The plaintiff claimed that goods which it had insured were lost by being dropped into the sea during their transportation in a container from China to Türkiye on the ship X1. The plaintiff paid its insured under the policy and sought to collect TRY 40,558,097.580 plus interest from the defendants, arguing that the defendant F3 Uluslararası Nak AŞ was liable as a freight forwarder, and that the other two defendants (the shipowner and disponent owner) were liable as carriers. The plaintiff sought to be recognised as a ship's creditor of the X1 under arts 1235 and 1236 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), and asked the Court to grant a statutory lien over the ship.

The defendant F4 Vapur Acentesi AŞ, the owner of the X1, argued that the courts of Marseilles, France, had jurisdiction according to the provisions of the relevant bills of lading; the cargo fell into the sea due to a storm, which was an act of force majeure; and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit in terms of jurisdiction and on the merits.

The Court of first instance observed that, even if the incident occurred in the Pacific Ocean, the jurisdiction agreement authorising a foreign court to hear the matter did not remove the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, which had general and special jurisdiction by law. This lawsuit had been initiated before the competent Turkish Court, which was the place of performance as per arts 22 and 23 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Law, and arts 9 and 10 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court held that even though the tropical storm to which the X1 was exposed had extraordinary strength, it was not a maritime peril that was unexpected and unforeseen. Rather, the incident, in terms of the region, was a seasonal and local meteorological incident which could be predicted, and in this respect the non-liability of the defendant carriers in respect of the incident was out of the question in terms of art 1063.1 of the TCC. No claims could be directed against the defendant freight forwarder. Therefore the Court held the defendant carriers liable for TRY 40,558,087.580, granted a statutory lien right over the ship, and dismissed the lawsuit against the other defendant.

The defendant carriers appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is admissible. The judgment of the Court of first instance is reversed in favour of the defendant carriers.

It is indisputable that the goods insured by the plaintiff were dropped into the sea during their transportation on the X1 by the defendant carriers from China to Türkiye. The defendant argued that the provisions of the LLMC 1976, which was approved by the Decisions of the Council of Ministers on 28 February 1980, and in respect of which approval documents were sent to the General Secretary on 10 March 1998, and which entered into force on 1 July 1998, should be applied to the incident. The Court of first instance overruled the objections of the defendant in this regard, without making any examination of this subject, and on the grounds that the aforementioned Convention had not entered into force in Türkiye. The Court should have ascertained whether the Convention was in force in Türkiye through the Ministry of Justice. If the Convention had entered into force, the Court should then have examined whether it was applicable to the dispute. Rendering a judgment in such a manner with an incomplete examination was inappropriate. Therefore, the reversal of the Court's decision in favour of the competent defendants was required.