Air Cargo Litigation in Türkiye: Enforcement of Claims before Turkish Courts

The substantive liability regime of air cargo law is internationally unified — yet its judicial enforcement takes place under national procedural law. Anyone pursuing or defending air cargo claims in Türkiye is confronted with a framework in which the Montreal Convention of 1999, the Turkish Civil Aviation Law, the Code of Civil Procedure and procedural particularities such as mandatory mediation in commercial matters, which must be completed before filing an action as a procedural prerequisite, interact with one another; in addition, there are time limits whose expiry is substantively incurable, and an expert practice that decisively determines the outcome of technical evidentiary issues. This article addresses air cargo litigation from a practical perspective: the scope of the applicable liability regime, the roles of the parties involved, the time-limit regime, jurisdiction and procedural course, evidentiary issues, as well as liability limits and their — notably narrow in the cargo context — doctrine of breakthrough. It complements the articles on the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention, aviation insurance and recourse.

Table of contents

• Which liability regime applies — and how far does it extend?
• Who may sue and who may be sued?
• Which time-limit regime applies to claims arising from air cargo carriage?
• Where and by what route must the claim be asserted?
• How is cargo damage proven?
• How do the liability limits operate — and can they be broken through?
• What applies to conversion, interest and enforcement?
• What conclusions follow for claims handling?
• Conclusion

Which liability regime applies — and how far does it extend?

The starting point of every case assessment is the applicability of the Montreal Convention of 1999 (Convention): pursuant to Article 1, it applies to international carriage between contracting states and, under Article 18, covers the destruction, loss and damage of cargo during carriage by air, as well as damage caused by delay under Article 19. For domestic carriage within Türkiye, the reference in Article 106 of the Turkish Civil Aviation Law (TSHK) to the conventions ratified by Türkiye leads to substantial alignment. Of practical importance is the reach of the regime in mixed transport chains: under Article 18 para. 4 of the Convention, damage occurring during feeder or substitute carriage by land is, under certain conditions, attributed to carriage by air — in particular where air carriage is replaced by road carriage in breach of contract — whereas genuine multimodal segments fall under the respectively applicable regime. Since air cargo in Türkiye is regularly combined with road pre-carriage and onward carriage, the localisation of the damage often determines the applicable law, liability limits and time limits — and therefore belongs at the beginning, not at the end, of the case analysis.

Who may sue and who may be sued?

Standing to sue follows the documentary position: under Articles 12 to 14 of the Convention, the consignor shown in the air waybill and — after arrival of the cargo — the consignee are generally entitled to dispose of the cargo and to assert claims. If the damage is indemnified by the cargo insurer, the claims of the insured pass to the insurer by operation of law pursuant to Article 1472 para. 1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK). To document this transfer of claims, submission of a subrogation document is advisable. On the defendant side, the Convention provides for claims against both the contractual and the actual air carrier (Articles 39 et seq.), who are jointly and severally liable; ground handlers and other servants or agents of the carrier may rely under Article 30 on the defences and liability limits of the air carrier, provided that they act in the performance of their duties. Particular attention must be paid to the position of the freight forwarder: whether it merely owes the organisation of carriage or — for example through self-entry, fixed-cost forwarding or issuance of its own air waybill — is itself liable as carrier is assessed in Turkish practice according to the actual contractual and documentary situation; this classification determines the standard of liability, time limits and the prospects of recourse.

Which time-limit regime applies to claims arising from air cargo carriage?

No element of air cargo litigation is more unforgiving than its time limits. The first level consists of the complaint periods under Article 31 of the Convention: damage must be notified in writing within fourteen days after receipt of the cargo, and damage caused by delay within twenty-one days; acceptance without timely complaint gives rise to the presumption of proper delivery, and failure to submit timely written notice bars actions against the air carrier unless the carrier has acted fraudulently. The second level is the two-year period under Article 35 of the Convention, which begins on the arrival at the destination or on the scheduled date of arrival and, according to the prevailing understanding in Turkish practice, is qualified as an exclusion period for claims: it is neither suspended nor interrupted by negotiations, partial payments or acknowledgements. A particular Turkish issue arises in the interaction with mandatory mediation: Turkish procedural law provides that limitation and exclusion periods are suspended during mediation proceedings; however, whether this rule also covers the treaty-based exclusion period under Article 35 and leads to its extension is unresolved and disputed in doctrine. Cautious practice therefore prepares to schedule mediation and filing of the action in such a way that the two-year period is observed even without counting the mediation period.

Where and by what route must the claim be asserted?

International jurisdiction is determined by Article 33 of the Convention. Accordingly, the claimant may choose between the courts at the carrier’s domicile, its principal place of business, the place of business through which the contract of carriage was concluded and the place of destination. For actions in Türkiye, subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the commercial courts. In commercial matters involving monetary claims, the completion of mandatory mediation before filing the action is a procedural prerequisite. The claimant must therefore first conduct the mediation proceedings and then attach the minutes recording the failure of mediation to the statement of claim; otherwise, the action will be dismissed as inadmissible. Mandatory mediation must therefore already be taken into account when planning time limits, particularly in view of the unresolved question of whether and to what extent it affects the time limit under Article 35 of the Convention. For foreign claimants, the question of security for costs under Article 48 of the International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) may also arise; treaty-based exemptions — in particular under the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure — may provide relief. Arbitration agreements are permitted in cargo matters under Article 34 of the Convention for cargo damage; they are found primarily in framework agreements between carriers, freight forwarders and major shippers and shift the dispute to arbitration without displacing the substantive liability regime of the Convention.

How is cargo damage proven?

Proof follows the documentary logic of air cargo law. Under Article 11 of the Convention, the air waybill establishes a rebuttable presumption of the conclusion of the contract, receipt of the cargo, the conditions of carriage and the accuracy of the statements concerning the essential characteristics of the cargo; beyond this, the claimant must establish the damage, the occurrence of the damage during the period of custody and its amount. In Turkish court practice, this evidentiary presentation is regularly decided through expert evidence: commercial courts almost without exception obtain reports from multi-member expert panels, the quality of which the parties can significantly influence through precisely formulated evidentiary questions, complete submission of documents and their own private expert reports. Critical evidence must be secured before the proceedings: damage reports and irregularity reports from handling, photographic documentation upon delivery, temperature and sensor data for perishable and pharmaceutical goods, complete cargo documentation for the transport chain and — where the condition of the goods is likely to become disputed — judicial securing of evidence under Articles 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) before the goods are sold or destroyed. Experience shows that air cargo actions fail less often because of legal questions than because of documentation gaps in the first forty-eight hours.

How do the liability limits operate — and can they be broken through?

The liability of the air carrier for cargo damage is limited under Article 22 para. 3 of the Convention to — since the adjustment as of 28 December 2024 — 26 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, based on the weight of the affected cargo items and, where the damage depreciates further items of the same consignment, also on their weight. Higher liability requires a declaration of special interest in delivery against any applicable surcharge (“Declared Value for Carriage”), in which a specific amount must be stated. Of central doctrinal importance is the particular nature of the cargo regime compared with the rules on baggage and delay: the breakthrough of liability limits in cases of qualified fault under Article 22 para. 5 applies only to passenger delay and baggage damage — the liability limit for cargo under para. 3 is designed under the concept of the Montreal Convention to be unbreakable and remains in place even in cases of gross fault by the carrier. This deliberately strengthened unbreakability compared with the old Warsaw system is recognised by Turkish practice within the scope of application of the Convention; attempts to circumvent the limit through national tort law fail due to the exclusivity of Article 29 of the Convention. All the more weight is therefore carried by the preliminary questions: the applicability of the Convention to the specific segment in which the damage occurred, the validity of the value declaration and the correct weight calculation for the affected cargo.

What applies to conversion, interest and enforcement?

The liability limits expressed in Special Drawing Rights are converted into the national currency under Article 23 of the Convention, in contentious proceedings according to the value at the time of the decision — a factor of independent economic significance in times of volatile exchange rates. For foreign-currency claims, Turkish law allows a choice between payment in the agreed currency and its equivalent value; interest may be claimed on foreign-currency claims at the applicable rates, and its correct assertion is one of the regularly underestimated elements of the statement of claim. After final judgment, enforcement proceeds under Turkish enforcement law; foreign judgments and arbitral awards require recognition or declaration of enforceability under the rules of MÖHUK and — for arbitral awards — the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (New York Convention). For the cargo insurer conducting the proceedings as recourse, the principles developed in the article on aviation insurance apply accordingly; the discipline there regarding time limits and documentation supports cargo recourse in the same way.

What conclusions follow for claims handling?

The above allows the essential building blocks of effective claims handling to be derived. It begins with securing time limits: complaints must be raised formally and with sufficient content within the periods under Article 31, and the two-year exclusion period under Article 35 must be preserved by timely filing of the action — without relying on suspension effects; mandatory mediation must be integrated into the procedural timetable. In parallel, the evidentiary basis must be laid: standardised damage recording upon delivery, documentation of transport and condition data, early inspection and, where necessary, judicial securing of evidence. The claim position must then be clarified: the correct classification of the parties involved — contractual and actual carrier, freight forwarder, handler — the review of value declarations and framework agreements including any arbitration clauses, and the realistic assessment of the recoverable amount based on the applicable weight limit. For shippers and their insurers, the most important preventive insight follows at the same time: where the value of the goods clearly exceeds the limit of 26 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, a value declaration or adequate cargo insurance is not a formality, but the only reliable protection of the interest.

Conclusion

Air cargo litigation in Türkiye is shaped by the interaction of the Montreal Convention of 1999 with national procedural law: the commercial courts apply the Convention’s exhaustive liability regime, but require compliance with Turkish procedural prerequisites — above all mandatory mediation — and decide technical evidentiary issues through expert proceedings. The time-limit regime is two-tiered and uncompromising: the complaint periods under Article 31 and the two-year period under Article 35, understood as an exclusion period for claims, tolerate neither negligence nor reliance on negotiated solutions. Substantively, the weight limit under Article 22 para. 3 — 26 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram — remains unbreakable even in cases of gross fault. For the practical enforcement of claims, the applicability of the Montreal Convention, a valid value declaration and early securing of evidence are therefore particularly decisive.

For consignors, consignees and other companies involved in carriage, as well as for cargo insurers, claims handling that manages time limits, documentation and party analysis from the first day in a process-oriented manner proves effective; for air carriers and their insurers, the same system provides the basis for a structured defence. In both roles, the air cargo case is documented in the first forty-eight hours — and decided in the first two years.

The aviation law team of GEMS Schindhelm represents cargo interests, cargo insurers and air carriers in air cargo disputes before the Turkish commercial courts and in arbitration proceedings — from securing time limits and evidence through mandatory mediation to court and enforcement proceedings, including the recognition of foreign titles.