Category: Maritime

To: Shipowners / Managers / Operators

Subject: Black Sea Voyage Routing – Navigational Safety and Risk Mitigation

Recent developments in the Black Sea and the prevailing security conditions have made it increasingly important to minimise, to the extent possible, exposure to security and war risks when determining vessel voyage routes.

1. War Risk Area in the Black Sea Under JWLA-035

The Joint War Committee (“JWC”) issued JWLA-035 on 16 September 2026, expanding the scope of the area in the Black Sea identified as a war risk area. Under JWLA-035, the Black Sea is defined as:

“Black Sea excluding territorial waters of adjoining countries other than Russia and Ukraine”

Accordingly, the territorial waters of Türkiye, Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia are excluded from the listed area, whereas the territorial waters of Russia and Ukraine are not covered by this exclusion.

With this revision, the Black Sea war risk area is defined by reference to a broader geographical area, with the territorial waters of certain coastal States expressly excluded, rather than by reference to the previous coordinate-based definition. Accordingly, when assessing a voyage in the Black Sea, it is important to consider not only the vessel’s ports of departure and arrival, but also the actual route to be followed during the voyage.

2. Territorial Waters and Passage Regime

In Türkiye, pursuant to the Council of Ministers Decision No. 8/4742 dated 29 May 1982, it was decided to maintain the breadth of the territorial waters in the Black Sea as it existed prior to the entry into force of the relevant Law. Accordingly, Türkiye’s territorial waters in the Black Sea extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines.

From the perspective of international law, Article 3 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) provides that States may establish the breadth of their territorial waters up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles from the baselines. With respect to Romania and Bulgaria, both of which are parties to UNCLOS, the 12-nautical-mile territorial waters are established under their respective national legislation. Pursuant to Article 2 of Romania’s Law No. 17/1990, Romania’s territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines. Likewise, pursuant to Article 16 of Bulgaria’s Maritime Space, Inland Waterways and Ports Act, Bulgaria’s territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines.

Against this background, a voyage conducted within the territorial waters of Türkiye, Romania and Bulgaria in the Black Sea will remain outside the listed area defined under JWLA-035, which excludes the territorial waters of these States.

3. Assessment of a Coastal Routing Option

In light of the above framework, following a coastal route within the territorial waters of Türkiye, Bulgaria and Romania, without proceeding into the more open areas of the Black Sea, may be considered as a routing option aimed at reducing exposure to the current war risk area.

In this context, following departure from the Istanbul Strait into the Black Sea, the vessel may proceed along the coasts of Bulgaria and Romania and subsequently continue along the Turkish Black Sea coast, with the route remaining within the territorial waters of the relevant States to the extent practicable. Choosing such a route may contribute to reducing the vessel’s exposure to the JWLA-035 listed area and, consequently, to the war and security risks associated with that area.

However, the fact that a route can be planned within territorial waters does not mean that such a route will be suitable or practicable for every vessel or in every circumstance. When determining the route, the vessel’s draft, the water depth in the areas where navigation will take place, the distance from the coast, prevailing sea and weather conditions, traffic density, current navigational warnings, applicable traffic separation schemes, and any temporary or permanent navigational restrictions should also be taken into consideration.

Contact us: info@soysurenlegal.com

For immediate contact: +90 (538) 609 43 81

Should you have any further queries regarding the matters addressed in this Circular, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

1. Introduction

Underperformance claims commonly arise where a vessel is alleged to have failed to meet the speed or bunker consumption warranties agreed under a time charterparty. However, even where Charterers have a substantive performance claim, this does not necessarily entitle them to deduct the alleged loss from hire.

London Arbitration 10/26 addresses this issue directly. The tribunal held that an express prohibition on deductions for alleged underperformance claims required the Charterers to pay the withheld hire, while leaving the merits of the underlying performance claim to be determined separately.

2. Background

The dispute arose under an amended New York Produce Exchange (“NYPE”) time charterparty for a single trip. Following the voyage, the Charterers alleged that the Vessel had underperformed and consumed bunkers in excess of the contractual warranties and deducted USD 146,095 from hire. The Charterparty, however, expressly provided that “No Hire deductions for alleged underperformance claims.”

The dispute therefore also concerned the effect of this express anti-deduction wording on the Charterers’ right to withhold hire. The Owners sought a partial final award for the withheld hire, leaving the underlying performance claim to be determined separately. The issue before the tribunal was whether the Charterers could rely on their underperformance crossclaim to withhold hire despite that express prohibition.

3. Underperformance Claims and the Right to Deduct

Assessing an underperformance claim may require detailed technical consideration of matters including speed and bunker consumption data, weather conditions, vessel condition, routing and hull fouling. London Arbitration 10/26 demonstrates, however, that before turning to those technical issues, the Charterparty must first be examined to determine whether the alleged claim may be deducted from hire.

The existence of an underperformance claim does not, by itself, entitle Charterers to deduct the corresponding amount from hire. Where an express anti-deduction clause applies, it may prevent the claimed amount from being deducted from hire pending determination of the underlying performance dispute. In London Arbitration 10/26, the tribunal construed “underperformance” broadly, covering not only conventional speed claims but also excessive bunker consumption and other alleged failures to perform in accordance with the Charterparty.

The Charterers’ reliance on The Kostas Melas did not alter that conclusion. Although they relied on a bona fide crossclaim, the tribunal held that the express anti-deduction wording prevailed. It therefore did not determine at that stage whether the complaints concerning the Vessel’s delivery condition, weather reporting or possible hull fouling were well founded. Those matters remained open for separate determination, but did not entitle the Charterers to withhold hire.

4. Legal and Practical Implications

For Charterers, a credible underperformance claim does not necessarily justify withholding hire. The Charterparty must also permit the relevant deduction. For Owners, an appropriately drafted anti-deduction clause may preserve hire cash flow and allow recovery of withheld sums without awaiting determination of technically complex performance issues. The scope of any anti-deduction wording should therefore be considered carefully when negotiating the Charterparty.

The award also shows that Owners should act promptly. Although the Owners recovered the withheld hire together with interest and costs, the tribunal reduced the applicable interest rate because of the delay in seeking the partial final award.

5. Conclusion

London Arbitration 10/26 confirms that an underperformance claim and the right to deduct that claim from hire are separate contractual questions. Where the Charterparty expressly prohibits deductions for underperformance, the position is effectively “pay now, argue later”: hire must be paid first, while the substantive performance claim is pursued separately.

1. Introduction

General Average (“GA”) remains a central mechanism for allocating, as between ship, cargo and freight, the extraordinary sacrifices made and expenditure incurred to preserve the property interests involved in a common maritime adventure. Its practical importance is particularly evident following casualties involving piracy, war risks, fires and groundings, where measures such as emergency towage or entry into a port of refuge may become necessary.

A casualty does not, by itself, create a right to GA contribution. Recoverability depends on the applicable York-Antwerp Rules (“YAR”), the contract of carriage and the circumstances in which the measure was taken.

2. General Average under the York-Antwerp Rules

Under Rule A of YAR 2016, a GA act arises where an extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is intentionally and reasonably made or incurred for the common safety, in order to preserve property involved in a common maritime adventure from a real and common peril. Emergency towage, firefighting, entry into a port of refuge, necessary cargo discharge and temporary repairs may therefore qualify where undertaken for that purpose.

Not every loss following a casualty is recoverable. Rule C limits allowances to losses, damages and expenses that are the direct consequence of the GA act and excludes delay, loss of market and similar indirect losses, while Rule E places the burden of proving that a claimed item is properly allowable on the party seeking its inclusion in the adjustment.

3. Defences, Contribution and Contractual Allocation

Under Rule D, fault does not prevent a loss or expense from being allowed in GA, but preserves any remedies or defences arising from that fault and may therefore affect whether contribution can ultimately be recovered. In Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The CMA CGM Libra) [2021] UKSC 51, a defective passage plan rendered the vessel unseaworthy. As the owners had failed to exercise due diligence, they could not recover GA contributions from cargo interests.

Rule F permits expenditure incurred instead of another allowable GA expense, up to the amount avoided. In Mitsui & Co Ltd v Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte MBH & Co KG (The Longchamp) [2017] UKSC 68, interpreting Rule F of YAR 1974, operating expenses incurred while negotiating a reduced piracy ransom were recoverable as substituted expenses. Rules X and XI address specified expenses arising from entry into a port of refuge, necessary cargo handling and detention, while Rule XIV concerns temporary repairs undertaken for the common safety, to repair damage caused by a GA sacrifice or, subject to specified limits, to enable the common maritime adventure to be completed.

The parties may regulate or exclude GA rights by contract, although clear wording will generally be required. In Herculito Maritime Ltd and Others v Gunvor International BV and Others (The Polar) [2024] UKSC 2, the Supreme Court held that provisions requiring payment of additional war-risk premiums did not establish an exclusive insurance fund or exclude GA liability. The applicable YAR version and any New Jason Clause, lien, insurance or indemnity provisions should therefore be reviewed in the charterparty and bills of lading.

4. Security and Claims Management

GA contrbutions are assessed by an average adjustment. As a GA adjustment may take several years, cargo is commonly released against a GA Bond and an insurer’s GA Guarantee, or a cash deposit where adequate insurance security is unavailable. Shipowners should appoint an average adjuster promptly, notify the relevant insurers and preserve contemporaneous records of the Master’s decisions, technical advice, available alternatives and expenditure. Cargo interests should review the basis of the declaration, any seaworthiness issues, the reasonableness of the expenditure and the amount and form of security requested.

5. Conclusion

General Average remains an effective framework for sharing extraordinary losses incurred for the common safety, but its operation depends on the applicable YAR, the contractual allocation of risk and the evidence supporting each claimed item. Early appointment of an average adjuster, preservation of evidence and coordinated management of security and insurance are therefore central to protecting the interests of shipowners, charterers and cargo interests.

Hashtags: #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw #GeneralAverage #YorkAntwerpRules #MarineInsurance #Shipowners #CargoInterests #AverageAdjuster #MaritimeCasualty #Charterparty #PortOfRefuge #WarRisks #ThePolar #CMACGMLibra #TheLongchamp

1. Introduction

In Great Asia Maritime Limited v Orion Shipping and Trading LLC (“The Lila Lisbon”) [2026] UKSC 23, the UK Supreme Court clarified the damages recoverable following cancellation of a ship sale contract under Clause 14 of SALEFORM 2012. The Court unanimously held that, where the seller’s failure to be ready by the cancelling date results from its proven negligence, the buyer may recover loss of bargain damages, including the difference between the contract price and the vessel’s market value. The buyer is not additionally required to prove that the breach amounted to a repudiatory breach.

2. SALEFORM 2012 and Clause 14

The Norwegian Saleform, commonly referred to as SALEFORM or NSF, is widely used for the international sale and purchase of second-hand vessels.

Clause 14A gives the buyer the option to cancel where, by the cancelling date, the seller fails to give the Notice of Readiness required under the contract or is not ready validly to complete the legal transfer of the vessel. Clause 14B requires the seller to compensate the buyer for its loss, expenses and interest where that failure results from the seller’s proven negligence, whether or not the buyer cancels the agreement. Proven negligence is therefore not a condition of the cancellation right under Clause 14A, but of the compensation right under Clause 14B.

3. Background

On 4 June 2021, Orion Shipping and Trading LLC agreed to sell the M/V LILA LISBON to Great Asia Maritime Ltd for US$15 million under an amended SALEFORM 2012. The original cancelling date was 20 August 2021. The Buyers subsequently agreed, without prejudice to their existing rights, to extend it to 15 October 2021. The Vessel was not ready by either date.

The arbitral tribunal found that the first delay resulted from the Sellers’ proven negligence in failing to take reasonable care in arranging the crew’s disembarkation at Qingdao. It awarded the Buyers US$1,650,992, calculated by reference to the actual profit that would have been earned had they obtained possession of the Vessel by the original cancelling date.

The tribunal also found that the failure to meet the revised cancelling date resulted from the Sellers’ proven negligence in undertaking an intervening voyage charter and failing to make adequate arrangements for timely delivery. On 18 October 2021, the Buyers applied to arrest the Vessel in Zhanjiang as security for their claims. The tribunal treated the application as a purported cancellation of the agreement. By then, the Vessel’s market value had increased to US$16.85 million. The Buyers therefore claimed US$1.85 million, representing the difference between the market value and the contractual purchase price.

4. The Proceedings and the Supreme Court’s Decision

The arbitral tribunal awarded the Buyers the US$1.85 million market difference. The Commercial Court overturned that part of the award, holding that loss of bargain damages were unavailable in the absence of a repudiatory breach. The Court of Appeal restored the award.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Sellers’ further appeal. It held that the general reference to the Buyers’ “loss” in Clause 14B was broad enough to include loss of bargain following cancellation. Where an available market exists, such loss will ordinarily be measured by the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of cancellation.

Clause 14 provides not only a contractual right to cancel, but also an independent right to compensation where the seller’s failure results from proven negligence. The Buyers were therefore not required to establish a separate repudiatory breach. The Court also considered this interpretation consistent with the established understanding of earlier versions of the Norwegian Saleform and noted that the contrary interpretation could allow a negligent seller to benefit from delay in a rising market.

5. Legal and Practical Implications

The decision confirms that, where the seller’s failure to be ready by the cancelling date results from proven negligence, the buyer may recover loss of bargain damages following a lawful cancellation. The amount recoverable remains subject to the ordinary principles of causation, remoteness and mitigation, which determine the extent of recoverable loss rather than constitute separate contractual preconditions under Clause 14.

Not every late delivery therefore gives rise to market-difference damages. The cancellation right arises from the seller’s failure to be ready by the cancelling date, while compensation under Clause 14B additionally requires proven negligence. The outcome will also depend on the contractual wording, including any limitations or exclusions of loss.

6. Conclusion

The Lila Lisbon confirms that Clause 14 of SALEFORM 2012 provides both a right to cancel for late delivery and, where the delay results from proven negligence, a right to recover the financial consequences of losing the contractual bargain without separately proving a repudiatory breach. Parties negotiating ship sale contracts should therefore consider both the circumstances in which cancellation may occur and the compensation consequences of any amendments to the standard SALEFORM wording.

Hashtags: #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw #ShipSale #ShipSaleAndPurchase #SALEFORM2012 #NorwegianSaleform #ContractLaw #LossOfBargain #Damages #ProvenNegligence #RepudiatoryBreach #SupremeCourt #TheLilaLisbon

1. Introduction

The decision of the English Commercial Court (the “Court”) in Trans Trade RK SA v Sebat Shipping and Trading Company (The “Sebat”) [2026] EWHC 950 (Comm) clarifies whether laytime may commence where no valid notice of readiness (“NOR”) has been tendered.

The Court confirmed that cargo operations do not, by themselves, cure an invalid NOR or cause laytime to begin. In the absence of a fresh valid NOR, laytime will commence only where the parties have reached a contrary agreement or the facts establish an effective waiver or estoppel.

2. Background

The M/V SEBAT was chartered to carry approximately 14,757 metric tonnes of barley from Constanta to Brake under a voyage charterparty incorporating the Synacomex 2000 form.

At Brake, the Master tendered NOR at the pilot station at the same time that the Vessel completed her sea passage. The arbitral tribunal found that the NOR was invalid because it had been tendered before the Vessel became an “arrived ship”. No further NOR was tendered. After the Vessel berthed, her hatches were opened in preparation for discharge. Excessive phosphine levels were then detected, preventing discharge and requiring the Vessel to return to anchorage.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the commencement of cargo operations caused laytime to run as though a valid NOR had been tendered. It therefore awarded the Owners approximately US$840,000 in discharge port demurrage. The Charterers appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

3. Legal Implications: When Can Laytime Commence Without a Valid NOR?

The Court held that the tribunal had made an error of law by treating the commencement of cargo operations as an automatic trigger for laytime in the absence of a valid NOR.

The Owners relied on The Happy Day [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 and argued that cargo operations could amount to a “deemed waiver” of the Charterers’ right to rely on the invalidity of the NOR. The Court rejected this interpretation.

The Happy Day does not establish an independent rule under which cargo operations automatically cure an invalid NOR. It concerned waiver by election, which requires the charterer to know the relevant facts and the right available to it, and then to act unequivocally in a manner inconsistent with the exercise of that right.

In The Sebat, the tribunal had neither considered waiver nor made the necessary factual findings to support it. The opening of the hatches could not, without findings establishing waiver or estoppel, cause laytime to commence.

The Court accordingly varied the award. The Owners’ recovery was limited to US$4,114.06 in load port demurrage and €21,616.40 in discharge port expenses, together with interest, while the substantial discharge port demurrage award was removed.

4. Conclusion

The Sebat confirms that an invalid NOR does not become effective merely because time has passed, the Vessel subsequently becomes ready or cargo-related activities begin. Where no valid NOR has been tendered, laytime will not commence unless a fresh notice is served or the requirements of waiver, estoppel or contrary agreement are established.

The decision also places The Happy Day within its proper limits. Cargo operations may be relevant to a waiver analysis, but they do not create an automatic “deemed waiver”.

Owners should therefore comply strictly with the contractual NOR requirements and, where there is any uncertainty, tender a fresh NOR as soon as the Vessel is entitled to do so.

Hashtags: #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw #Laytime #Demurrage #NoticeOfReadiness #NOR #VoyageCharterparty #EnglishLaw #CommercialCourt #TheSebat #CharterpartyDisputes #MaritimeArbitration

1. Introduction

The decision of the English Court of Appeal (the “Court”) in Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (The “Catalan Sea”) [2026] EWCA Civ 641 (the “Catalan Sea”) provides important clarification on sanctions clauses in voyage charterparties, particularly when owners may refuse charterers’ orders on sanctions grounds. Against the backdrop of increasingly complex sanctions regimes and opaque ownership and control structures, the Catalan Sea confirms that owners are not required to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that compliance would result in an actual sanctions breach. Rather, where the clause is framed by reference to the owners’ reasonable judgment and exposure to sanctions, owners may refuse charterers’ orders where they reasonably conclude that compliance would give rise to a real risk of sanctions liability.

2. Background

In November 2021, Tonzip Maritime Ltd (the “Owners”) chartered the M/T CATALAN SEA to 2 Rivers Pte Ltd (the “Charterers”) under a voyage charterparty incorporating the EPS Sanctions Clause.

Prior to the fixture, the Charterers agreed to purchase the cargo from the Russian oil company Neftyanaya Kompaniya Neftisa (the “Neftisa”). Before loading, the Owners conducted sanctions screening through Refinitiv World-Check, which identified information suggesting that Neftisa might be associated with Mr Mikhail Gutseriev, a designated person under the UK and EU sanctions regimes.

Although it was asserted that Mr Gutseriev had transferred his shareholding to his brother and stepped down from his management roles, the Owners considered that the available information did not sufficiently dispel the sanctions concerns and declined to proceed with loading.

The Charterers subsequently purported to terminate the Charterparty, which the Owners treated as a repudiatory breach. The High Court found in favour of the Charterers, concluding that the Owners’ refusal was not objectively reasonable on the material available. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion and held that the Owners were entitled to refuse the loading order.

3. Legal Implications: Defining “Real Risk”

The principal significance of the Catalan Sea lies in the Court’s clarification of the meaning of the expression “exposure to sanctions” commonly found in charterparty sanctions clauses.

The Court confirmed that an owner is not required to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that performance would amount to a sanctions breach. Rather, the relevant question is whether, based on the information available at the time, it was objectively reasonable to conclude that performance would expose the owner to a real risk of sanctions liability.

In allowing the Owners’ appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court had applied the wrong question. The issue was not whether Mr Gutseriev’s control of Neftisa had been established as a matter of fact, but whether the Owners could reasonably conclude that there was a real risk of continuing control and consequent sanctions exposure.

The Catalan Sea further indicated that this assessment is prospective rather than retrospective. Accordingly, the reasonableness of the decision falls to be assessed by reference to the information available when the decision was made, rather than by reference to facts emerging subsequently.

More broadly, the decision confirms that a sanctions clause may allocate to owners the commercial judgment of whether a charterers’ order should be followed where sanctions risk arises. The Court will not require owners to prove that a sanctions breach would in fact have occurred before they may rely on such a clause; the question is whether the conclusion that performance presented a real risk of sanctions liability was objectively reasonable at the relevant time.

This is particularly significant in voyage charterparty disputes, where owners may need to respond quickly to loading or voyage orders while information concerning cargo interests, beneficial ownership and control remains incomplete or contested. The decision does not create an automatic right to reject orders whenever sanctions concerns arise. The availability of that right will depend on the wording of the relevant clause and whether, on the material available at the time, a reasonable owner could conclude that performance created a real risk of sanctions liability.

4. Conclusion

The Court’s reasoning in The Catalan Sea confirms that sanctions clauses framed by reference to “reasonable judgment” may be engaged even where a sanctions breach cannot ultimately be established. Rather, they provide a contractual framework for time-sensitive commercial decisions where compliance with a charterers’ order may expose the owners, vessel or other relevant parties to sanctions risk; the central question is whether the decision-maker’s assessment was objectively reasonable at the relevant time.

The decision also underlines the importance of the information supporting that assessment. Screening results, ownership and control information, legal advice and counterparty representations should be evaluated as a whole, having regard to their source, scope and factual assumptions. Parties should therefore maintain a clear contemporaneous record of the information considered, the sanctions risk identified and the reasons for the decision reached.

#TheCatalanSea #Sanctions #MaritimeLaw #VoyageCharterparty #Charterparty #ShippingLaw #SanctionsClauses #CourtOfAppeal #ShippingIndustry #TradeCompliance

1. Giriş

Yetkilendirilmesi Hakkında Yönetmelik (“Yönetmelik”), 2009 tarihli Gemilerin Emniyetli ve Çevreye Duyarlı Geri Dönüşümü Hakkında Hong Kong Uluslararası Sözleşmesi (“Sözleşme”) kapsamında Türkiye’deki gemi geri dönüşüm tesislerinin yetkilendirilmesi, denetimi ve ihlallere uygulanacak yaptırımları düzenlemekte; 2004 tarihli Gemi Söküm Yönetmeliğini yürürlükten kaldırmaktadır. Deniz kazası, ekonomik ömrün sona ermesi, sonuçsuz satış veya cebri icra sonrasında geri dönüşüm gündeme geldiğinde, gemi sahipleri, donatanlar, tesisler ve diğer işlem taraflarının tesis seçimi, planlama, bildirim ve denetim gerekliliklerini birlikte değerlendirmesi gerekir.

2. Yeni Yetkilendirme Sistemi ve Tesis Yükümlülükleri

Düzenleme ile sözleşme kapsamındaki gemileri geri dönüştürecek tesislerin Gemi Geri Dönüşüm Yetki Belgesi alması zorunlu tutulmuştur. Yetkilendirme, tesisin faaliyet, organizasyon, güvenlik ve çevre prosedürlerini içeren Gemi Geri Dönüşüm Tesis Planı (“SRFP”), başvuru belgeleri ve saha denetimi üzerinden, Sözleşme ve ilgili rehberler dikkate alınarak yürütülecektir.

Yetki belgesi 5 yıla kadar düzenlenebilecek; tesislerin faaliyetlerini SRFP’ye uygun, güvenli ve çevreye duyarlı şekilde sürdürmeleri gerekecektir. Taşınmaz kullanım hakkının sona ermesi, hisselerin %50’sinden fazlasının devri veya tesis kapasitesi ya da kara alanını en az %20 oranında etkileyebilecek değişiklikler, yetki belgesinin geçerliliğini yitirmesine yol açacaktır.

3. Gemi Geri Dönüşüm Planı (SRP)

Her geminin geri dönüşümünden önce, tesis yetkilisince gemiye özgü Gemi Geri Dönüşüm Planı (“SRP”) hazırlanarak Bakanlık onayına sunulmalıdır. SRP, SRFP’de yer almayan veya özel işlem gerektiren hususları kapsamalı ve geri dönüşüm faaliyeti onaylanan plana uygun yürütülmelidir. Onay, Bakanlığın koordinasyonunda Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığının uygun görüşü alınarak, gerekli görülmesi hâlinde diğer ilgili Bakanlıkların görüşlerine de başvurularak verilecektir.

Geçiş Düzenlemesi: SRP ve SRFP’nin onay öncesinde kıyı tesisi uzmanı tarafından rehberlere uygunluk yönünden kontrolüne; uzmanın tesis yetkilisince görevlendirilmesine ve bilgilerinin planlarda yer almasına ilişkin hükümler 31 Aralık 2028 tarihinde yürürlüğe girecektir. Yönetmeliğin diğer hükümleri yayımı tarihinde yürürlüğe girmiştir.

4. Liman Başkanlığı Bildirimleri ve Geminin Tesise Yanaştırılması

Geri dönüşüm için gemi kabul etmeye hazırlanan tesislerin, geri dönüşüm niyetini yazılı olarak Liman Başkanlığına bildirmesi gerekmektedir. Geminin Uluslararası Geri Dönüşüme Hazır Sertifikası alındığında, planlanan başlangıç tarihi ve sertifika örneği de Liman Başkanlığına iletilmelidir; aksi takdirde gemi tesise yanaştırılamayacak ve geri dönüşüm faaliyetine başlanamayacaktır. Liman Başkanlığı, yanaştırma sırasında veya sonrasında emniyet, güvenlik veya çevre kirliliği riski bulunduğunu değerlendirdiği hâllerde operasyona izin vermeyecektir.

5. İdari Para Cezaları, Yetki Belgesinin Askıya Alınması ve Faaliyetin Durdurulması

Yönetmelik, ihlal türüne göre 100.000 TL ile 1.000.000 TL arasında değişen idari para cezaları öngörmektedir. Aynı ihlalin bir takvim yılı içinde ikinci kez tekrarlanması hâlinde ceza, 1.000.000 TL’yi aşmamak üzere bir kat artırılabilecek; aynı ihlalin üçüncü kez tekrarlanması hâlinde tesisin yetki belgesi üç ay süreyle askıya alınacaktır. Emniyet, güvenlik veya çevre kirliliği bakımından ciddi risk tespiti hâlinde tesisin bir bölümünde veya tamamında iş durdurulabilecek; idari para cezaları ayrıca her yıl yeniden değerleme oranında artırılarak uygulanacaktır.

6. Geri Dönüşüm Kararının Gündeme Gelebileceği Durumlar

Gemi geri dönüşümü, yalnızca hizmet ömrünü tamamlamış tonajlar bakımından değil; deniz kazası, sonuçsuz kalan satış süreçleri veya cebri icra sonrasında da gündeme gelebilir. Bu tür durumlarda geri dönüşüm sürecinin, gemiye özgü SRP, bildirimler ve tesis gereklilikleri çerçevesinde planlanması önem taşımaktadır.

1. Deniz Kazası ve Ağır Hasar: Çatışma, karaya oturma, yangın, makine dairesi hasarı veya ağır yapısal zarar sonrasında geminin onarımının ekonomik olarak makul olmaktan çıkması hâlinde geri dönüşüm seçeneği gündeme gelebilir. Bu değerlendirme, sigorta bakımından ekonomik tam hasar (constructive total loss) gündeme geldiğinde de yapılabilir.
2. Sonuçsuz Kalan Gemi Satış Süreçleri: Özellikle yaşlı tonajlarda alıcı bulunamaması, artan bakım maliyetleri veya geminin işletilmesinin ekonomik olarak sürdürülemez hâle gelmesi, geri dönüşümü ticari bir seçenek hâline getirebilir.
3. Cebri İcra ve Haciz Süreçleri: Deniz alacakları nedeniyle haczedilen gemilerde satışın gerçekleşmemesi veya geminin uzun süre işletilememesi, geri dönüşüm seçeneğini alacaklılar ve diğer ilgili taraflar bakımından gündeme getirebilir.

7. Sonuç

Yönetmelik, gemi geri dönüşümünü yalnızca tesis bazlı bir faaliyet olarak değil; yetkilendirme, gemiye özgü planlama, liman bildirimleri ve yaptırım riskiyle birlikte ele alınması gereken bir uyum süreci hâline getirmektedir. Gemi sahipleri, donatanlar ve geri dönüşüm tesisleri bakımından, geri dönüşüm kararının gündeme geldiği aşamada tesis uygunluğu, SRP hazırlığı, bildirim yükümlülükleri ve olası idari yaptırımların birlikte değerlendirilmesi önem taşımaktadır.

#MaritimeLaw #ShipRecycling #ShipRecyclingLaw #HongKongConvention #Shipbreaking #TurkishMaritimeLaw #TurkishPorts #PortOperations #MaritimeRegulation #EnvironmentalCompliance #Shipowners #MaritimeClaims

Introduction

 Bunker declarations are often treated as routine arrival documents. In Turkish ports, however, the fuel quantity declared before or upon arrival may become a key point of review during customs controls and onboard inspections. An unexplained difference between the declared ROB figures and the quantity later identified by the authorities may lead to further inspection, delay, security requirements, seizure or confiscation-related measures and criminal investigations involving the vessel’s master or chief engineer.

Bunker Declarations in Turkish Ports: Records to Check Before Arrival

 A “bunker declaration” is not always a single, standalone document. Bunker-related information may appear in ship’s stores declarations, bunker delivery notes, customs or port forms, tank sounding records, logbooks, oil record books, noon reports, survey reports and delivery or redelivery records. The Bunker Delivery Note (“BDN”) records the bunker supplied to the vessel, including the product, quantity, supplier and certain fuel specifications; however, it does not prove the exact quantity remaining on board at a later stage.

BDNs should be checked against ROB figures, tank soundings, logbooks and other contemporaneous vessel records before the vessel calls at a Turkish port. Customs authorities may carry out onboard inspections and compare the bunker quantities declared in pre-arrival or arrival documents with the quantities later identified on board.

Industry notices and P&I circulars have warned that such controls may be carried out without prior notice and may focus on discrepancies between the declared and measured figures. Since bunker measurements are technical calculations rather than absolute figures, ROB figures, BDNs, ship’s stores declarations, tank sounding records and operational logs should be reviewed together before arrival. Any difference should be identified, explained and, where appropriate, recorded by way of a protest, reservation or explanatory note.

Turkish Port and Customs Procedures: Confiscation and Anti-Smuggling Risk

Bunker-related records may become relevant under Turkish port and customs rules, including Article 34 of the Ports Regulation, Article 176 of the Customs Law No. 4458 and Articles 476 to 482 of the Customs Regulation. The key point for vessel interests is that bunker figures may be treated as customs-related information and compared against the quantities later identified during onboard inspections or measurements.

If the quantity identified on board appears to exceed the declared figures, the matter may move beyond a routine documentation issue. In practice, an alleged excess may lead to customs review, security requirements, delays, administrative fines and criminal investigations under the Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 against the master and/or chief engineer. The alleged excess fuel may also become subject to custody, seizure, confiscation-related measures or other customs directions, including directions concerning the treatment or discharge of the excess quantity.

Article 176 of the Customs Law No. 4458 is also important, as fuel and lubricants used by vessels engaged in international voyages are exempt from import duties as long as they are not landed. Fuel kept in the vessel’s standard tanks for the voyage should not automatically be treated as smuggled or undeclared goods merely because a measurement discrepancy is identified. The review should also consider whether the fuel remained on board, whether it was kept for the vessel’s voyage and whether the vessel’s records support the declared position. This approach is also supported by the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (“FAL Convention”), to which Türkiye is a party: where a formal declaration contains an error or inconsistency, the relevant party should be allowed to clarify or correct it where appropriate, before the discrepancy is treated as a substantive customs violation.

Conclusion

For owners, charterers, operators, masters and P&I Clubs, the practical takeaway is clear: bunker records should be checked before the vessel calls at a Turkish port, and any discrepancy should be identified and explained at an early stage. A clear and consistent documentary position may help reduce the risk of customs disputes, security requirements, delays, confiscation-related measures and criminal exposure before the Turkish authorities.

Hashtags: #BunkerDeclarations #BunkerDiscrepancy #ROB #BDN #Vessel #Shipowners #Charterers #PIClub #TurkishPorts #TurkishCustoms #CustomsControls #ConfiscationRisk #AntiSmugglingLaw #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw

Time charter contracts are agreements where the commercial use of the vessel is transferred to the charterer, thereby creating significant responsibilities and risks for the shipowner. In this context, the shipowner’s obligation to deliver the vessel in a condition suitable for the sea, voyage, and cargo, as defined in the contract, and to maintain this condition throughout the contract period is a fundamental obligation under both Turkish and English law.

Below are strategic recommendations that shipowners should consider to minimize the legal risks they may encounter in charter relationships and to protect their commercial reputation

1. Ship Delivery: The Most Critical Stage

The shipowner’s most important obligation is to ensure that the ship is delivered in the condition specified in the contract and in a usable condition. Failures at this stage can lead to serious consequences, including:

• claims for compensation by the charterer,
• the risk of the contract being terminated,

Recommendation:

Be sure to prepare a detailed “pre-delivery condition report” before delivery, documenting all technical compliance and class requirements. Conditions regarding fuel consumption, speed, and engine performance must be based on objective data.

2. Compliance with the Vessel Description in the Contract

In charterparties, information such as speed, fuel consumption, class status, and technical capacity is not merely descriptive but constitutes a commitment.

The slightest deviation in this information will entitle the charterer to:

• claim expenses,
• hire reduction,
• or even termination in some cases.

Recommendation:

Avoid exaggerated or unverified information regarding the vessel’s technical capacity. Remember that every statement regarding the vessel’s description is binding under English law.

3. Be Proactive Against Regulatory Changes

As seen in The Elli / The Frixos (2008) ruling, failure to comply with changes in legislation or environmental standards may directly result in a breach of contract by the shipowner.

In the above-mentioned ruling, the court held the owners liable for failing to make the necessary adaptations and ruled in favor of the charterer.

Recommendation:

Continuously monitor international regulations, IMO changes, and new requirements from port states.

Do not delay compliance costs; the cost of compliance is much lower than the cost of conflict or commercial loss.

Retain correspondence and documentation that can demonstrate to the charterer that you have made the necessary adjustments in a timely manner.

4. Take Immediate Action in Case of Defect or Non-Conformity

Under Turkish law, if there is a remediable non-conformity, the charterer cannot terminate the charter directly; they must give the shipowner time to remedy it. However, if the shipowner fails to remedy the defect within the time given:

• termination,
• suspension of hire,
• claims for damages

become applicable.

Recommendation:

When a non-conformity arises, do not wait for the charterer to give you time. Immediately:

1. Identify the existence of the non-conformity,
2. Inform the charterer,
3. Share the rectification plan in writing.

This approach both strengthens your legal position and protects your commercial relationship.

5. The Most Important Element Leading to Compensation: The Chain of Causation

Under English law, for a charterer to claim compensation, there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the damage. However, this condition does not always protect the shipowner; courts often accept that the breach disrupted the commercial operation.

Recommendation:

Taking measures to reduce potential damage and minimize the charterer’s losses can significantly reduce the amount of compensation that may be claimed in the future.

6. Do Not Underestimate the Commercial Impact of Breaches of Contract

Not every breach of contract leads directly to termination. However, under English law, termination may be considered if the breach:

• eliminates the commercial purpose of the contract, or
• imposes an unforeseeable burden on the charterer.

Recommendation:

Clearly assess the primary commercial purpose of the charter. Conduct a risk analysis considering the charterer’s potential for termination if the vessel cannot fulfill this purpose.

7. Record Keeping and Documentation: Your Strongest Weapon

Keeping complete technical records, classification documents, maintenance reports, fuel reports, and all correspondence during the contract period minimizes the shipowner’s liability.

Recommendation:

Maintain an electronic “compliance and operation logbook.”

In the event of a dispute, courts place the most weight on documented information.

Conclusion: Strategic Compliance Management for Shipowners

In time charter contracts, the shipowner’s greatest risk is the vessel not being delivered in a condition suitable for the contract purpose or this condition not being maintained. Such breaches may entitle the charterer to:

• compensation,
• costs,
• hire reduction,
• termination.

Therefore, the most appropriate approach for shipowners is:

• regular technical inspections,
• clear and accurate contractual declarations,
• ensuring regulatory compliance without delay,
• and maintaining uninterrupted and documented communication.

These recommendations will prevent potential disputes and protect both commercial stability and the shipowner’s financial and legal security.

WhatsApp and E-Mail Correspondence: When Does It Create a Legally Binding Contract?

Introduction

In the fast moving maritime industry, time-sensitive quick decisions are frequently required. Parties often rely on e-mail or instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp to communicate operational instructions and commercial terms, bypassing formal correspondence procedures. This practice raises an important legal question: can such correspondence give rise to a binding contract?

Arbitral tribunals and courts generally assess the binding nature of these communications by focusing on the parties’ intent, the content of the messages, and the overall context of the exchange. Where essential contractual elements—offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations—are present, digital correspondence may constitute a legally binding agreement.

English Case Law

English court practice has consistently addressed the enforceability of informal communications:

• Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining (2012): e-mail correspondence was held sufficient to constitute a valid charterparty.
• RTS Flexible Systems v Müller (2010): a binding contract was found to exist where the parties had commenced performance, despite no signed agreement.
• Blue v Ashley (2017): informal conversation in a social setting was found to lack contractual intent.
• Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA (2025): WhatsApp negotiations were held not to amount to a binding settlement, as the tone indicated ongoing discussions.
• Jaevee Homes Ltd v Fincham (2023): the Supreme Court confirmed that WhatsApp messages may constitute a binding contract where the terms are clear and intent is established.

These cases underline that the decisive factor is not the medium of communication but the clarity of agreement and seriousness of intent.

Determining Binding Effect

When assessing whether digital correspondence is binding, courts and tribunals examine:

• The wording used (“we agree,” “confirmed,” “final acceptance” versus “subject to contract,” “to be confirmed”),
• The conduct of the parties following the exchange,
• The authority of the person making the communication, particularly in broker-mediated negotiations.

Under English law, correspondence beyond the authority of an agent or broker does not bind the principal.

Practical Implications

For maritime stakeholders, the key lesson is that informal communication may have unintended legal consequences. To mitigate risk:

• Use limiting phrases such as “subject to contract” or “without prejudice” during negotiations,
• Confirm agreements through a formal recap or written protocol once terms are finalized,
• Ensure that internal authority levels are clearly communicated to brokers and employees.

Conclusion

English law does not restrict the medium of contract formation. What matters is the presence of contractual elements and the parties’ demonstrable intent. While WhatsApp and e-mail are efficient tools in a fast-paced sector such as shipping, care should be taken to avoid inadvertently creating binding legal obligations through informal correspondence.