Protecting evidence in ship casualties requires that electronic records, physical findings and witness accounts be secured in time, so that the way the casualty occurred can be reconstructed afterwards. An AIS display, a VDR recording or an expert appraisal report does not by itself provide a conclusive determination of fault. For the shipowner, the insurer and the foreign law firm, the right starting point is to prevent the loss of records, to document the conditions under which they were obtained and, where necessary, to request the preservation of evidence from a Turkish court.
Which Evidence Should Be Protected First After a Ship Casualty?
Priority is set not by how easily a piece of evidence can be obtained but by the risk that it will be lost or altered. Electronic records that are overwritten automatically, fracture surfaces that may disappear with repair, a changed cargo stowage and witnesses who will leave the port all create the same time pressure. While life safety, protection of the environment and the necessary emergency response continue, having one person coordinate the protection of records reduces the risk of different teams acting without knowing of one another.
The first list of records should not include only the ship’s bridge systems. The other ship, the tug, the pilotage organization, the terminal, the vessel traffic services and the technical service provider may each hold independent information. Which organization holds which data should be determined, and the access authority and retention conditions should be asked about. A preservation request sent to the addressee is useful; however, it is not a court order in itself and does not give authority to take delivery of a third party’s records by force.
| Record or finding | Subject it may clarify | Point to watch during protection |
|---|---|---|
| AIS, radar and ECDIS data | Position, route, speed and the pattern of the encounter | Raw data, clock source and display method should be kept together |
| VDR and bridge audio | Commands, alarms and the time relationship of navigation data | Device standard, recording capacity and the authorized export method should be determined |
| Ship and engine logbooks | Shifts, malfunctions, maneuvers and interventions | The original entry should be protected; later explanations should be dated separately |
| Damaged part and cargo | Point of contact, fracture, water ingress and extent of damage | Scaled photographs before repair, location information and a custody record should be kept |
| VTS, terminal and tug records | Verification of the event independently of the ship | The authorized application and the possible time of deletion should be tracked |
A photograph that is only a close-up may leave the position of the damage on the ship unclear. General, medium-distance and detail photographs should be taken together, and it should be recorded which side of the hull, compartment or part the image belongs to. If repair is unavoidable, the reason for the intervention, the previous condition, the removed part and the final condition must be traceable in the same file. Protecting evidence must not be turned into a reason for delaying necessary safety measures.
Do AIS Records Conclusively Show Fault?
AIS is a strong aid in evaluating the identity and movement information of ships. However, a ship-tracking screen on the internet does not mean a complete raw record taken from all of the ship’s systems at the time of the event. Reception intervals, coverage gaps, the way the platform aggregates data and manually entered information may affect the result. The guidelines in IMO Resolution A.1106(29) likewise point to evaluating AIS information together with other navigation aids and to the limits of data quality.
A route line shown on a screen may not indicate that all positions in between were measured directly. Actual messages must be separated from the connections that the display software draws between points. The heading of the ship and its direction of movement over the ground are also not the same concept; current, wind or low speed may make them differ. An assessment of fault cannot be made relying only on the intersection of lines.
When a record is taken, the name of the platform, the data interval, the time zone, the ship’s IMO and MMSI details, the format of the downloaded file and, if any, the data provider’s explanation should be preserved. An AIS interruption does not by itself prove that the master knowingly switched the system off. Device and antenna malfunction, receiver coverage, gaps in the data service and the records kept on board should be investigated. If there is an allegation of switching off or of altering data, its technical basis must be shown separately.
Why Should VDR Records Be Secured Without Delay?
A VDR is a system that records certain navigation data and sounds in a time relationship. What it records and for how long it keeps the record is determined by the installation date, the performance standard to which it is subject, its connections and the actual condition of the device. The assumption that every commercial ship has the same device and the same recording period is not correct. Simplified S-VDR systems must also be evaluated separately.
Recording Capacity and the Legal Retention Period Are Different
Paragraph 5.4.3 of the IMO MSC.333(90) standard provides, for VDRs within the scope of the standard, a capacity of at least 30 days on the long-term recording medium and at least 48 hours on the fixed and float-free recording media. The MSC.494(104) amendment must also be taken into account according to the installation date. These periods are neither a general deadline for filing an action applicable to all devices nor a safe period that can be waited out to protect the record. Because old data may be overwritten during cyclic recording, there is an immediate need for protection.
The master, the operator and the authorized technical personnel should determine the device’s protection and export procedure. Random power cut-off, restart or file conversion operations may affect both the operation of the ship and the evidence. Together with the exported record, the software needed to open the file, the version information, the channel list and the device configuration should also be protected. A record that cannot be opened, or that has been converted only into a screen video, needlessly limits any later examination.
All Records Should Be Read Against the Same Clock
VDR, AIS, terminal cameras and the machinery system may use different clock sources. In the examination, it is first determined whether the records are kept in UTC or local time, together with the clock deviation and the corrections made during the event. Clocks are not silently changed afterwards; the original value and the corrected value used in the analysis are shown in separate columns. Even a deviation of a few minutes can have an important consequence on whether a command was given before or after contact.
How Is the Integrity of Electronic and Physical Evidence Documented?
Electronic data may be evaluated within the concept of a document in Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). However, the submission of a file to the court does not by itself resolve questions about the source and reliability of the file. It must be possible to explain who took the record, from which device, when, with what authority and by which method. Creating separate working copies for examination while the original data is protected makes this distinction easier.
Recording the cryptographic hash of the original file, for example its SHA-256 value, serves to compare whether later copies contain the same byte sequence. Such a value does not prove that the event actually took place as described in the file or that the first record was never erroneous. A technical integrity check and the factual accuracy of the content must not be confused with one another. Recording the copying and handover operations creates the context that gives the hash value meaning.
A workable custody schedule contains the following information:
- The unique record number, description and source of the evidence.
- The time range covered by the record, the time zone and the known clock deviation.
- The name, position, authority and time of the transaction of the person who receives and the person who hands over.
- The location of the original file, the working copies, the file format and the integrity value.
- For physical parts, the packaging, seal, place of safekeeping and every change of location.
In witness interviews, what the person saw personally, what the person later learned from others and the comments the person made should be kept apart. Having the same text signed by all personnel may make different points of observation invisible. The language of the interview, the identity of the interpreter and the date of the statement should be recorded. It should also be borne in mind that, under HMK Article 189/2, evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be taken into consideration; the collection of records must not turn into unauthorized system access or unlimited sharing of personal data.
How Is Preservation of Evidence Requested from a Court in Türkiye?
Preservation of evidence under HMK Article 400 and the following articles can secure evidence that may be lost in the future or whose collection may become significantly more difficult. The application does not aim at deciding the whole dispute in advance. It must be made concrete which fact is to be determined, by which evidence and why without delay. That the ship is about to leave the port, that repair is about to begin or that there is a risk of the record being overwritten matters in the assessment of legal interest.
A Special Rule on Subject-Matter and Territorial Jurisdiction Applies to Collisions
For pre-action preservation of evidence in a collision, Article 1292 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) designates as competent the commercial court of first instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) responsible for maritime commerce matters at the place where the collision occurred; if there is no such court, it designates the other courts in the order specified in the article. It therefore cannot be said that in every case an application is made only to the court at the port where the ship happens to be at that moment. For preservation of evidence other than in a collision, the general provision of HMK Article 401 applies, and once an action has been filed, the jurisdiction of the court hearing the action is assessed separately.
The masters or representatives of the ships involved in the collision are notified that the determination will be made. The important limit in TTK Article 1292 is that the fault proportions of the ships are not stated in the pre-action determination report. Recording the traces of physical contact, the device data and the damage is not the same operation as determining the final fault percentage. The questions to the expert in the request for determination must also respect this distinction.
HMK Article 403 allows a determination to be made without prior notification to the other party in urgent cases where the protection of rights so requires; it then provides for the notification of the documents and the possibility of objection. However, the notification provision specific to collisions and the general provision on urgent determination must be evaluated together in the concrete application. Instead of building the grounds on the statement “the ship will move,” the departure information and the risk of the evidence being lost should be documented.
How Do the Expert, the Private Surveyor and the Maritime Report Differ?
A surveyor appointed by the insurer, an expert opinion obtained by a party and an expert appointed by the court do not have the same status. HMK Article 266 regulates expert examination on matters requiring technical or special knowledge, and Article 293 regulates the obtaining of an expert opinion by the parties. Under HMK Article 282, the court weighs the expert’s evaluation together with the other evidence. The report of an insurance appraiser may be important; however, it is not a determination of fault that by itself binds the other side and the court.
A good technical report does not merely state a conclusion. It sets out the records used, the missing channels, the clock corrections, the calculation assumptions and the alternative explanations. For example, if it is uncertain to which ship a radar target belongs, this uncertainty should be reflected in the report. Showing an assumption not confirmed by evidence as a definite route on a graphic may increase the persuasive force of the image while reducing its reliability.
The maritime report under TTK Article 1098 and the following articles is likewise a separate procedure as regards the occurrence of the casualty and the facts relating to navigation. That a maritime report has been obtained does not mean that all records have been protected or that liability for compensation has been established. The purposes of an official casualty investigation, a criminal investigation, an insurance examination and a civil action, and the conditions of access to evidence in each, should be addressed separately.
How Should a File with a Foreign Shipowner and Insurer Be Coordinated?
The set of documents that a foreign law firm needs and the file to be submitted to a Turkish court may not take the same form. A joint incident timeline and a document index should be created; the English working summary and the original record should be clearly separated. A translated text must not be substituted for the signed original document. The certification requirements for foreign official documents are examined according to the nature of the document; it is not assumed that an apostille is automatically required for every technical file.
For example, after a contact on a port approach, the other ship may be due to leave within six hours, a camera recording may soon be deleted and the damaged part may be planned for urgent replacement. In that case, the findings that may change are photographed first, concrete preservation requests with specified time ranges are sent to the relevant record holders and the technical copying is coordinated. At the same time, the necessary judicial determination is considered. Postponing all protection work until the insurance correspondence is completed may weaken the basic supports of the file.
Obtaining a preservation of evidence order should not give rise to the assumption that the deadline for the main action or arbitration has been protected. Preserving the evidence, notifying the loss, requesting security and bringing the claim before the correct authority within time are separate work items. The person responsible for each and its final date should be shown separately in the management of the file.
Conclusion
A strong evidence file in a ship casualty consists not of a single impressive image but of the joint evaluation of records whose source and time relationship can be explained. AIS and VDR data, ship logbooks, physical findings and independent records should be protected as early as possible. A court determination, a private survey and an insurance examination can complement one another; the limits of none of them should be overlooked. In files with foreign parties, the procedure in Türkiye and the international technical examination should be carried out within the same plan.
Related articles: First steps after a ship accident in Türkiye; Salvage and towage fees at sea; Recourse actions by foreign marine insurers; Fault and compensation in ship collisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an AIS Screenshot Taken from the Internet Sufficient Evidence?
It may contribute to the file; however, without the raw messages, the time information, the data provider’s explanation and the other navigation records, it does not by itself establish fault conclusively. The date on which the image was taken and the event time it shows should be recorded separately. To which ship it belongs should be verified with the IMO and MMSI details.
Are VDR Records Kept for 30 Days on All Ships?
No. The thirty-day capacity is the minimum standard for the long-term recording medium within the scope of MSC.333(90). The installation date of the device, the standard to which it is subject and its actual condition must be determined. For the fixed and float-free media, a different capacity is provided under the same standard. None of these is a reason for holding back the protection step.
Can Damaged Parts Be Discarded During Repair?
Parts and surfaces that are important for the dispute should, if possible, be protected in a condition suitable for examination. If compulsory disposal or urgent repair is involved, the reason, the photographs, the measurements and the persons carrying out the operation should be documented. While safety and environmental obligations are respected, it should be possible to explain why the evidence could not be retained.
In a Collision Evidence Preservation, Does the Expert Determine the Fault Percentage?
TTK Article 1292 provides that the fault proportions of the ships involved in the collision are not stated in the pre-action determination report. The determination serves to protect the event and the technical findings. The assessment of fault in the main dispute is made separately, on the basis of the applicable rules and all of the evidence.
Is the Court Bound by the Insurer’s Survey Report?
Not by itself. It is assessed by whom, with what assignment and on the basis of what data the report was prepared. A court expert, a party’s expert and an insurance surveyor are in different roles. The reasoning of the technical opinion and the original records on which it relies matter more than the heading of the report.
Does Obtaining a Preservation of Evidence Order Preserve the Deadline for Filing an Action?
Preservation of evidence and asserting the principal claim through an action or arbitration are different operations. It should not be assumed that the statute of limitations or the time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) applicable to the claim has been protected because an application for determination was made. The time limit should be calculated separately according to the type of claim and the applicable law.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu) — Ministry of Trade (Ticaret Bakanlığı) version, in particular Articles 1098–1101 and 1292.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu, HMK) — Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) version, in particular Articles 189, 199, 266, 282, 293 and 400–405.
- IMO A.1106(29) — AIS usage guidelines, in particular paragraphs 37–44.
- IMO MSC.333(90) — VDR performance standard.pdf), in particular paragraphs 5.4.3 and 5.5.1.
- IMO MSC.494(104) — amendment to the VDR standard.pdf).
Date of access to sources and preparation: October 14, 2026. The linked institutional versions of the laws are dated texts; in a concrete transaction, the current consolidated provisions and the device standard in force on the date of the event must be checked. This article is of the nature of general legal information.