In Türkiye, private competition law claims constitute the private law remedies available alongside public antitrust enforcement. These private claims serve a different purpose from the administrative investigations conducted by the Turkish Competition Authority (TCA): while the TCA focuses on preserving effective competition in the market and sanctioning infringements, private litigation aims to compensate injured parties for the economic losses they have suffered.

The primary statutory basis for private antitrust actions under the laws of Türkiye is found in Act No 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Act”), Articles 56 to 59 of which set out the core provisions governing the private law consequences of antitrust infringements. Pursuant to these provisions, agreements and practices that prevent, distort or restrict competition give rise to legal liability, enabling affected individuals and legal entities to seek compensation for the losses they have incurred.

For many years, the number of private antitrust lawsuits in Türkiye remained relatively limited. The primary reasons for this included rights holders’ lack of awareness of their entitlement to seek damages arising from competition law infringements and the lengthy nature of judicial proceedings. Today, however, the number of damages actions being brought is steadily increasing.

One of the most critical aspects of private antitrust practice in Türkiye is that a finding of infringement by the TCA is considered a prerequisite for filing a compensation lawsuit. Indeed, as emphasised by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, for a court to award damages resulting from a restriction of competition, the violation of the Competition Act must first be established by a final decision of the TCA (Judgment dated 15 January 2024 and numbered E.2023/2234, K.2024/174). Similarly, the 45th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice stated that an infringement decision by the TCA – as the specialised authority – is decisive in establishing whether an inter-undertaking relationship is unlawful (Judgment dated 18 December 2024 and numbered E.2024/833, K.2024/1690).

However, requiring a decision from the TCA does not mean that the harmed plaintiff must have personally filed a complaint before the TCA prior to bringing a lawsuit. In other words, even if the plaintiff is not the party who reported the infringement to the TCA, they can directly apply to the court for damages; neither the Competition Act nor general provisions set a prior application to the TCA as a mandatory condition for filing a lawsuit. As stated by the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, as long as a TCA decision establishing the infringement exists or has become final, any third party who suffered loss has the right to file an independent compensation lawsuit, even if they were not a party to the initial proceedings (Judgment dated 24 May 2023 and numbered E.2022/495, K.2023/3224).

Another critical and debated issue in practice is how many times the damages can be calculated under Article 58 of the Competition Act, as well as the limits of the judge’s discretion in this regard. Pursuant to the relevant provision, those who suffer loss from a competition law infringement may request compensation equal to three times the actual loss incurred or the profit generated by the infringers. In judicial decisions, this rate is generally not accepted as a mandatory or automatic multiplier, but rather as an upper limit that allows the judge to make an assessment based on the specific facts of the case. The 4th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice stated that Article 58 of the Competition Act sets a maximum limit for the compensation amount and grants the judge discretion to determine the final figure within this limit; however, it does not grant free discretion regarding the multiplier rate itself. In the same ruling, it was emphasised that the judge may award either one or three times the damages according to the circumstances of the case, provided that the award stays within the statutory upper limit and is not less than the hypothetical loss suffered by the plaintiff (Judgment dated 08 November 2021 and numbered E.2021/305, K.2021/2178).

No significant legislative updates have recently been introduced in the field of private antitrust litigation. Some high-profile damages actions remain pending before the courts, with the vast majority still subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny and appellate review.

In Turkish law, the statutory basis for private disputes arising from antitrust violations is established under the private law provisions set forth in Articles 56 to 59 of the Competition Act. Accordingly, any party that violates the law and thereby restricts competition is liable for any damages suffered by the injured parties. In such competition-related damages claims, plaintiffs may seek compensation for both their actual losses and the loss of profits. Furthermore, under the “triple damages rule”, the court may award compensation of three times the actual damages suffered or three times the profits gained, or likely to be gained, by the infringers.

In the Turkish judicial system, there is no specialised court designated exclusively to hear antitrust disputes. Instead, the competent court is determined by the nature of the dispute and the legal status of the parties involved. In this regard, the commercial courts of first instance have jurisdiction over disputes related to the parties’ commercial enterprises. If a claim is brought by consumers, the consumer courts have jurisdiction; the civil courts of first instance hear all other non-commercial disputes.

TCA decisions do not constitute res judicata and are not binding on the courts, but they are of critical importance in damages claims. Although this is not expressly regulated as a prerequisite under the legislation, under the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals, courts either dismiss damages claims filed before a final TCA decision has been rendered or hold the proceedings in abeyance by treating the TCA decision as a preliminary issue. In practice, TCA decisions are regarded as strong evidence of the existence of an infringement and are given significant weight by the courts. Accordingly, the existence of a TCA decision issued against the defendant significantly alleviates the claimant’s burden of proving the competition law infringement.

Decisions of other national competition authorities are not binding on Turkish courts. However, there is no legal impediment to the parties submitting such decisions as evidence.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, claims for damages arising from competition law infringements are subject to the general rules governing tort liability and the rules of evidence. Pursuant to the fundamental principles of Turkish law, as a general rule the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegation. Accordingly, a claimant asserting that it has suffered damages as a result of a competition law infringement must prove the following elements:

• that the defendant committed a competition law infringement;
• the existence of the damage suffered; and
• the causal link between the competition law infringement and the resulting damage.

Since competition law infringements are generally carried out in secrecy, it is extremely difficult for a claimant to obtain evidence that directly establishes the infringement. However, Article 59 of the Competition Act introduces a broad principle of freedom of evidence, allowing anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices to be proven by any type of evidence. Furthermore, if the claimant submits evidence giving rise to a presumption of the existence of an agreement or a distortion of competition (such as market sharing, price stability in the market, or simultaneous price increases by competitors), the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. In such a case, the defendant must prove that it has not engaged in a concerted practice.

Please also see 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities regarding the probative value of TCA decisions.

There is no explicit provision regarding the “passing-on” defence under Turkish competition law. However, there is no legal impediment to raising such a defence in judicial proceedings.

As the Competition Act does not prescribe a specific statute of limitations for competition law infringements, claims for damages are governed by the general provisions set forth in Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No 6098, which provide for three distinct limitation periods:

• the ordinary limitation period is two years from the date on which the claimant becomes aware of both the damage and the identity of the person liable for the damage;
• the maximum limitation period is ten years from the date of the infringement; and
• the exceptional limitation period is longer, where the relevant unlawful conduct is subject to a longer statute of limitations under Turkish criminal law.

Indeed, competition law infringements are classified as “administrative offences” (misdemeanours) that carry administrative fines, so the “extended statute of limitations” rule mentioned above applies to compensation lawsuits. This rule ensures that the longest limitation period prescribed by law for the action also applies to the compensation claim. Law No 5326 on Misdemeanours sets an eight-year statute of limitations for such administrative fines. In this regard, the Court of Appeals also held in its rulings that this eight-year period must be taken as the basis for compensation lawsuits (Judgment dated 28 March 2022 and numbered E.2021/7383, K.2022/2486).

The limitation period begins to run on the date the claimant becomes aware of both the damage and the identity of the person liable for the damage. Accordingly, where the claimant becomes aware of these elements at different times, the limitation period commences on the date of the later discovery.

In applying the general rules governing the commencement of the limitation period to damages claims arising from competition law infringements, determining the point in time at which the damage is deemed to have been discovered is of critical importance. In practice, the publication date of the TCA’s decision is regarded as the key reference date for determining when the claimant became aware of both the damage and the identity of the liable party.

Antitrust-related damages claims brought before the courts of first instance are generally resolved within two to four years. However, if the judicial review of the underlying TCA decision has not yet been completed, the court of first instance treats the finalisation of that decision as a preliminary issue; as a result, the proceedings are prolonged.

Furthermore, both the claimant and the defendant may appeal the judgment of the relevant court. Consequently, the final resolution of such cases often takes between five and seven years.

The concept of a class action does not exist under Turkish law.

However, pursuant to Article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, associations, consumer organisations, chambers of commerce and other legal entities may bring an action to protect the interests of their members or the groups they represent. However, the remedies available under this provision are limited, and it is not possible to seek damages.

As stated in 4.1 Statutory Basis, Turkish law does not recognise a class action regime, and therefore does not feature an “opt-in” or “opt-out” mechanism. Nevertheless, pursuant to Article 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure, multiple parties harmed by the same competition law infringement (such as a cartel) may join together to file a joint action for damages or intervene in a pending lawsuit.

Under Turkish competition law, no statutory distinction is made between direct and indirect purchasers with respect to private damages actions. In this regard, the critical issue is whether a causal link can be established between the anti-competitive conduct and the loss suffered by the claimant.

The concept of a class action does not exist under Turkish law.

There is no provision in the Competition Act governing the determination of the competent court for damages claims arising from competition law infringements; accordingly, the general rules apply. Plaintiffs may therefore bring an action before the courts of:

• the defendant’s domicile;
• the place where the tort (infringement) was committed;
• the place where the damage occurred or is likely to occur; or
• the injured party’s domicile.

With respect to the applicable law, Article 38 of the Private International and Procedural Law provides a specific rule under which damages claims arising from the restriction of competition are governed by the law of the country in which the market directly affected by the restriction is located. Accordingly, Turkish law applies to infringements affecting the Turkish market.

Article 59 of the Competition Act stipulates that anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices may be proven by any type of evidence, establishing a broad principle of freedom of evidence. Within this framework, the parties are required to submit all evidence supporting their claims and defences during the pleadings stage. Where relevant documents are not in the parties’ possession but are held by third parties or public authorities (such as the TCA), the court may issue an official request ordering the production of such documents. Furthermore, a party may request the court to order the opposing party to produce specific documents in its possession, provided that the request is supported by sufficient justification.

The principle of attorney-client privilege is expressly recognised under Turkish law. Pursuant to the Legal Practitioners’ Act No 1136, attorneys are prohibited from disclosing any information obtained in the course of their professional relationship with their clients. Furthermore, pursuant to the general principles of law, judges are required to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to safeguard attorney-client privilege, including with respect to documents and electronic communications.

On the other hand, legal professional privilege is interpreted and applied quite narrowly by the TCA. According to TCA decisions, legal professional privilege protection is granted only for correspondence with an independent lawyer (external counsel) as long as it is directly related to an ongoing investigation for the exercise of defence rights. In contrast, communications with in-house counsels or general legal advice received from external counsel before an investigation are not protected, and can be used by the TCA to identify violations. Therefore, such communications that appear in TCA decisions can also be submitted as evidence by plaintiffs in private antitrust damages claims.

Turkish competition legislation does not provide direct or absolute protection for documents submitted during leniency and settlement proceedings.

However, pursuant to the TCA’s Regulation on Active Cooperation for Detecting Cartels (“Leniency Regulation”), critical information regarding a cartel may also be submitted orally to the TCA, including details such as the products affected by the cartel, the geographic market, the duration of the infringement, and the parties involved. These statements are transcribed by the TCA’s experts and kept as “internal correspondence”. Communiqué No 2010/3 on the Regulation of the Right of Access to the File and Protection of Trade Secrets explicitly refers to the Leniency Regulation, stipulating that information and documents obtained through this method shall be classified as internal correspondence.

A similar provision is set forth in the Settlement Regulation of the TCA, whereby an undertaking settling with the TCA may submit its statements acknowledging the existence and scope of the infringement orally. In such cases, the prepared settlement text is likewise stored as “internal correspondence”.

This practice of the TCA may create a practical difficulty, particularly for plaintiffs who file compensation lawsuits. Since documents classified as internal correspondence are excluded from the scope of the right to access the file, plaintiffs’ access to this information and the evidence necessary to establish the infringement becomes effectively restricted.

The procedure for examining witnesses is governed by the general rules of civil procedure, under which the parties may rely on witness evidence within the legally prescribed time limits. Accordingly, the court must be provided with the identity and contact details of the proposed witnesses, as well as the specific facts on which they are to testify. At the hearing, witnesses are examined by the judge, and the parties’ legal counsel are also entitled to put questions to them.

Under Article 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may decide to obtain an expert opinion in cases requiring specialised or technical knowledge. The parties have the right to object to the expert report, and the court may order the preparation of a supplementary report.

In private competition law litigation, expert evidence is used primarily for the quantification of damages. Although the judge is not legally bound by the conclusions of the expert report, in practice, courts largely rely on the findings set out in the report.

The scope and method of calculating damages are governed by Article 58 of the Competition Act. In damages actions arising from competition law infringements, injured parties may claim compensation for both their actual damages and loss of profits. In determining the amount of lost profits, the profits that the injured undertaking could reasonably have expected to earn are assessed, taking into account its financial statements from previous years, among other things.

The general rule under Turkish law is that only the actual damages suffered by the injured party are recoverable. However, Turkish competition law provides an exception to this principle, whereby persons who suffer harm as a result of a competition law infringement may claim compensation of three times their actual damages or three times the profits gained, or likely to be gained, by the infringers (the “triple damages rule”). This mechanism constitutes a special rule intended to enhance deterrence.

There is no explicit provision regarding the “passing-on” defence under Turkish competition law, but there is no legal impediment to raising such a defence in judicial proceedings.

In damages actions arising from competition law infringements, the claimant may also seek interest accruing from the date of the infringement. Accordingly, the claimant must expressly request the award of interest.

Under Turkish competition law, where damage is caused by the conduct of multiple persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable for the damage. Accordingly, the claimant may bring an action against all jointly and severally liable parties, or against any one of them, and is entitled to recover the full amount of its damages from one, several or all of the liable parties.

Under Turkish competition law, no exception is granted to undertakings applying for leniency in order to protect them from civil damages claims.

As stated in 9.1 Joint and Several Liability, where multiple parties participate in a competition law infringement, any one of them may be held solely liable for the entire amount of the resulting damages. In such a case, a defendant who has paid the claimant more than its own share is legally subrogated to the rights of the injured party to the extent of the excess amount paid. Consequently, that party is entitled to bring a recourse claim against the other liable parties.

In damages actions, it is possible to apply for an interim injunction in order to prevent prejudice to the applicant’s rights during the proceedings. An interim injunction may be requested before or during the proceedings where the enforcement of a right would become significantly more difficult or impossible, or where a delay would result in serious or irreparable harm. The applicant is not required to establish its claim conclusively; rather, it is sufficient to present prima facie evidence demonstrating the merits of the claim to the extent that it creates a sufficient level of conviction in the judge’s mind. Where an interim injunction is granted before an action is commenced, the claimant must file the action within two weeks from the date on which enforcement of the injunction is requested.

In urgent cases where delay would create a risk, the court may also grant an interim injunction without hearing the other party. In such a case, the other party may object to the decision within one week from the enforcement of the injunction granted in its absence or from the date of its notification.

The court requires the applicant to provide security against any loss that the opposing party or third parties may suffer if the applicant is ultimately unsuccessful on the merits. The amount of the security is determined by the court on a case-by-case basis.

The parties may resolve their dispute through voluntary mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. They may also refer the dispute to arbitration, provided that the contract contains an arbitration clause or the parties subsequently agree to submit the dispute to arbitration. Recourse to these alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is not mandatory.

This should not, however, be confused with the mandatory mediation requirement (as a condition precedent to litigation) applicable to certain commercial disputes under Turkish law.

Under Turkish law, there is no legislative provision prohibiting third-party litigation funding or the assumption of the financial risks associated with litigation. Nevertheless, such arrangements remain uncommon in practice.

When the court renders its final judgment on the merits of the case, it also rules on the allocation of litigation costs. As a general rule, litigation costs are borne by the unsuccessful party.

The defendant may request that the claimant provide security for litigation costs in the following circumstances:

• where a Turkish citizen who does not have a habitual residence in Türkiye files a lawsuit or intervenes in proceedings as a third party; or
• where it is established that the claimant is in financial distress – for example, as a result of a prior bankruptcy decision, the commencement of concordat or restructuring-by-settlement proceedings, or the existence of a certificate of insolvency.

The court may also order security for litigation costs on its own motion where the statutory requirements are met. The court determines both the amount and the form of the security. However, where the parties have agreed on the form of the security in a contract, the court will determine the security accordingly. If the required security is not provided within the time limit set by the court, the action will be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Where the monetary value of the dispute exceeds the applicable statutory thresholds, the relevant court decisions may be appealed. In this regard, judgments rendered by the court of first instance may first be appealed before the competent Regional Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the decisions of the Regional Court of Appeals may be further appealed before the (High) Court of Appeals. Such appeals may be based on both errors of fact and procedural deficiencies.

The number of antitrust damages actions in Türkiye is expected to increase in the near future, due in part to the growing awareness among injured parties of their right to seek damages. The availability of triple damages (three times the actual harm suffered) under Turkish law makes such actions particularly attractive.

Beyond the financial incentives, however, the settlement mechanism introduced into the Competition Act in 2020 has become a significant driver of private damages litigation. An undertaking that chooses to settle expressly acknowledges that it has committed a competition law infringement, and this admission substantially reduces the claimant’s burden of proving the infringement in subsequent damages actions. Furthermore, although there is no explicit legal requirement, under the established approach of the Court of Appeals, courts generally treat a final TCA decision as a prerequisite for damages actions. Since settlement decisions cannot be appealed and therefore become final rapidly, subsequent damages proceedings before the courts may progress more quickly. It is important to note that reaching a settlement with the TCA does not shield an undertaking from civil damages actions or liability. Likewise, Turkish competition law does not provide any exemption from potential private damages claims for leniency applicants.

The TCA’s recent infringement decisions imposing administrative fines are also expected to generate further damages actions. In particular, the TCA has recently imposed substantial fines in relation to labour market infringements, including no-poach agreements as well as information exchanges on compensation and benefits across a wide range of sectors. Moreover, cartel cases continue to account for a significant proportion of the administrative fines imposed by the TCA. Consequently, it is likely that parties harmed by such infringements will increasingly pursue damages actions to recover their losses.

Finally, there are currently no ongoing legislative studies or official draft laws regarding private antitrust damages actions. Consequently, it can be stated that private damages claims will continue to be governed within the framework of the existing provisions of the Competition Act and general legal principles.