The İTÜ Maritime Faculty (YDO) Graduates Association had filed a lawsuit for the annulment of certain articles of the Seafarers and Pilot Captains Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated September 29, 2024.
The 10th Chamber of the Council of State rejected the application for the annulment of the regulation articles. In a statement issued by the İTÜ Maritime Faculty (YDO) Graduates Association regarding the matter, it was stated that an appeal against the rejection decision was filed on Tuesday, July 23.
The full statement of the association is as follows:
In accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the İTÜ Maritime Faculty (YDO) Graduates Association; the annulment lawsuit was filed with the request for a stay of execution under file number /5734E of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, on the grounds that the entirety of paragraph 2 of Article 45; the entirety of paragraph 3 of Article 45; the phrase “may decide to impose one of the sanctions such as suspension of certificates of competency for up to six months, downgrading of certificates of competency, cancellation of certificates of competency, or prohibition of the relevant person from working at sea” within paragraph 1 of Article 62 and, in this context, the entirety of paragraphs 8, 10, and 11, which are related provisions; subparagraph 10 of paragraph “a” of paragraph 13 of Article 62; the repeal of Article 66 and paragraph 2 of Article 69 of the repealed regulation; the entirety of paragraph 9 of Article 68; the entirety of paragraph 3 of Article 69; the entirety of subparagraph “c” of paragraph 8 of Article 69; the entirety of paragraph 6 of Article 70 are contrary to the law and, most importantly, the term “seafarer” in the title and text of the regulation violates the principle protected by Article 10 of the Constitution, which states, “Women and men have equal rights. The State is obliged to ensure that this equality is put into practice.”
Following the examination conducted by the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, our request for a stay of execution was rejected, with the right to appeal to the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board within 7 days from the notification of the decision. The aforementioned decision contains dissenting opinions (minority votes) regarding two separate article provisions.
In the case currently being heard by the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, regarding the examination of paragraph 6 of Article 70 of the Regulation titled “Validity, Suspension, and Cancellation of Pilot Captain Certificates of Competency,” Chamber President Mr. İbrahim Topuz cast a dissenting vote in favor of a stay of execution.
The aforementioned paragraph 6.
The paragraph has been amended as follows:
“The administration may lower the age limit of sixty-five years specified in the fifth paragraph to sixty years, to be applied no earlier than 24 months later.”
In the dissenting opinion, it was stated:
• Despite the determination that the health report obtained in accordance with the current Seafarers’ Health Guidelines confirms the absence of any health condition preventing the individual from serving as a pilot, the defendant administration failed to present any objective justification for lowering the pilotage age limit to sixty,
• Additionally, the regulation in question does not provide any clarity regarding the conditions or timing under which this authority granted to the administration may be exercised,
• While the Regulation already sets an upper age limit and health requirements, further lowering this limit could unjustifiably, disproportionately, and arbitrarily restrict the constitutional right to work. Based on these grounds, a dissenting vote was cast in favor of suspending the implementation of paragraph 6 of Article 70 of the Seafarers and Pilots Regulation.
In the case currently under review by the 10th Chamber of the Council of State, regarding the term “seafarer” (gemiadamı) appearing in the title and throughout the text of the Seafarers and Pilots Regulation, Chamber Member Mr. Ahmet Saraç cast a dissenting vote in favor of suspending its implementation.
In the dissenting opinion, it was stated:
• Referring to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, titled “Equality Before the Law,” which states: “Everyone is equal before the law without distinction as to language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect, or any such grounds. Women and men have equal rights. The State is obliged to ensure the realization of this equality. … State organs and administrative authorities shall act in compliance with the principle of equality before the law in all their proceedings.” Considering that there are no restrictions on the admission of female students in maritime-related faculties of universities in our country and that women are actively employed on ships, the term “seafarer” (gemiadamı) is incompatible with contemporary principles of equality,
• Noting that a similar approach has been adopted internationally, with the term “seafarer” replacing “seaman” under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, approved by Law No. 6898 published in the Official Gazette on 25.03.2017,
• Furthermore, pointing out that the contested Regulation includes terms such as “Ship Personnel Information System (GİBS)” and “scientists working on research vessels” under Article 3 titled “Definitions and Abbreviations,” it was concluded that the term “seafarer” (gemiadamı) in the Regulation violates the constitutional principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination, lacks public interest and legal conformity, and thus its implementation should be suspended.
Our appeal against the rejection of the request for suspension of execution was filed on 23.07.2025 within the prescribed period. We will continue to work to protect the rights of our graduates and all seafarers. Respectfully announced to the esteemed maritime community and all our stakeholders.
7DENİZ
