When fuel or cargo spreads into the sea after a ship accident, the damage does not concern only the shipowner. The response contractor’s invoice, a fisher’s loss, the cleaning of a coastal facility and the business interruption of a tourism operator can all arise from the same incident. Whom the compensation claim is directed at depends on the nature of the polluting substance, the type of ship, the place of the incident and the liability regime that applies. An administrative fine, cleanup costs and private-law compensation are assessed separately.
This article explains that distinction for shipowners, foreign insurers, P&I clubs, coastal businesses and injured parties in ship accidents connected with Türkiye. Rather than the details of the procedure for objecting to a pollution fine, it focuses on documenting response costs and third-party losses, the insurance relationship and the management of a cross-border file.
Which law applies first in marine pollution?
A legal review should identify the source of the pollution before it considers the name of the accident. Persistent oil carried by a tanker, the bunker fuel of a container ship and a chemical leaking from a coastal pipeline may not be subject to the same regulation. The flag of the ship matters, but it does not by itself determine all the consequences of environmental damage that occurs in Türkiye.
Article 1336 of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 provides that, for the defined oil pollution damage, the 1992 Civil Liability Convention and the 1992 Fund Convention apply. In matters governed by those conventions, the provisions of other legislation on the same subject should not be applied directly on top of them. Article 1337 of the TTK states that this system also applies to incidents without a foreign element. [1]
Law No. 5312, for its part, regulates response to pollution originating from ships and coastal facilities within its scope, and the compensation of the resulting damage. Article 2 of the Law builds its scope on ships of 500 gross tons and above that carry oil and other harmful substances, and on the related coastal facilities. This threshold does not mean that pollution caused by a smaller vessel is legally without a remedy. In such a case, the Environmental Law (Çevre Kanunu), the general liability provisions and any applicable special regulations are examined separately. [2]
How do CLC, Bunkers and the IOPC Funds differ from one another?
Where the ship and oil definitions of the convention are met, the 1992 CLC system essentially covers pollution caused by persistent oil carried as bulk cargo. Some leaks from the tanker’s own fuel may also fall within this system. The Bunkers Convention 2001 matters for damage caused by bunker oil used for the operation or propulsion of the ship that falls outside the CLC. The two systems do not pay compensation together for every oil spill. [3]
The IOPC Funds are not a general insurance fund to which recourse can be had for every maritime accident. Whether the Fund steps in depends on the incident, damage and geographical conditions of the 1992 Fund Convention. In IMO’s 2026 record of status, Türkiye appears as a party to CLC 1992, FUND 1992 and Bunkers 2001. For the convention to apply to a particular accident, its status in force on the date of the accident is also taken into account. [4]
| First question | Document or information to examine | Legal significance |
|---|---|---|
| What entered the sea? | Fuel and cargo documents, sample analysis | Distinguishing oil, bunker oil and other harmful substances |
| Which ship or facility is the source? | Incident records, tracing and expert examination | Identifying the liable party |
| Where did the damage occur? | Coordinates, coastal and sea area records | Geographical scope of the convention |
| What damage is claimed? | Response, property damage and loss-of-income files | Legal basis and proof of the claim |
| What security is available? | Policy, certificate, club entry document | Recourse to the insurer or guarantor |
Who pays for cleanup and preventive measures?
Article 6 of Law No. 5312 regulates the joint and several liability of the responsible parties for cleanup, preventive measures, transport and disposal of waste, restoration of the damaged environment, and certain property, personal and income losses. The identity of the responsible parties is determined by assessing the definitions in the Law together with the specific incident. By contrast, in a special regime such as the CLC, directing liability at a particular person and protecting other persons are subject to separate rules. [1, 2]
For this reason, sending a claim on the same ground to the registered owner, technical manager, charterer, master, coastal facility and guarantor all together is not a sufficient file strategy. The role of each addressee in the incident, its contractual position and whether it bears liability under the relevant regime must be shown. That an agent receives notifications does not by itself show that the agent is personally liable for the damage.
It must be documented that expenditure incurred during the response was necessary and connected with the incident. The length of the booms used, the working hours of the response vessel, personnel schedules, the quantity of waste and disposal delivery documents are the basic records that explain the invoice. Writing the same equipment under different loss items again, showing unused personnel as full time, or adding maintenance unrelated to the incident to the cleanup cost gives rise to disputes.
A public authority’s response order or assignment is a strong document showing why the work was done. Even so, the quantity, reasonableness and link to the accident of each invoice item may be examined separately. The necessity of an urgent response and the calculation of the amount later claimed are two separate matters that complement each other.
Which provisions matter in a response contract?
The work order, service area, unit price, standby fee, approval of additional personnel and the criterion for completion of the work should be clear. It may not be possible to finalize all technical details before the first response begins. In that case, daily activity reports, approved variation orders and equipment lists reduce any later dispute over the account.
The response company’s contractual receivable and the pollution compensation of the injured person are not the same legal claim. The debt of the party who ordered the service, the liability of the polluter and the payment obligation of the insurer must be established separately. The scope of the right of recourse where one party pays, and the assignment of the necessary documents, should also be regulated.
How are fishing, tourism and other third-party losses calculated?
Where physical contamination occurs on a boat, net, jetty, water intake system or coastal equipment, the pre-incident condition, the possibility of cleaning, the need for repair and the economic life are assessed together. For the full replacement cost to be claimed, it must be explained why the existing item could not reasonably be cleaned or repaired. Damage that already existed is separated from accident damage.
A fall in sales alone may not be sufficient for loss of income. The link between pollution and loss is shown by the area of activity, any official closure decision, fishing ban, booking cancellations, customer correspondence and prior-period data. General economic slowdown, seasonal change or the business being closed for another reason must be taken into account.
In fishing and tourism claims in particular, gross turnover is distinguished from real economic loss. Fuel, materials or variable personnel costs not incurred when activity stopped may affect the calculation. If moving to an alternative fishing ground or providing the service elsewhere is reasonable, the possibility and cost of doing so are assessed. A measure to mitigate loss does not mean that unlimited financial sacrifice is expected of the injured person.
The IOPC Funds’ claims guidelines attach importance, within their own system, to a sufficiently close link between economic loss and contamination, and to claims being supported by documents. These guidelines are not automatically binding statutory law in every national case; they explain the approach to assessment under the applicable fund regime. In claims concerning the reinstatement of the environment, too, instead of an abstract calculation of the value of nature, the reasonable reinstatement measures accepted by the relevant regime and their costs are examined. [5]
Are an administrative fine and private-law compensation the same file?
An administrative sanction imposed for pollution is the result of public supervision. A cleanup cost or a business’s loss claim is the subject of a separate receivable. The location, photographs and observations in the fine report may matter in the compensation file; however, the imposition of a fine in the report does not by itself prove the amount of every private-law loss.
The jurisdiction, competence and time limits applicable to an objection to an administrative sanction and to a compensation claim should not be assumed to be the same. Making one application may not automatically suspend the time limit of the other process. Moreover, payment or cancellation of the fine does not by itself extinguish all private-law receivables arising from the accident. The legal effect and finality of each act are assessed separately.
Reports prepared for different purposes may exist in the accident investigation, the environmental review and the civil action. A technical report’s assessment of a “probable source” and the definitive determination of legal liability are not the same stage. This distinction should be preserved in the file, and expert opinions should be submitted together with the data they rely on.
P&I, compulsory financial security and direct recourse
P&I insurance secures certain liabilities of the shipowner to third parties. Marine pollution cover is examined through the scope of the policy, the club rules, the exclusions, the date of the incident and the registration of the insured ship. That hull and machinery insurance covers the ship’s own damage does not mean that environmental liability will also be paid under the same policy.
Gard’s Rule 38 on pollution is one example of club cover in this area. On that basis it cannot be said that all P&I policies operate on the same terms. Cover for administrative fines should also be checked separately from pollution compensation; in some cases special rules or the club’s discretion come into play. [6]
Direct recourse against the insurer must be founded on the relevant convention or the applicable law. The CLC and Bunkers systems give a right of direct claim under certain conditions. It cannot be assumed that an ordinary policy has the same facility. In liability insurance to which Turkish law can apply, Article 1478 of the TTK is also considered; the effect of an insurance relationship with a foreign choice of law is investigated separately. [1, 3]
The compulsory insurance threshold in the Bunkers Convention concerns ships over 1,000 gross tons. This threshold should not be read as meaning that the liability provisions of the convention apply only to ships of that size. A certificate shows financial security; the scope, liability and amount of a loss item must still be proved separately. [3]
Evidence, time limits and collection plan for foreign companies
The first file should contain together the ship’s IMO number, the registry record on the date of the incident, the owner and operating chain, cargo and fuel information, insurance records, notifications from the competent authorities and the first technical report. Who took the samples, from where and when should be traceable through a chain of custody and delivery. The original photograph, its time data and its location should be preserved.
The foreign law firm and the team in Türkiye should work from the same incident timeline. The difference between UTC and local time, different spellings of ship and company names, policy periods and currencies are matters that look small but can enlarge a dispute. For foreign documents, the need for translation, certification and, where necessary, an apostille depends on the type of document and the procedure in which it will be used.
The claim period is calculated separately according to the date of the accident, the emergence of the damage, the identification of the liable party and the relevant convention. It should not be assumed that correspondence with the insurer or the opening of a claim file necessarily preserves the period. If a letter of guarantee is to be obtained, the covered receivable, the upper limit, interest and costs, the applicable law, jurisdiction and expiry conditions should be written clearly. Acceptance of security and waiver of the receivable are different acts.
Article 12 of Law No. 5312, reserving longer statutory periods and the international conventions to which Türkiye is a party, provides for five years from the date the damage is learned of and the liable party is identified, and in any case ten years from the incident. In a chain of events, the date of the last event matters. These periods cannot be carried over directly to a claim under the CLC or Bunkers. The procedure under Article 11 of the Law for notifying the administration of compensation and response fee claims must also be completed, separately from the review of the action and time limits. [2]
As to other harmful substances, future international regimes should also be addressed with their current status. IMO has announced that the 2010 HNS Convention will enter into force in 2027. Accordingly, as of 14 October 2026, that system cannot be presented as if it were a general compensation fund already in force. The date of the incident and the participation of the relevant states also matter. [7]
Case review: how was the source of the cleanup cost proved?
In its decision of 9 November 2023, E. 2023/1196, K. 2023/3170, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed an incident in which pollution in a port was accepted to have originated from the fuel system of a building on the shore. In the claim of the company that carried out the cleanup, the incident records, images and technical assessment were significant. The Chamber found the assessment on compensation appropriate and affirmed the judgment with a correction to the attorney’s fee. [8]
This decision cannot be used as a decision on a tanker accident or on P&I cover. Its importance for this article is that the link between the source of the pollution and the work done and the amount claimed must be established with concrete evidence. Where there are several possible sources in the same port, relying only on the presence of a nearby ship may not be sufficient.
Example file: fuel leak and the loss of a beach business
As a hypothetical, suppose a cargo ship’s fuel leak causes a beach business to halt operations for ten days. The first step determines the liability regime that applies to the incident, the basis of the shoreline closure and the real loss of activity. The business’s turnover for the same period in previous years, its existing bookings and the variable costs it saved are compared. The cleaning invoice and the business loss are calculated separately; the same cost is not claimed twice. This example does not promise any particular compensation amount or outcome of an action.
Conclusion
In ship-source marine pollution, a strong claim is built on the correct liability regime, an identified addressee, traceable response records and a documented calculation of loss. Examining the shipowner’s liability, the insurance cover and the administrative sanction separately forms the basis of both the defense and the collection plan for foreign companies and injured parties. Preserving the first technical records is as important as the legal assessment prepared afterwards.
Related articles: Wreck removal; Injury and death of crew; Damage to ports, jetties and terminals; Objecting to a marine pollution fine; Maritime accident claims under P&I insurance.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the pollution fine is paid, is the cleanup cost also closed?
Generally no. The administrative fine, the response cost and private-law compensation are separate legal items. The effect of a payment is assessed according to the scope of the document and the relevant regulation.
Can fishers and tourism businesses claim loss of income?
They can, to the extent the applicable regime accepts it. The link between the activity and the contamination, and the reality, duration and amount of the loss, must be documented. Not every fall in turnover is automatically compensated.
Is the IOPC Funds approached for every oil spill?
No. The nature of the ship and the oil, the place where the damage occurred and the other conditions of the 1992 Fund Convention are examined. The Fund is not a general mechanism covering all bunker and chemical pollution incidents.
Can an action be brought directly against the insurer?
The CLC, Bunkers or the applicable national law may provide a right of direct recourse. Jurisdiction, the type of claim, the insurance relationship and any foreign law element should be assessed together.
Is the response company’s invoice sufficient on its own?
An invoice is an important document, but it needs to be supported by the work order, daily activity record, equipment and personnel schedules, waste delivery documents and a price explanation. The necessity of the work and its link to the accident may be examined separately.
Can a claim be brought in Türkiye against a foreign-flagged ship?
A foreign flag does not by itself prevent it. The applicable convention, the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, the liable party and the available security routes are determined on the specific facts.
Sources
1 — Law No. 6102 on the Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Articles 1336–1338 and 1478.
2 — Law No. 5312, text adopted by the Grand National Assembly (TBMM), in particular Articles 2, 3 and 6–9; for implementation, UAB Circular 2022/10.
3 — IMO, explanation of the CLC and explanation of the Bunkers Convention.
4 — IMO, Status of IMO Treaties 2026, Vol. II, tables of parties to CLC 1992, FUND 1992 and Bunkers 2001.
5 — IOPC Funds, Claims Information Pack and sector-specific claims guidelines.
6 — Gard, Rule 38: Pollution. An example of club terms; it cannot be generalized to every insurance contract.
7 — IMO, statement on the entry into force of the 2010 HNS Convention in 2027.
8 — Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. HD), 09.11.2023, E. 2023/1196, K. 2023/3170; case record. Full text reviewed.
Date of source access and review of legislation: 14 October 2026. Before publication, changes and applicability to the specific case should be checked.