- INTRODUCTION
Marine pollution is critically important for both environmental sustainability and the protection of marine ecosystems. Türkiye, with its strategic geographical position and international obligations, enforces various national and international regulations to combat marine pollution. However, the maritime sector often critiques the administrative fines imposed, viewing them as disproportionate in some cases.
Administrative fines for marine pollution can be imposed under certain legal frameworks, and their consequences may include financial burdens, reputational damage, or operational delays for vessels. This information note examines the legal basis for these administrative fines, the mechanisms for their calculation and escalation, and the judicial processes available for challenging them. Additionally, practical recommendations will be provided to help mitigate the risk of incurring such fines.
While Türkiye has made considerable strides in environmental protection, ensuring fairness and transparency in the implementation of administrative fines remains a key area for improvement.
- LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES ON MARINE POLLUTION: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW NO. 2872
The aim of this law is to protect the environment, which is a common heritage of all living beings, in line with the principles of sustainable environment and sustainable development. Polluters and those causing environmental harm are held strictly liable for the pollution and damage they cause, regardless of fault. Environmental Law applies to pollution incidents occurring in Turkish territorial waters, maritime jurisdiction areas, and related waters under Türkiye’s jurisdiction.
One of the main principles of the Environmental Law is the “polluter pays” principle.
Article 8 of the Environmental Law prohibits the discharge, storage, transport, disposal, or engagement in similar activities involving all kinds of waste and residues in a manner harmful to the environment, whether directly or indirectly, and in violation of the standards and methods specified in the relevant regulations. In situations where there is a risk of pollution, responsible parties are obligated to take preventive measures. If pollution occurs, the polluter must stop the pollution, eliminate or mitigate its effects, and take the necessary remedial actions.
Additionally, Article 28 establishes that individuals or entities who pollute the environment or cause environmental damage are strictly liable for the harm caused by the resulting pollution and degradation, regardless of fault. The polluter’s liability for compensation under general provisions concerning such damages is also upheld. In other words, the polluter is responsible for all costs arising from pollution and waste, including those incurred to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution and degradation, as well as to restore the environment.
- Penalties Under the Environmental Law
According to Environmental Law No. 2872, the penalties for 2025 are as follows:
| Type of Pollution Tonnage | Gross Tons | 2026 Penalties (TL) |
| Category A: Discharge of petroleum and derivatives (e.g., crude oil, bilge water) by tankers | 0-1,000 GT (inclusive) | 5.752,34 TL per gross ton |
| 1,001-5,000 GT (inclusive) | + 1.438,13 TL per gross ton | |
| +5,001 GT | + 143,75 TL per gross ton | |
| Category B: Discharge of dirty ballast by tankers | 0-1,000 GT (inclusive) | 1.048,03 TL per gross ton |
| 1,001-5,000 GT (inclusive) | + 209,08 TL per gross ton | |
| +5,001 GT | + 33,18 TL per gross ton | |
| Category C: Discharge of petroleum products (e.g., crude oil, bilge water) and dirty ballast by vessels | 0-1,000 GT (inclusive) | 2.876,16 TL per gross ton |
| 1,001-5,000 GT (inclusive) | + 575,25 TL per gross ton | |
| +5,001 GT | + 143,75 TL per gross ton | |
| Category D: Discharge of garbage, sewage, domestic waste water, wash water etc by vessels or tankers : | 0-18 GT (inclusive) | 31.898 TL |
| 19-50 GT (inclusive) | 63.802 TL | |
| 51-100 GT (inclusive) | 127.605 TL | |
| 101-150 GT (inclusive) | 191.411 TL | |
| 151-1000 GT (inclusive) | +1.438,13 TL per gross ton | |
| 1001-5000 GT (inclusive) | + 287,64 TL per gross ton | |
| +5,001 GT | + 33,18 TL per gross ton |
The circumstances under which the fines may be increased or reduced, as provided under the Enviromental Law, are as follows:
| Factor | Rate |
| Discharge of hazardous substances and wastes, based on the oil and derivatives category | x10 |
| If the ship or marine vessel has removed the pollution caused by its own means following the occurrence of pollution | 1/3 |
| In Special Environmental Protection Areas | x2 |
| If there is a pollution re-occurrence for the vessel within 3 years | +x1 |
| if there is a pollution re-occurrence within 3 years, for the second and subsequent repetitions | +x2 |
| For legal entities | X3 |
| If the fine is paid within 30 days | %25 discount |
- Increase in Penalties Over the Years
| Year | Increase Rate |
| 2016 | 3,83% |
| 2017 | 14,47% |
| 2018 | 23,73% |
| 2019 | 22,58% |
| 2020 | 9,11% |
| 2021 | 36,20% |
| 2022 | 122,93% |
| 2023 | 58,46% |
| 2024 | 43,93% |
| 2025 | 25,49% |
- Procedure to be Applied in Detecting Violation and Imposing Penalty
The Regulation on the Determination of Violations and the Imposition and Collection of Administrative Fines under the Environmental Law, which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette dated 3 April 2007, was repealed by the Environmental Inspection Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated 24 December 2021 (No. 31699).
With this regulatory change, the framework governing the detection of violations and the imposition of administrative sanctions has been fundamentally revised. Under the new regime, a significant shift in approach has been introduced in relation to the detection of ship sourced marine pollution. While the previous system primarily relied on sampling, the current framework places greater emphasis on determinations based on visual and technical evidence.
Accordingly, in cases where the existence of pollution, the type of pollutant, and the identity of the polluting vessel can be established clearly and without doubt through photographs, video recordings, aerial surveillance or technical equipment, administrative sanctions may be imposed without the need for sampling.
Sampling, on the other hand, has become a supplementary method, to be used only in cases where the type of pollutant or the responsible vessel cannot be determined with sufficient clarity.
While this transformation aims to enable more effective use of technological tools and to accelerate enforcement activities, it has also given rise to new legal debates, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and the reliability of evidence.
This is of particular importance as the type and amount of administrative fines imposed for ship sourced marine pollution depend directly on the nature of the pollutant. Therefore, where the type of pollutant is determined solely on the basis of visual evidence, without verification through technical or scientific methods, this may weaken the legal robustness of the administrative decision.
In practice, issues such as whether visual evidence alone is sufficient, whether sampling should have been conducted, and how the causal link between the pollution and the vessel is established, are frequently at the core of annulment actions brought against administrative fines.
- Challenges Against Administrative Fines under Environmental Law No. 2872
Administrative fines imposed under the Environmental Law may be challenged before the Administrative Courts in Türkiye within thirty days from the date of notification.
In practice, however, such challenges are often filed after payment of the fine, either to benefit from the statutory 25 percent discount or to prevent the detention of the vessel by the authorities.
Administrative proceedings in Türkiye are primarily conducted on the basis of written submissions and documentary evidence. Decisions of the Administrative Courts may be appealed before the Regional Administrative Courts and, ultimately, before the Council of State, which is the highest administrative court in Türkiye.
- Practical Approaches to Administrative Litigation in Environmental Fines
Effectively challenging administrative fines under Environmental Law No. 2872 requires a thorough understanding of the structure and procedural dynamics of administrative litigation in Türkiye.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the Administrative Procedure Law and follow a distinct procedural framework separate from civil or criminal proceedings. Success in such cases largely depends on presenting clear, concise and well structured arguments supported by solid evidence. Overly lengthy or excessively detailed submissions are generally discouraged; instead, the focus should remain on the factual and procedural aspects of the dispute.
Common grounds for challenging administrative fines include:
- procedural deficiencies, such as inadequate investigation or documentation errors
- lack of a proper legal basis for the fine, including failure of the alleged conduct to meet the statutory criteria for sanctioning
- failure to conduct sampling where it would have been necessary under the circumstances
- inability to properly identify the type of pollutant
- disproportionate or excessive fines in light of the nature and severity of the alleged violation
In administrative litigation concerning environmental fines, the strength of the claims largely depends on demonstrating non compliance with applicable laws, regulations or communiqués, and identifying procedural or substantive deficiencies in the imposition of the fine.
A strategic approach supported by robust evidence and expert legal guidance is essential to achieving a successful outcome.
- Challenges in Contesting Environmental Fines in Administrative Courts
- Duration of the proceedings
Although administrative court proceedings are generally faster than those in judicial
courts, the process can still extend over a significant period, particularly when appellate
mechanisms, such as regional appellate courts or the Council of State (supreme
administrative court), are invoked.
- The wide range of judge’s discretion
While environmental fines can often be effectively challenged on the basis of procedural or substantive irregularities, judicial discretion plays a decisive role in determining the outcome.
In practice, courts tend to focus primarily on the existence of pollution, particularly where it is established “beyond doubt”, rather than on procedural deficiencies in the imposition of the fine.
This approach constitutes a significant obstacle. Variations in judicial interpretation lead to inconsistencies in case law, making outcomes difficult to predict. Even where a favourable decision is obtained at first instance, such decisions are frequently overturned by the Regional Administrative Courts or the Council of State, often in favour of the administration.
Overall, the judicial approach tends to prioritise the necessity of imposing a penalty once pollution is deemed to have occurred. Nevertheless, despite these challenges, there are precedents in which fines have been reduced or annulled through well structured legal arguments. Such decisions provide a degree of guidance and encouragement for claimants seeking to challenge environmental fines.
c. Litigation costs
A further challenge in contesting environmental fines is the financial risk associated with an adverse outcome. As a general rule, the losing party is required to bear the litigation costs, including the legal fees of the opposing party.
This financial exposure can act as a significant deterrent, particularly for companies concerned about the cumulative costs of prolonged proceedings.
- Conclusion
Marine pollution remains a critical issue on a global scale, and Türkiye’s strategic geographical position places it at the forefront of environmental protection efforts.
While Environmental Law No. 2872 provides a comprehensive framework for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the environment, its application in practice has been subject to significant criticism, particularly in terms of fairness and proportionality.
In particular, the cumulative application of all aggravating factors provided under the Law may, in certain cases, result in disproportionately high fines exceeding the value of the vessel itself. This highlights the need for a more balanced and proportionate approach.
Furthermore, under the new regulatory framework, where sampling has been relegated to a secondary method, the administration has been granted significantly broader discretion in the detection and sanctioning of pollution.
In this context, adopting a strategic legal approach is essential. Timely applications before the administrative courts, supported by clear and robust evidence, significantly increase the likelihood of reducing or annulling administrative fines.
At BB Partners Law Firm, we provide strategic legal guidance to our clients in the maritime sector in relation to marine pollution and administrative fines, assisting them in navigating complex legal processes. Our aim is to protect our clients’ rights while ensuring that fair and balanced outcomes are achieved. Taking into account the specific dynamics of the maritime industry, we approach each case with diligence and a sector focused perspective, contributing to the promotion of legal certainty and fairness in maritime practice.
