Ulgener

- Aybike Kopuz

Wreck removal is of critical importance for safety, environmental protection, and maritime traffic, making it a primary topic in both national and international regulations. When it comes to wreck removal, the first thing that comes to mind is the 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (the “Convention”). This Convention was adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2007 and entered into force in 2015.

Under the Convention, the owner is responsible, within certain limits, for the costs associated with locating, marking, and removing the wreck. Owners of vessels over 300 gross tons are required to obtain insurance or provide financial security up to a certain amount. This financial security can be provided through a bank guarantee or similar collateral, followed by a document issued by the contracting states certifying compliance with the Convention’s terms. The most notable feature of the Convention is that those affected by the wreck can claim expenses directly from the owner’s insurer or financial security provider. In this situation, the insurer or financial security provider can raise defenses similar to those available to the owner (excluding insolvency or liquidation).

Turkey is not a contracting state to this Convention. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how wreck removal activities are regulated under Turkish law.

The scope of the owner's liability is generally defined under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”), but the main framework of liability is outlined in the Ports Law No. 618.

According to Article 1003 of the TCC titled “Loss of Vessel”, “In the event a vessel registered in the registry is lost due to sinking, destruction without leaving usable wreck, explosion, or other forms of ruin, the ownership rights over the vessel terminate. However, the owner’s obligations and liabilities regarding, wreck removal, environmental protection, and other related matters continue.”. All claims arising from the removal of wreckage are subject to a two-year statute of limitations from the date the wreck removal is completed. However, this period may be extended one or more times by a statement made by the person against whom the claim is made to the claimant (Art.1319 of TCC).

Under Article 7(1) of the Ports Law, the owner or master of a vessel that is grounded, semi-submerged, submerged, abandoned, or left derelict in a manner that poses risks to life, property, or the environment, or obstructs the safety of navigation within the administrative responsibility area of the Port Authority, must remove the vessel and her goods within a period specified by the Port Authority. The period specified by the Port Authority may not exceed 45 days but may be extended up to 45 additional days due to technical or meteorological necessities if requested by the relevant parties.

If the vessel is foreign-flagged, the relevant period is notified to the authorities of the state where the vessel is registered, the owner, and the master; if their addresses are unknown, it is announced in an international maritime bulletin. If the vessel is Turkish-flagged, notification is made to the owner or master; if their addresses are unknown, it is announced in a nationwide newspaper with a circulation of over one hundred thousand copies.

If, within the specified period, those notified do not respond or refuse to remove the vessel, the question arises as to what happens next. The continuation of the article states that in such cases, “The Port Authority is authorized to remove, have removed, lift, have lifted, have destroyed, sell, and have sold the vessel and her goods.” The third paragraph of the relevant article of the Ports Law stipulates that in situations that pose serious threats to navigation, life, property, or environmental safety, the Port Authority is authorized to take all necessary measures without adhering to the timeframes set in the first paragraph, with the cost borne by the owner.

In this case, if the owner refuses to carry out the wreck removal activities, who will be entitled to claim the expenses for the activities tendered by the Port Authority, and on what legal grounds?

Expenses for the salvage, wreck removal, and environmental cleanup of a vessel that broke apart in severe weather off the coast of Florya became the focus of a legal dispute. After the vessel partially grounded and partially sank with her bunker, the claimant undertook the wreck removal and subsequently sought to recover these costs from the vessel’s owner. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, holding that the claimant acted under public authority orders and found no grounds for liability based on contract, tort, unjust enrichment, or unauthorized action.

On appeal, however, the Court of Cassation deemed the dismissal unjust and reversed the decision, reasoning that the claimant’s compliance with public authority orders did not preclude recovery of costs from the owner (Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/5629, K. 2016/12397, 21.12.2016). This ruling suggests that, when wreck removal activities are mandated by a public authority, the party performing them may still have grounds to seek reimbursement from the vessel’s owner.