarantees may also become workable where the parties agree. (Global Practice Guides)

For the creditor, obtaining adequate substitute security can often be commercially preferable to physically keeping the vessel arrested.

The Objective Is Security, Not Keeping the Vessel in Port

This principle is crucial.

A foreign creditor normally does not benefit from unnecessarily increasing port costs and operational losses after adequate security has been obtained.

If the vessel owner provides legally satisfactory security covering the claim, interest and appropriate costs, the creditor can continue pursuing the underlying dispute while the ship returns to commercial service.

The claim has effectively moved from a mobile physical asset to substitute security.

P&I Club Letter of Undertaking

In international maritime practice, a P&I Club letter of undertaking can sometimes provide an efficient commercial solution.

Its wording must nevertheless be reviewed carefully.

The creditor should consider the secured amount, governing terms, jurisdiction, payment trigger and scope of the undertaking.

A poorly drafted security document can create a second dispute after the first one has been won.

Can a Sister Ship Be Arrested?

Potentially, yes.

Article 1369 contains rules allowing arrest of another ship in specified circumstances connected with the person responsible for the maritime claim. Current 2026 guidance confirms that sister-ship arrest remains available under the Turkish Commercial Code subject to these statutory ownership and liability requirements. (Mevzuat MTurkoglu)

This can be extremely valuable where the vessel on which the claim arose is unlikely to call at Turkey but another qualifying vessel does.

Common Ownership Must Be Established Carefully

A foreign creditor should not assume that two vessels belong to the same owner merely because they share commercial branding, management, technical managers or fleet markings.

Legal ownership matters.

Shipping groups frequently use single-purpose vessel-owning companies.

Ship A may be owned by Company A and Ship B by Company B even though the same ultimate investor controls both companies.

That structure can materially affect sister-ship arrest.

Associated Companies Are Not Automatically the Same Debtor

Corporate-group relationships should therefore be mapped before filing.

The creditor should identify registered ownership at the relevant times, the person liable for the maritime claim and the statutory connection required for arrest.

A weak corporate assumption can undermine an otherwise strong invoice claim.

Sale of the Vessel Can Complicate Arrest

If ownership has changed since the maritime claim arose, the creditor should immediately examine whether the claim can still support arrest against the vessel in the hands of the new owner.

The answer depends on the nature of the claim and the statutory circumstances.

A maritime lien can create a significantly different position from an ordinary maritime claim.

Maritime Claim and Maritime Lien Are Not Identical

This distinction is extremely important.

A claim may qualify as a maritime claim for arrest purposes without constituting a maritime lien.

Maritime liens provide special proprietary consequences and priority in defined categories.

Foreign creditors should therefore avoid describing every maritime invoice as a “maritime lien.”

The legal classification can affect both arrest and priority against other creditors.

What If There Is a Ship Mortgage?

Existing ship mortgages can significantly affect the creditor’s practical recovery.

Arrest may secure the claim, but the creditor should still investigate priority.

A vessel worth USD 10 million may provide limited unsecured recovery if senior maritime liens and mortgages consume most of the realizable value.

The creditor should therefore evaluate the net enforcement value, not merely the market value of the vessel.

Multiple Creditors May Arrest the Same Vessel

A financially distressed owner can face bunker claims, crew claims, shipyard claims, mortgage claims and other maritime liabilities simultaneously.

A foreign invoice creditor should therefore investigate whether the vessel is already subject to other arrests or enforcement measures.

Being able to arrest does not necessarily mean the creditor will ultimately recover the entire claim.

What If the Shipowner Is Insolvent?

The creditor should immediately examine the wider financial position.

A vessel arrest may provide valuable security before insolvency becomes more serious, but ranking and competing rights can become decisive.

The creditor should identify mortgages, maritime liens, prior claims and any formal insolvency proceedings affecting the owner.

Wrongful Arrest Risk

Vessel arrest creates substantial economic consequences.

A ship prevented from sailing can incur port expenses, charter losses and operational costs every day.

The creditor should therefore avoid using arrest merely to intimidate a shipowner where the legal basis is doubtful.

The statutory counter-security mechanism reflects this risk, including the possibility that security may be increased with reference to operating expenses and lost profit caused by the arrest. (timdrayton.com)

Foreign Creditors Should Calculate the Claim Precisely

The arrest petition should distinguish principal, interest and other recoverable amounts.

Suppose the creditor issued five invoices totaling USD 900,000 and received USD 250,000 in partial payments.

The application should not simply request USD 900,000.

It should explain:

Total invoiced: USD 900,000 → Payments received: USD 250,000 → Outstanding principal: USD 650,000 → Plus legally recoverable interest and costs.

Accuracy improves credibility.

What If Only Some Invoices Qualify as Maritime Claims?

Separate them.

A foreign company may have several claims against the same shipping group. Some may qualify as maritime claims and others may be ordinary commercial debts.

The creditor should avoid attempting to inflate the ship arrest amount by combining unrelated claims.

The maritime component should be identified precisely.

What If the Debtor Disputes the Invoice?

A disputed invoice does not automatically make arrest impossible.

The arrest stage is not necessarily the final determination of every merits issue. The creditor must nevertheless provide sufficient preliminary evidence of the maritime claim and amount. (Global Practice Guides)

A written acknowledgment can be especially valuable.

For example:

“We confirm USD 420,000 remains outstanding for the repair works and propose payment in three installments.”

Such correspondence can substantially strengthen the evidentiary picture.

What If the Vessel Is Leaving Tonight?

The case becomes an emergency.

The creditor should immediately confirm the vessel’s location and departure status, organize the corporate authority documents, finalize translations, calculate the outstanding claim, arrange the required counter-security and prepare the arrest petition and execution strategy simultaneously.

A perfect claim filed after the vessel sails may provide no immediate vessel security in Turkey.

First 6 Hours of an Emergency Arrest Case

The creditor should identify the vessel, IMO number, flag, current location, registered owner and expected departure. The underlying invoices and transaction documents should be collected immediately. The legal team should determine whether the receivable qualifies as a maritime claim and whether the particular vessel satisfies the statutory arrest requirements.

At the same time, the 10,000 SDR security arrangement should be prepared.

First 12 Hours

Foreign corporate documents and the power of attorney should be checked, required translations should be organized, the claim amount should be finalized and ownership evidence should be verified.

If the claim arose against a charterer, operator or previous owner, the relationship between that debtor and the vessel requires particular attention.

First 24 Hours

The creditor should be in a position to file and, if the order is granted, proceed directly to implementation.

The court phase and enforcement phase should not be treated as two unrelated projects.

The objective is actual security before departure.

Evidence Checklist for Foreign Creditors

A strong arrest file may include the contract, purchase order, service order, invoices, bunker delivery notes, shipyard work records, port service records, correspondence, payment demands, account statements, partial-payment evidence, debt acknowledgments, vessel information, ownership evidence and documents establishing the maritime nature of the claim.

For chartered vessels, include evidence concerning who contracted for the relevant goods or services.

For sister-ship arrest, corporate and ownership evidence becomes particularly important.

Common Mistakes in Vessel Arrest Cases

Foreign creditors frequently assume every shipping invoice permits vessel arrest, fail to distinguish a maritime claim from a maritime lien, pursue a ship owned by someone who is not legally connected with the debt, rely solely on the invoice without proving the underlying transaction, overlook charterparty structures, fail to prepare foreign corporate documents in advance, underestimate the counter-security requirement or wait until the vessel is preparing to depart before beginning legal preparation.

Another serious mistake is obtaining an arrest order but failing to implement it within the required period. Article 1364’s three-working-day execution requirement makes immediate follow-through essential. (timdrayton.com)

2026 Vessel Arrest Strategy for Foreign Creditors in Turkey

A foreign creditor should begin by determining whether the unpaid invoice arises from a maritime claim recognized under Article 1352. The precise contractual debtor must then be identified. The creditor should establish whether the registered owner, demise charterer, time charterer, voyage charterer or another party incurred the debt and whether the statutory conditions permit arrest of the particular vessel. Vessel ownership, IMO number, flag, current Turkish location and departure schedule should be confirmed. The creditor should then calculate the exact outstanding principal, interest and other legally recoverable amounts and organize the underlying contract, invoice, delivery or service evidence and correspondence. Foreign corporate authority documents and translations should be prepared before the vessel arrives whenever possible. The creditor should arrange the 10,000 SDR counter-security required as the general rule under Article 1363 and file the arrest application before the vessel leaves the competent jurisdiction. (timdrayton.com) If the court grants arrest, execution should be requested immediately and in any event within the statutory three-working-day period. (timdrayton.com) The creditor should then pursue the underlying merits claim through the contractually and legally appropriate forum while evaluating substitute security offered by the owner. If the original vessel is unavailable, the requirements for sister-ship arrest may be examined. (Mevzuat MTurkoglu) The practical roadmap is therefore: identify the unpaid invoice → classify the underlying maritime claim → identify the contractual debtor → confirm vessel ownership → analyze charter arrangements → confirm the vessel’s Turkish location → calculate the outstanding amount → collect prima facie evidence → prepare foreign corporate documents → arrange counter-security → file the arrest application → obtain the arrest order → execute it immediately → secure the vessel → negotiate adequate substitute security → release against satisfactory security where appropriate → pursue litigation or arbitration on the merits → enforce the resulting judgment, award or security until actual payment is recovered.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreign company arrest a ship in Turkey for an unpaid invoice?

Potentially, yes, but the invoice must arise from a maritime claim recognized by Turkish maritime law and the statutory requirements for arresting the particular vessel must be satisfied.

2. Can any commercial invoice against a shipowner support vessel arrest?

No. Vessel arrest under the special Turkish maritime regime is limited to maritime claims. An ordinary commercial debt unrelated to a maritime claim does not become arrestable merely because the debtor owns a ship. (Global Practice Guides)

3. Can a bunker supplier arrest a vessel?

A bunker supply claim can qualify as a maritime claim, but the supplier must still examine who incurred the debt and whether the particular vessel can legally be arrested. A charterer’s bunker debt does not automatically establish personal liability of the registered owner. (Global Practice Guides)

4. Does the creditor need a final judgment before arresting the vessel?

No. Ship arrest is a provisional security mechanism. The creditor must establish the maritime claim and amount to the preliminary evidentiary level required for the arrest application and subsequently pursue the merits through the appropriate proceedings.

5. How much counter-security must the creditor provide?

As a general rule, Article 1363 requires 10,000 SDR. The statutory framework allows applications concerning adjustment of security in specified circumstances. (timdrayton.com)

6. Can a foreign creditor arrest a sister ship?

Potentially, yes. Article 1369 permits sister-ship arrest under specified ownership and liability conditions. Common management or branding alone is not sufficient. (Mevzuat MTurkoglu)

7. Can the owner release the vessel by providing security?

Yes. Appropriate substitute security can allow release while the underlying claim continues to be litigated or arbitrated. The adequacy and form of security must be evaluated carefully.

8. Can a P&I Club letter of undertaking secure release?

Potentially. Current practice guidance indicates that a P&I Club letter of undertaking or foreign bank guarantee can be used where the relevant parties agree to accept that form of security. (Global Practice Guides)

9. How quickly must an arrest order be executed?

The creditor must apply for execution within three working days from the date of the arrest order. Otherwise, the arrest automatically falls away. (timdrayton.com)

10. What is the most important issue for a foreign creditor considering vessel arrest in Turkey?

Speed must be combined with correct legal classification. The creditor should establish that the invoice represents a qualifying maritime claim, identify the correct debtor and vessel, prepare evidence and counter-security, and act while the ship is still physically within the relevant Turkish jurisdiction.

Legal Support for Foreign Creditors Seeking Vessel Arrest in Turkey

Foreign bunker suppliers, shipyards, maritime service providers, cargo interests and international businesses facing unpaid maritime invoices may require urgent assistance with vessel arrest, maritime claims, unpaid bunker invoices, ship repair debts, port service claims, sister-ship arrest, maritime security, enforcement proceedings and vessel release negotiations in Turkey.

Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign creditors seeking to secure maritime receivables against vessels calling at Turkish ports. Firat Fesih Kaya can assist with assessing whether an unpaid invoice qualifies as a maritime claim, identifying the correct vessel and debtor, preparing an emergency arrest application, coordinating counter-security and enforcement, negotiating substitute security and pursuing the underlying commercial claim.

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