Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52

April 2003

Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (dec.) - 40998/98

Decision 10.4.2003 [Section I]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Seizure of vessel carrying arms through Bosphorous to Iran: partly inadmissible

The applicant is a state-owned company based in Teheran. It chartered a ship i n September 1991 to transport, inter alia , arms and ammunition from Bulgaria to Iran. The bills of lading described the arms and ammunition as “special equipment” and gave the ship's destination as Syria. The ship entered the Bosphorous in October 1991. Th e Turkish authorities had received information about the true nature of the cargo and suspected that the vessel was in fact bound for Cyprus. The Turkish coast guard boarded the vessel and it was towed to a Turkish port. All parties to the case subsequentl y proceeded on the basis that the seizure of the vessel had taken place in the Straits governed by the Montreux Convention of 1936. The vessel was searched and the crew questioned. The Master of the vessel and two other crew members were taken into custody . In November 1992, the detained crew members were charged with organised transportation of arms and ammunition. The prosecution maintained that there was a state of war between Turkey and Cyprus and that, consequently, the action of the Turkish authoritie s was justified under the Montreux Convention. The Iranian Government sought to obtain the release of the vessel through diplomatic and political channels, certifying the real destination of the cargo. Both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the office of the Prime Minister confirmed that there was no state of war with Cyprus. On 12 March 1993, the State Security Court convicted the Master of the vessel of illegal importation of arms and ordered the confiscation of the vessel and the arms cargo. The court disregarded the official statements about relations with Cyprus, reasoning instead that in the absence of a peace agreement, the state of hostility had not been ended. Following this judgment, the applicant paid the hire and expenses due to the owner of th e vessel. The owner was granted a lien over the non-arms cargo by the Court of Commerce. The judgment of the State Security Court was quashed on appeal in June 1992, on the basis that it had not been established that the arms were to be imported into Turke y and that there was no state of war to justify the application of the Montreux Convention. The applicant sought to have the lien over the remainder of the cargo removed, but failed. It then made an agreement with the owner to pay 80% of the outstanding hi re and all future charges. In the resumed criminal proceedings, the Master of the vessel was acquitted and the vessel finally left Turkey on 8 December 1992. The applicant returned the vessel to its owner in March 1993. The applicant then instituted procee dings seeking compensation against the Turkish state for the economic loss caused by the seizure and detention of the vessel. The Court of Commerce ruled that the vessel could not be regarded as a merchant vessel in view of the cargo it carried. The Turkis h authorities were therefore not liable, either under the Montreux Convention or domestic law. The applicant was able to recoup some of the money paid to the owner through arbitration proceedings, which established that the charter-party had been frustrate d from 12 March 1992 onwards. However, it was unable to recover the sum paid in respect of the period from the seizure of the vessel to 12 March 1992 (approximately 1.3 million USD).

Communicated under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 re garding the seizure of the cargo.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the seizure of the vessel, since it was not the applicant's property.

Inadmissible under Article 13: The applicant had access to competent courts to challenge the se izure of the vessel and cargo and to seek compensation.

Inadmissible under Article 14: The applicant's claim that the fact that the vessel was Cypriot-registered caused or contributed to the seizure was unsubstantiated.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes