In Türkiye, for a precautionary arrest to be requested against a vessel or yacht, the claim must be a maritime claim under TTK Article 1352, and the connection the law requires between the vessel and the debtor must be established. A claim of any kind against the owner of a boat is not enough for that boat to be arrested as a precaution. Even for yachts used privately, this regime may come up because of the scope provisions of the TTK.
A precautionary attachment does not mean the claim will ultimately be found to be valid. It provides temporary security and may lead to the vessel being detained from sailing. For this reason, it matters for the creditor to prepare the file correctly and quickly, and for the owner to weigh objection and security options together.
Maritime claim and the vessel creditor’s right
The concept of a maritime claim in TTK Article 1352 covers categories such as certain damage, salvage, carriage, use of the vessel, supply, construction, repair, wages, port charges and similar claims. The list is limited; being economically connected to shipping alone is not enough. The legal basis of the claim must be placed within the relevant category. The legal regime for damage arising from collisions is examined in the article on fault and compensation in ship collisions.
The vessel creditor’s right under TTK Article 1320 gives a statutory in rem security for certain specific claims. Not every maritime claim gives rise to a vessel creditor’s right. This distinction matters for the change of ownership, for enforcement and for priority. Calling a claim a “vessel claim” in a contract does not create a right in rem that the law does not provide.
Classification deserves particular care in areas such as yacht design and intellectual property infringement. A 2026 study by Halil Emre Gürler discusses how such claims relate to maritime claims and precautionary attachment. Applying a design to a yacht does not automatically bring every infringement claim within TTK Article 1352; the basis of contractual and tort-based claims must be explained separately.
For details, see the yacht maintenance and refit contract.
Which vessel may be attached as a precaution
TTK Article 1369 governs the relationship between the owner, the charterer and the person liable for the debt at the time the claim arose and at the time the attachment is applied. Where the debtor who operates the vessel differs from the registered owner, the request may become complicated. Current registry, company and charter documents should be submitted together. If the vessel is sold after the event, the outcome also differs depending on the nature of the claim. For details, see the article on the powers of the operator and the duty to account under a yacht management contract.
Whether another vessel of the same debtor may be targeted depends on the conditions set out in the law. In a dispute over ownership or possession, the rule that only the vessel in dispute may be targeted is especially important. The fact that all the vessels in a group of companies carry the same logo does not show that they belong to the same person. The actual owner and the link of liability must be proven.
Special cases, such as vessels assigned to public service or vessels claiming immunity, are examined separately. The fact that a yacht is used personally rather than commercially does not by itself exempt it from all maritime enforcement provisions. The scope of TTK Article 935 must be explained in the file.
Competent court and foreign arbitration
For Turkish-flagged vessels, TTK Article 1354 identifies the place where the vessel is located and other specific jurisdictional links. For foreign-flagged vessels, under Article 1355, the court of the place in Türkiye where the vessel has anchored, moored, berthed or been placed on a slipway is decisive. Once an action has been filed, the special provision in Article 1357 must also be considered. In terms of subject-matter jurisdiction, the commercial court of first instance competent for maritime commercial matters and any specialized assignment must be checked.
A foreign court or arbitration clause in the contract does not in every case remove the Turkish court’s power to grant interim security. TTK Article 1356 regulates this distinction. However, the authority to order a precautionary attachment does not mean that the main dispute will necessarily be heard in Türkiye. Arbitration or foreign court proceedings on the merits of the claim may be started separately.
For details, see the article on yacht law, flagging, taxes and import and export procedures in Türkiye.
Evidence and the creditor’s security
Under TTK Article 1362, the court must be satisfied, on the evidence, that the claim is a maritime claim and of its monetary value. Contracts, orders, delivery records, invoices, acceptance documents, payments and formal notices must be linked to one another. An invoice alone does not prove in every case the legal relationship between the debtor and the vessel. Foreign documents and their availability and translations should also be prepared. The conduct of evidence and security steps together after an accident is described in the article on the legal process after a vessel accident in Türkiye.
Under TTK Article 1363, the principal requirement is a security of 10,000 Special Drawing Rights (Özel Çekme Hakkı) to be provided by the creditor. This amount is not 10,000 Turkish lira; the relevant calculation and security procedure applies. The law provides an exemption for vessel creditors referred to in Article 1320(1)(a), and allows the security to be increased or reduced at the request of the parties. The counterparty’s loss of operations may be important in assessing the security.
The possibility of a wrongful precautionary attachment affects how the file is prepared. The creditor should focus not only on the claim, but also on the conditions for targeting the chosen vessel. Choosing the wrong vessel with the same name or a different owner company may create a significant risk of liability for compensation.
Three business days and one-month periods
Under TTK Article 1364, enforcement must be requested within three business days from the date the decision is given. If this period passes, the precautionary attachment order lapses by operation of law. Assuming that one must wait for the decision to be served is a serious risk of losing rights. The enforcement office, the port and other relevant authorities must be ready with an enforceable file.
TTK Article 1376 sets, for vessels, a one-month period for the procedural steps that complete a precautionary attachment under the first and second paragraphs of Article 264 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). The triggering event, whether the attachment is carried out or the record is served, and the applicable provision at the stage of the proceedings determine the start of the period. A single calculation of “one month in every case from the decision” should not be made.
| Stage | Basic period or criterion | Step to follow |
|---|---|---|
| Requesting enforcement of the order | Three business days from the decision | Application to the competent enforcement office |
| Carrying out the attachment | Immediately upon request | Detention from sailing and notifications |
| Complementary action or proceedings | One month under TTK Article 1376 and İİK Article 264 | Timeline based on the triggering event |
| Objection and change | Special conditions for application | Review of the decision, service and procedural stage |
| Lifting by security | Adequate and appropriate security | Notifications to the competent court and authorities |
Release and lifting of the attachment
TTK Article 1370 provides a model under which the value of the vessel may be deposited, or the vessel released under appropriate security, while the attachment remains in place. TTK Article 1371 regulates the lifting of the precautionary attachment, on the basis of adequate security not exceeding the value of the vessel, for the full amount of the maritime claim, interest and costs. These two routes differ in terms of the registry record and the ability of other creditors to claim against the security.
Under TTK Article 1372, the parties may agree on the type and amount of security. Where a bank guarantee or a club letter is proposed, the beneficiary, scope, payment conditions, maturity, jurisdiction and acceptability must be reviewed. A P&I club letter should not be presented as security that the creditor or the court must accept without conditions in every file. The nature of the club guarantee is discussed in detail in the article on P&I insurance and claims arising from maritime accidents.
Under TTK Article 1373, providing security for release does not mean accepting liability or waiving objection and limitation rights. Even so, if a settlement or security text drafted in this process contains an express waiver, that waiver may have its own consequences. The protections to be preserved should be carefully assessed in the text.
For details, see the section on exclusions and claim refusals in yacht insurance.
Objection and operational management from the owner’s side
The owner may object to the nature of the claim, the connection with the vessel, the court’s jurisdiction, the security or the procedure. The competent authority for an objection and its deadline are determined by the decision and the service. As the loss of voyages grows, instead of waiting only for the main debate, the option of continuing commercial activity with adequate security may also be considered. Administrative fines under environmental legislation, security and detention from sailing must be reviewed separately.
Unauthorized movement of a vessel under attachment may give rise to custodian liability and criminal law consequences. Insurance, staff, security and continuity of maintenance should be planned. After the court’s lifting decision, the vessel should not put to sea merely because the parties have agreed, before notifications to the relevant authorities and the registry procedures have been completed.
For details, see the yacht sale and purchase contract.
For details, see the section on the creditor’s elective rights on the debtor’s default.
Conclusion
In a precautionary arrest of a vessel or yacht, the maritime nature of the claim, the correct vessel and short time limits are decisive. Release against security may reduce operational losses without waiving rights, but the consequences of the chosen legal model must be clear. Enforcement, the main action or arbitration, and security management should be run on a single file timeline.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I have a debtor’s yacht attached as a precaution for any debt
The special regime for vessels requires a maritime claim and the statutory connection conditions. Not every claim is sufficient.
Is the 10,000 amount deposited by the creditor in Turkish lira
No. The law uses the unit of Special Drawing Rights, and there are exemption and amendment provisions.
Does a foreign arbitration clause prevent attachment in Türkiye
It does not prevent it in every case. The power to grant interim security and the resolution of the main dispute are separate.
If I provide security, have I accepted the debt
Under TTK Article 1373, providing security alone cannot be interpreted in this way. Any additional texts signed are reviewed separately.
Within what period must enforcement be requested after an attachment order is obtained
An application must be made within three business days from the date the decision is given.
Can the boat be released without the attachment being lifted
TTK Article 1370 provides a model with its own conditions. This procedure is different from the lifting of the attachment under Article 1371.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6102 on Turkish Commercial Code. Articles 931, 935, 940, 1001, 1320, 1352–1376, 1420–1446; pages vary by article. Source link
- Halil Emre Gürler — Yat Hukukunda Fikri Mülkiyet Hakkının İhlalinden Doğan Alacak Açısından Geminin İhtiyati Haczinin Uygulanabilirliği (Applicability of a Vessel’s Precautionary Attachment in Respect of a Claim Arising from Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights in Yacht Law). DEHUKAM Deniz Hukuku Dergisi 9(1), 1 July 2026; relationship between design claims and maritime claims. Source link