Ground Handling in Türkiye: The Law of Ground-Handling Services

Ground handling is the operational backbone of air transport — and at the same time an area of law situated between regulatory, contract, liability and insurance law. In Türkiye, it deserves particular attention: the market is shaped by a small number of ground-handling companies licensed nationwide, the licensing regime under the SHY-22 Regulation is denser than in many European legal systems, and the liability architecture of international standard contracts meets mandatory limits under Turkish law of obligations, which significantly qualify its effectiveness. This article presents the licensing and supervisory regime, classifies the legal relationships with airport operators and the General Directorate of State Airports Authority (DHMI), analyses the allocation of liability under the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement (SGHA) and its limits under Turkish law, and examines the liability and recourse chain of the most important loss scenario in practice: ramp damage.

Table of contents

• How is the ground-handling market regulated in Türkiye?
• What requirements does SHY-22 impose on ground-handling companies?
• How are relationships with DHMI and airport operators structured?
• How does the SGHA allocate liability between airlines and ground handlers?
• Do the liability clauses of the SGHA withstand scrutiny under Turkish law?
• How does the liability and recourse chain operate in the case of ramp damage?
• What insurance-law requirements apply?
• What consequences arise for contract drafting?
• Conclusion

How is the ground-handling market regulated in Türkiye?

Ground-handling services may be provided at Turkish airports only on the basis of an operating licence issued by the Turkish civil aviation authority (SHGM) under the Regulation on Ground-Handling Services at Airports (SHY-22), which is based on Civil Aviation Law No. 2920. The Regulation distinguishes between three licence groups: the A licence for ground-handling companies offering the full range of ground-handling services to third parties, the B licence for airlines carrying out self-handling at individual airports, and the C licence for certain ground-handling services provided by specialised service providers. The market for A-licence holders is highly concentrated: it is carried by a small number of companies operating nationwide, whose services are supplemented by self-handlers and by service providers specialising in individual services such as cargo, catering, representation or supervision and management. From this structure follows an observation that is central to understanding this area of law: the economic relationships between airlines and ground handlers have long been standardised — legally, therefore, what matters is less the conclusion of the contract than its structuring and the review of the effectiveness of the standard contracts.

What requirements does the SHY-22 Regulation impose on ground-handling companies?

The SHY-22 Regulation links the granting of a licence to a dense set of personal, economic and technical requirements: minimum capital and corporate requirements, proof of suitable equipment and qualified personnel for each service category, organisational precautions regarding safety and training, and the conclusion of the prescribed insurance policies. The service categories to be covered range from traffic and passenger handling to ramp, cargo and mail handling, as well as flight operations and representation services; the licence is granted by category and airport and is tied to ongoing compliance, breaches of which may lead from warnings and fines through to licence revocation. A Turkish particularity is the price-law overlay of the market: the fees for ground-handling services are subject to the fee regulations determined or approved under SHY-22; this regulatory framework must be taken into account when calculating long-term handling contracts. Finally, for foreign airlines it is important that handling at Turkish airports may be carried out only by licensed providers; the choice of contractual partner is therefore also a regulatory compliance issue.

How are relationships with DHMI and airport operators structured?

In addition to the relationship with the Turkish civil aviation authority (SHGM) as supervisory authority, there is a second, private-law level: the relationship with the respective airport operator. The majority of Turkish airports are operated by the state General Directorate of State Airports Authority (DHMI); at the major traffic airports — particularly Istanbul and Antalya — private operating companies have taken its place on the basis of long-term concession and lease-operate models. Ground-handling companies require these operators to allocate areas, offices and infrastructure; they conclude paid use and lease agreements for this purpose and at the same time pay turnover-based fees to DHMI or the operator. Legally, this creates a dual structure: the public-law licence issued by SHGM opens market access, while the private-law contracts with the operator enable its actual exercise — and both levels may end independently of one another, creating a separate risk in the case of long-term investments in equipment and personnel. Disputes with DHMI concerning allocations and fees may partly follow the administrative court route, while conflicts with private operators are to be resolved before civil courts or in agreed arbitration proceedings; the correct classification of the available legal avenue is one of the first strategic decisions in any dispute.

How does the SGHA allocate liability between airlines and ground handlers?

The contractual relationship between airlines and ground handlers in Türkiye also follows, almost across the board, the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement — a contractual framework consisting of a main agreement, a schedule of services (Annex A) and location-specific implementation agreements (Annex B), with the current version in each case determining market practice. Its liability-law core is the indemnity architecture of Article 8: as a matter of principle, the airline waives claims against the ground handler for damage to the aircraft and arising from operations — including compensation it must pay to third parties, passengers and cargo interests — and indemnifies the ground handler in this respect; the ground handler’s liability remains essentially limited to cases in which the damage was caused intentionally or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. Economically, the SGHA thereby shifts the loss risk to the airline and its insurers — a deliberate allocation oriented towards insurability, which in international practice is regularly varied through Annex B modifications, such as liability caps per event or the reintroduction of liability for gross negligence. Whether and to what extent this architecture withstands scrutiny under Turkish law is the actual core question of this area of law.

Do the liability clauses of the SGHA withstand scrutiny under Turkish law?

Turkish law of obligations imposes mandatory limits on contractual exclusions of liability. Under Article 115 para. 2 of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), an exclusion of liability agreed in advance for intent and gross negligence is void. In addition — and of particular significance for ground handling — Article 115 para. 3 TBK declares even an exclusion of liability agreed in advance for slight negligence void if the service owed may be provided only on the basis of an official authorisation. For liability for auxiliary persons, Article 116 para. 3 TBK adopts an even stricter assessment under the same condition: if the activity is subject to authorisation, the exclusion of liability for auxiliary persons is generally void — irrespective of the degree of their fault, and therefore even for their slight negligence. Since ground handling under SHY-22 is precisely such an activity subject to authorisation, the far-reaching indemnity of the ground handler under Article 8 SGHA stands on uncertain ground in Türkiye: there are good reasons to assume that Turkish courts would deny reliance on contractual exclusions of liability at least in cases of gross fault and, according to the wording of Articles 115 para. 3 and 116 para. 3 TBK, also beyond that. Case law on parallel constellations of regulated services confirms this restrictive line, even though established high-court case law specifically on the SGHA is still lacking. For contract practice, this means: the risk allocation under the SGHA must not be assumed to be secure in Türkiye; it should be secured by insurance-based mechanisms — mutual coverage obligations and waivers of recourse by insurers — which operate independently of the effectiveness of the exclusion of liability.

How does the liability and recourse chain operate in the case of ramp damage?

The most practically significant loss scenario is damage to the aircraft during handling — for example by passenger boarding bridges, high loaders, towing vehicles and catering vehicles. The adjustment of such losses typically follows a specific chain of claims: the hull insurer of the airline first indemnifies the damage to the aircraft. Under Article 1472 para. 1 TTK, the insured’s compensation claim against the ground handler responsible for the damage then passes to the insurer by operation of law. On the ground handler’s side, the insurer’s recourse claim is typically met by the ground handler’s liability or custody-damage cover. For the enforcement or defence of the recourse claim, three aspects in particular are decisive. First, the evidentiary position regarding the course of the damage matters. The decisive question is whether it can be established in a comprehensible manner which handling equipment caused the damage and under what circumstances this occurred. Joint damage reports, apron camera recordings, equipment data and immediate judicial securing of evidence under Articles 400 et seq. HMK can be of considerable importance in this respect. In practice, the question whether the specific course of the damage can be proven may be more decisive for the outcome of the recourse proceedings than the subsequent legal assessment.

Secondly, the effectiveness of the SGHA indemnity discussed above is important. The ground handler may rely on the contractually agreed indemnity under the SGHA against the recourse claim; however, whether and to what extent such a clause is effective under Turkish law and enforceable against the hull insurer is not readily clear.

Thirdly, the legal classification of fault matters. In particular, it may determine whether contractually agreed liability caps apply or are broken through due to qualified fault.

A separate dimension is opened by claims of cargo interests and passengers against the ground handler itself: in this respect, the ground handler, as a servant or agent of the air carrier, may rely on the liability limits of the Montreal Convention, Article 30 of which opens the carrier’s defences and limits to servants and agents as long as they act in the performance of their duties — protection that falls away in the case of qualified fault.

What insurance-law requirements apply?

SHY-22 makes the conclusion and proof of liability insurance a licensing requirement; in addition, there are the coverage obligations contractually agreed — regularly in Annex B — towards the handled airlines, usually in the form of ground-handling liability insurance with a custody-damage component in a market-standard amount, including the airline as an additional insured. From the ground handler’s perspective, congruence between contract and coverage is the central duty of care in risk management: if the contract assumes liabilities that the policy excludes — for example through acknowledgements without the insurer’s consent or deviations from the agreed fault threshold — a coverage gap arises, which may threaten the company’s existence in the event of a major loss. From the perspective of the airline and its insurers, attention must in turn be paid to the actual recoverability of the ground handler’s coverage, to waiver-of-recourse clauses between the insurers involved and to the coordination of notification and cooperation obligations in both coverage relationships; the general principles are presented in the article on aviation insurance and recourse.

What consequences arise for contract drafting?

The analysis leads to concrete drafting consequences. First, for both sides it is advisable not to adopt the liability architecture of the SGHA without review, but to adapt it to Turkish law in Annex B: with realistic liability caps congruent with insurance coverage, an express regulation of fault thresholds and insurance-based waivers of recourse that support the allocation even if the exclusion of liability fails under Articles 115 and 116 TBK. Secondly, damage documentation deserves contractual regulation: joint reporting obligations, time limits for damage notifications, access to apron recordings and the designation of contact persons on both sides. Thirdly, choice-of-law, jurisdiction and arbitration clauses should be drafted deliberately — arbitration lends itself to the typically international parties involved, but does not change the applicability of the mandatory limits under Turkish law. Fourthly and finally, the regulatory level belongs in the contract: the existence and scope of the SHY-22 licence, the consequences of its loss and responsibility for disruptions caused by the airport operator should be expressly addressed. Understood in this way, the handling contract is not a standard-form transaction, but an instrument of active risk management in a densely regulated environment.

Conclusion

Turkish ground-handling law combines a strict licensing regime — the activity subject to licensing under SHY-22, with officially approved minimum tariffs and ongoing supervision — with a contract practice that is internationally standardised, but whose liability architecture meets the mandatory limits of Articles 115 and 116 TBK: the far-reaching indemnities of the SGHA are subject to considerable doubts as to their effectiveness in Türkiye precisely because the activity is subject to authorisation. In the case of ramp damage, in addition to this legal question, the evidentiary position is above all decisive; the recourse chain between the hull insurer, the airline, the ground handler and its liability insurer follows the transfer of claims under Article 1472 TTK, while Article 30 of the Montreal Convention incorporates the ground handler into the liability regime of the air carrier in relation to cargo and passenger claims.

Ground-handling companies should treat the congruence of licence, contract and insurance coverage as a permanent compliance task; airlines and insurers should not base the risk allocation of their Turkish handling contracts on the effectiveness of exclusion clauses, but on insurance-based mechanisms and evidence-secure claims processes. In a market in which a small number of players handle almost all traffic, the quality of this contractual and claims architecture determines years of cooperation — and the outcome of the conflicts that cannot be avoided within it.

The aviation law team of GEMS Schindhelm advises ground-handling companies, airlines and their insurers on the drafting and adaptation of handling contracts, on licensing and supervisory matters under SHY-22 and on the handling of ramp damage as well as the pursuit and defence of related recourse claims before Turkish courts and arbitral institutions.