Litigation 2026 Comparisons

The Turkish legal system is based on civil law. Civil proceedings generally follow an adversarial model under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), although courts retain limited inquisitorial powers – particularly regarding evidence and fact-finding. Written submissions, including petitions, statements and supporting evidence, form the core of the process, as Turkish law places primary emphasis on written argumentation. Oral hearings also take place, during which judges may seek clarifications and parties may present brief oral statements.

In the Turkish legal system, courts operate within defined jurisdictions. The system consists of three branches: judicial, administrative and constitutional.

The judicial branch hears private law disputes and criminal matters. It includes civil courts of peace and civil courts of first instance, as well as specialised divisions such as commercial, labour, family, and consumer courts, alongside criminal courts of various levels.

The administrative branch adjudicates disputes involving public authorities through administrative and tax courts. Appeals are reviewed by the regional administrative courts (“BİM”) and ultimately by the Council of State.

Proceedings begin with the claimant’s petition, followed by the defendant’s response, generally due within two weeks of service. Timelines differ by case type; simplified civil procedures may conclude initial phases within approximately two months, while first-instance criminal cases follow Ministry of Justice target durations of around 300–390 days.

Hearings are generally open to the public under the principle of publicity, allowing third parties to observe proceedings and learn the outcome. However, several exceptions apply. Courts may order all or part of a hearing to be held in private where required by public morality, public security, or the protection of minors. Hearings before juvenile courts are closed under the Child Protection Law.

Case files themselves are not open to the general public; access is limited to the parties and their attorneys. Courts may also restrict disclosure of sensitive information – such as personal data, family matters, or trade secrets – when necessary to protect confidentiality.

Under Article 3 of the Attorneyship Law, only licensed attorneys may appear before Turkish courts. To obtain such authorisation, a lawyer must be a Turkish citizen, hold a law degree from a Turkish faculty of law (or a recognised foreign degree supplemented by mandatory Turkish law courses), complete the statutory traineeship, establish domicile within the bar association’s jurisdiction, and satisfy the general conditions of professional fitness.

Rights of audience are limited to attorneys registered with a Turkish bar association; trainee lawyers and foreign lawyers do not have independent standing before the courts. Foreign lawyers may participate only in co-operation with a Turkish attorney and solely in an advisory capacity.

Article 44 of the Attorneyship Law permits foreign attorney partnerships to operate under specific regulatory and foreign-capital conditions; however, such partnerships do not confer courtroom audience rights on foreign partners. Parties are free to engage foreign counsel in arbitration or matters governed by foreign law, and temporary authorisation may be granted where provided by international treaties or special arrangements.

There is no specific legislation in Türkiye regulating or prohibiting third-party litigation funding. In domestic court proceedings, funding arrangements are not expressly addressed in the procedural codes; however, they must comply with the general principles of attorney independence and the prohibition on quota litis agreements under the Attorneyship Law.

Third-party funding is permitted in practice in international arbitration. The Turkish International Arbitration Law, which is aligned with international standards, contains no restrictions on external funders, and tribunals seated in Türkiye generally follow global norms regarding disclosure and conflicts. The New York Convention also facilitates the enforcement of arbitral awards, indirectly supporting funded arbitration.

As Turkish law does not expressly regulate third-party funding, there is no statutory limitation on the types of lawsuits that may, in principle, be funded. In practice, third-party funding is most commonly used in high-value commercial disputes, international arbitration, compensation claims, and certain intellectual property matters, where the economic structure of the case makes external funding viable.

As Turkish law does not restrict third-party funding, it is theoretically available to both plaintiffs and defendants. In practice, funding is more commonly extended to plaintiffs, though defendants may also obtain funding for defence costs or to pursue counterclaims with financial recovery potential.

There are no statutory minimum or maximum amounts for third-party funding in Türkiye. Funding levels are determined contractually and depend on the economic value and merits of the case, as well as the funder’s assessment of recoverability and overall risk. In practice, funders set their own upper and lower thresholds, but these limits stem from commercial judgement rather than legal requirements, and may be freely agreed between the parties under the principle of freedom of contract.

Third-party funders may cover a range of litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees; court application and hearing fees; expert witness and evidence-gathering costs; as well as necessary travel, communication, research, and analytical expenses. Funding decisions typically depend on the funder’s assessment of the merits and recoverability of the claim, rather than any statutory cost categories, and the scope of covered costs is defined contractually between the parties.

Contingency fees are permitted in Türkiye within the limits set by the Attorneyship Law. Under Article 164, lawyers may agree on a success-based fee in addition to the base fee; however, quota litis arrangements – where the lawyer receives a share of the asset or right obtained through the litigation – are expressly prohibited, and no transfer of the litigated property to the lawyer is allowed. In practice, success fees must remain proportionate and not undermine the prohibition on quota litis, and they typically do not exceed approximately 25% of the monetary outcome.

Turkish law does not impose any time limit within which a party must obtain third-party funding. Funding may, in principle, be secured at any stage of the proceedings. In practice, however, funders prefer to become involved at an early phase of the dispute so that legal and financial risks can be assessed comprehensively and case strategy can be shaped from the outset.

Turkish law does not impose a general pre-action protocol, but certain requirements must be met before initiating proceedings. Sending a prior notice to the prospective defendant is optional, although commonly used to seek an amicable resolution. In several areas – most notably labour disputes, commercial monetary claims and consumer disputes – mandatory mediation constitutes a condition of action. A lawsuit filed without first applying to a mediator is dismissed on procedural grounds.

Before filing a claim, the plaintiff must also pay the court fees and deposit the advance on costs required under Article 120 of the CPC. If this advance is missing, the court grants a definite period of two weeks to complete payment, failing which the case is procedurally dismissed. By contrast, advances for specific items of evidence are generally not treated as conditions of action unless otherwise provided by law.

Parties must also consider applicable statutes of limitation. The defendant’s failure to submit a timely response carries no formal penalty but may be treated as admission of uncontroverted allegations under the CPC.

Under Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, civil claims are subject to a general limitation period of ten years, unless a shorter period is specifically prescribed by law. This limitation period applies not only to obligations governed by the Code of Obligations but also to claims under other statutes that do not provide a special limitation rule.

Certain claims are subject to shorter periods. For example, tort claims become time-barred two years after the injured party becomes aware of the damage and identity of the liable person, and in any event, ten years after the wrongful act (CO Article 72). Other claims – such as periodic payments, commercial agency, or brokerage – are subject to various shorter limitation periods expressly set out in the Code.

Limitation begins when the claim becomes due or, in tort matters, when the claimant learns of the harm and the identity of the responsible party. The statute of limitations does not operate automatically; it must be raised by the defendant as a procedural defence.

Turkish law provides both general and special jurisdiction rules. Under Article 6 of the CPC, the general rule is that the defendant is sued in the court of their domicile. In addition, the CPC recognises several special jurisdictions: for contractual claims, the court of the place of performance is competent (Article 10); for tort claims, the court where the wrongful act occurred or where the damage was suffered is competent (Article 16). Labour and social-insurance disputes may be brought where the work is performed or the insurance relationship arose, and consumer actions may be filed in the consumer’s domicile.

Parties may enter into a written jurisdiction agreement for commercial matters, provided the agreement designates a Turkish court and does not contravene public order or mandatory rules. Where there are multiple defendants, the action may be filed in the domicile of any one of them.

For foreign defendants, jurisdiction is determined under the Private International Law and Procedural Law Act (“MÖHUK”), which confers jurisdiction where the dispute has sufficient connection to Türkiye – for example, if the harmful act or contract occurred in Türkiye, or if the defendant holds assets within Türkiye.

A civil action is initiated by filing a statement of claim (dava dilekçesi) that meets the formal requirements of Article 119 of the CPC. At the time of filing, the plaintiff must also deposit the advance on costs with the court, pursuant to Article 120.

The statement of claim may be supplemented or amended under certain conditions. Until the completion of the preliminary examination hearing, the plaintiff may expand or modify the claim without the defendant’s consent. After this stage, substantive changes generally require either the opposing party’s consent or the use of the statutory amendment mechanism (ıslah), which permits a one-time comprehensive amendment of the pleadings. If the statement of claim contains formal deficiencies, the court grants a definite period for their correction, failing which, the case may be dismissed procedurally.

In Türkiye, service of the statement of claim is carried out by the court in accordance with the Notification Law. The defendant is served with the lawsuit petition together with a notice requiring a response within two weeks under Article 127 of the CPC. Service is made to the addressee personally if a natural person, and to authorised representatives in the case of legal entities. Where applicable, electronic service is effected pursuant to the Electronic Notification Law.

Under Article 10 of the Notification Law, service is made to the recipient’s last known address; if this is unsuccessful, service is attempted at the address recorded in the population registry. Although service is generally the court’s responsibility, the plaintiff may request postal service through the official notification system.

If the defendant is abroad, service is effected pursuant to Article 25 of the Notification Law and applicable international instruments. Türkiye is a party to the Hague Service Convention, under which service is transmitted through the designated central authority. Where the defendant’s address cannot be determined, service may be made by public announcement in accordance with Article 28 of the Notification Law.

If the defendant does not submit a reply within the two-week period following service of the statement of claim, the court proceeds based on the claimant’s allegations. Under Article 128 of the CPC, factual assertions that are not expressly contested may be treated as admitted, and the defendant may be precluded from raising certain objections or defences later unless justified by good cause.

The proceedings continue even if the defendant does not appear at the hearings, and the court renders its decision in absentia while respecting the defendant’s constitutional right to be heard. A defendant who has not responded or appeared may still challenge the judgment through the ordinary appellate routes within the statutory time limit following service of the reasoned decision.

Turkish law does not recognise class actions in the common-law sense. However, collective actions are permitted in limited circumstances. Under Article 113 of the CPC, associations, unions and similar legal entities may bring actions to protect the collective interests of their members or of a specific group, although such actions may not seek individual monetary compensation.

In the consumer field, authorised bodies under Consumer Law No 6502 – such as consumer associations and the Ministry of Trade – may file actions to stop or prevent practices that harm consumers collectively. Labour unions may likewise bring collective actions to safeguard collective labour rights.

These mechanisms do not operate on an opt-in or opt-out basis, and no class certification procedure exists. Outside the specific areas authorised by statute, collective actions are not available in the Turkish legal system.

Turkish law does not impose a formal statutory requirement to provide clients with a written cost estimate at the outset of litigation. However, under the Attorneyship Law and the Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, lawyers are obliged to inform clients transparently about anticipated attorney’s fees, court charges, expenses for experts and evidence, and the potential financial risks of the proceedings, including adverse-costs liability. In cases where expected costs are significant, lawyers are also expected to advise clients on alternative dispute resolution methods or other cost-efficient options.

Interim applications are permitted under Turkish law. Parties may request interim injunctive relief (ihtiyati tedbir), attachment orders for monetary claims (ihtiyati haciz), or the determination of evidence (delil tespiti) in order to preserve their rights pending trial. Pursuant to Article 390 of the CPC, interim injunctive relief may be sought from the court with jurisdiction over the merits before the action is filed, and from the trial court once proceedings have commenced.

Interim measures may also be granted in arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitral tribunal may order interim relief or the taking of evidence, although enforcement of such measures generally requires recourse to the competent state court.

A party seeking interim relief must submit a petition setting out the urgency and factual basis of the request, and may be required to provide security. Interim decisions are based on the evidence presented at this stage and are generally available where immediate protection is necessary. Orders on interim applications may be appealed through the ordinary appellate mechanisms.

Turkish civil procedure does not recognise a summary judgment or strike-out mechanism in the common-law sense. However, during the preliminary examination stage under Articles 137–142 of the CPC, the court may dispose of the case at an early phase by ruling on procedural objections and conditions of action, such as lack of jurisdiction, absence of legal interest, failure to meet mandatory procedural requirements, or statute of limitations objections raised by the defendant. If any of these bars are established, the court may dismiss the case without proceeding to the evidentiary phase.

Where a party asserts that the opposing claim is inadmissible or procedurally defective, it may raise the relevant objection during preliminary examination, and the court may hold a hearing to allow both parties to present their arguments. If the file shows that the dispute can be resolved as a matter of law or that the relevant facts are undisputed, the court may also issue a merits decision without taking further evidence. In all such cases, the court exercises its discretion within the statutory framework, rather than through a formal “early judgment” application procedure.

Turkish civil procedure does not contain “dispositive motions” in the common-law sense, but a case may be resolved at an early stage through statutory mechanisms examined during the preliminary examination. At this stage, the court may dismiss the action based on the absence of a condition of action – such as lack of jurisdiction, failure to satisfy mandatory mediation requirements, lack of legal interest, or non-payment of the advance for costs – or on first objections (ilk itirazlar), including territorial jurisdiction objections or a statute of limitations defence raised by the defendant. These issues may dispose of the case before any evidence is taken.

In addition to these dispositive mechanisms, parties may make interim or protective applications – such as requests for precautionary injunctions under Article 389 of the CPC, precautionary attachment under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, or applications for determination of evidence in cases where evidence may be lost. While these do not terminate the proceedings, they are commonly made before trial as part of case preparation and temporary legal protection.

Under the CPC, third parties may join an ongoing lawsuit in two forms. Through auxiliary intervention (fer’i müdahale), a person whose legal interests may be affected by the outcome may seek to support one of the existing parties. The intervenor files a petition with the trial court, and the court rules on the request after hearing any objections from the parties.

In addition, principal intervention (asli müdahale) allows a third party to assert an independent right to the subject matter of the dispute by applying to the same court. In such cases, the underlying proceedings are suspended until the intervention claim is resolved. While intervenors participate in the litigation, they do not become full parties to the original action unless their independent claim is accepted.

Under Article 84 of the CPC, a defendant may request that the plaintiff provide security for potential costs. Security may be ordered where the plaintiff does not have domicile or habitual residence in Türkiye, is a foreign national, or where there are objective indications of insolvency such as bankruptcy, concordat or restructuring proceedings. The same requirement applies to intervenors acting alongside the plaintiff.

The defendant must submit a written application stating the grounds for security. The court assesses whether the statutory conditions are met and, if so, orders the plaintiff to deposit security within a definite period. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the action is dismissed without prejudice. Security for costs is thus a procedural safeguard available to defendants in circumstances expressly provided by law.

The costs of interim applications are generally treated as part of the overall litigation costs and are ultimately allocated according to the outcome of the main proceedings. At the interim stage, the applicant must pay the relevant fees and disbursements – such as notification expenses, expert fees, or security where required – when making the application.

If the interim request is rejected, the applicant may be ordered to bear the expenses associated with that application, although final cost allocation is determined with the judgment on the merits. Interim applications typically involve urgent matters requiring resolution before the evidentiary phase, and the procedural rules governing them follow the general cost principles of the CPC.

The timeframe for a court to decide an application or motion depends on the nature and urgency of the request. Routine procedural applications are generally addressed at the next scheduled hearing or within the court’s ordinary workflow. By contrast, interim measures – such as precautionary injunctions, precautionary attachment, or the determination of evidence – may be handled on an expedited basis.

A party may request urgent consideration by demonstrating that delay would cause irreparable harm, jeopardise the enforceability of a future judgment, or risk the loss of critical evidence. In such circumstances, courts may issue orders swiftly, and in some cases without first hearing the opposing party. Non-urgent applications, however, are determined in the ordinary course and may take longer depending on the court’s docket.

Turkish civil procedure does not recognise discovery in the common-law sense. Evidence is primarily produced by the parties, who must identify in their pleadings the documents, witnesses and other evidence on which they rely. The court may, however, order a party or a third person to produce specific documents under Articles 219–226 of the CPC. If a party unjustifiably refuses, the court may accept the opposing party’s assertions regarding the document’s contents.

Witness testimony is taken by the court in accordance with CPC Articles 240–265, and expert examination is frequently used in matters requiring technical expertise. Where there is a risk that evidence may be lost or become difficult to obtain, the court may order the determination or preservation of evidence (delil tespiti).

The evidence process is administered and controlled by the court, which may exclude irrelevant or unnecessary evidence and ensure procedural economy. Because parties must advance the costs associated with their evidentiary requests, the scope and expense of the process are naturally limited. Broad, open-ended discovery and party-driven disclosure mechanisms do not exist in the Turkish system.

It is possible to obtain documents or other evidence from third parties who are not parties to the lawsuit. Under Articles 219–226 of the CPC, the court may order a third person to produce a document or record that is relevant to the dispute. The request must be made through the court, and the third party may refuse only where a statutory ground exists, such as professional secrecy or the risk of criminal liability. If the refusal is unjustified, the court may impose coercive measures or accept the opposing party’s assertions regarding the content of the document.

Third parties may also participate as witnesses under the witness-examination rules of Articles 240–265 of the CPC, in which case, they will testify under oath before the court. In matters requiring technical expertise, the court may appoint an expert, who is likewise a third party but acts in a different capacity. All such measures are administered by the court and are designed to provide limited, case-specific access to evidence rather than broad discovery.

Turkish law does not recognise broad discovery or general disclosure obligations. Each party is responsible for presenting the evidence on which it relies, and there is no duty to disclose all documents relevant to the dispute. Under Articles 219–226 of the CPC, a party may request the court to order the opposing party to produce a specific document; if the requested party unjustifiably refuses, the court may accept the requesting party’s assertions regarding the document’s content.

Evidence may be submitted with the initial pleadings and, in limited circumstances, during the course of the proceedings if its late submission is justified. Throughout this process, the court exercises control over the gathering and admission of evidence, ensuring that only relevant and necessary material is considered. There are no detailed rules resembling common-law discovery regimes.

As Turkish civil procedure does not provide for discovery, evidence is developed and admitted through the party-presentation system under the supervision of the court. Each party must submit the evidence on which it relies within the deadlines established by the CPC and the timetable set during the preliminary examination phase. Evidence may consist of documents, witness testimony, expert reports, on-site inspections and other material evidence.

Under Articles 219–226 of the CPC, the court may order a party or a third person to produce a specific document if it is relevant to the dispute. Witnesses are heard by the court in accordance with Articles 240–265 of the CPC, and technical issues are typically addressed through expert examination under Articles 266–287 of the CPC. Where there is a risk that evidence may be lost, parties may request the preservation or determination of evidence (delil tespiti).

Only legally obtained evidence may be relied upon, pursuant to Article 189 of the CPC. Throughout this process, the court controls the admission, relevance and probative value of the evidence to ensure a complete and lawful evidentiary record.

Turkish law recognises a broad form of attorney–client confidentiality. Under Article 36 of the Attorneyship Law, lawyers are required to keep confidential all information they obtain in the course of providing legal services, and this obligation continues indefinitely. Article 37 grants lawyers the right to refrain from testifying regarding matters learned through professional activity, and such information cannot be compelled. Although Turkish law does not use the common-law terminology of “privilege” or “work product”, communications and materials prepared by lawyers in the performance of their duties are protected by this confidentiality regime.

A lawyer may not disclose information to the detriment of the client, although they must not engage in conduct that would make them complicit in a criminal act. The rules apply fully to independent attorneys registered with a bar association. In contrast, in-house counsel who are not bar-registered are treated as employees and do not benefit from the same statutory protections, and their communications may not enjoy the same level of confidentiality.

Under the CPC, a party may refuse to produce a document where specific statutory grounds apply. Pursuant to Article 220 of the CPC, a party or third person may decline to produce a document if disclosure would seriously infringe personal or family privacy, reveal a professional or commercial secret subject to a legal duty of confidentiality, or expose the person to potential criminal liability. Documents containing state secrets may also be withheld for reasons of national security.

These exceptions operate as narrowly defined statutory protections and must be justified to the court. Separately, Article 189 of the CPC prohibits the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, meaning such documents cannot be introduced or compelled. Outside these defined grounds, parties are generally obliged to produce documents when ordered by the court.

Injunctive relief may be granted, according to Article 389 of the CPC, where delay would make it significantly difficult or impossible to enforce a right, or where the applicant risks suffering serious harm if protection is not provided. Such measures are intended to preserve the status quo and prevent prejudice pending final judgment, and the court will only grant them where a legal interest and a clear need for protection are demonstrated. Applicants are typically required to provide security pursuant to Article 392 of the CPC.

Precautionary injunctions may take the form of orders preserving assets, preventing certain actions, or maintaining existing conditions. For monetary claims, precautionary attachment under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law allows creditors to freeze the debtor’s assets to secure future enforcement. Asset-preservation orders may also be issued in non-monetary disputes where disposition of property would jeopardise enforceability.

In urgent circumstances, injunctive relief may be obtained very quickly. Under Article 389 of the CPC, the applicant must demonstrate that delay would make enforcement of the right significantly difficult or impossible, or that serious harm could result if protection is not provided. In such cases, courts may issue an injunction promptly and, where necessary, without first hearing the opposing party.

Türkiye maintains a system of on-duty judges (nöbetçi hâkimler), allowing parties to apply for interim measures outside normal court hours, including nights, weekends and public holidays. If the statutory conditions are met and urgency is established, decisions can be rendered on an expedited basis. Applicants may be required to provide security pursuant to Article 392 of the CPC.

Injunctive relief may be granted on an ex parte basis. Under the CPC, if the applicant demonstrates that delay would make enforcement of the right significantly difficult or impossible, or that serious harm is likely, the court may issue an injunction without notifying or hearing the respondent. In practice, ex parte orders are used where advance notice would frustrate the purpose of the measure.

After the injunction is granted, the respondent is promptly notified and may request that the order be modified or revoked. The court then conducts a contradictory hearing, and the applicant is generally required to provide security pursuant to Article 392 of the CPC.

If an injunction is later discharged or found to have been unjustified, the applicant may be held liable for the damages suffered by the respondent. This liability is imposed under Article 399 of the CPC and is secured through the security (teminat) that applicants are ordinarily required to provide under Article 392. The amount of security is determined by the court in light of the potential harm that the injunction may cause.

These principles apply equally to ex parte injunctions. Even when an injunction is granted without notice to the respondent, the applicant will normally be required to post security, and may be held liable for any losses if the measure is subsequently lifted. Only in exceptional circumstances may the court waive the security requirement.

Turkish courts may grant injunctive relief only with respect to assets located within Türkiye, as interim measures have no extraterritorial effect. Injunctions cannot directly bind or freeze a respondent’s worldwide assets. If protection is required over assets situated abroad, a separate application must be made to the courts of the relevant jurisdiction, and enforcement will depend entirely on that country’s domestic law and any applicable international instruments. Accordingly, the availability of asset-related relief outside Türkiye is governed by the foreign court’s willingness to recognise and grant interim measures, rather than by Turkish law itself.

As a rule, injunctive relief is granted only against parties to the dispute. However, under Articles 389–399 of the CPC, an injunction may be directed to a third person where such person has possession or control over the property or right that is the subject of the action – for example, a bank holding the respondent’s account or a registry office responsible for annotating restrictions. In these situations, the third party is required only to perform the ministerial act necessary to preserve the right.

Turkish courts do not issue injunctions imposing substantive obligations on unrelated third parties, and interim measures cannot be obtained against persons who have no connection to the property or right in dispute.

If a respondent fails to comply with an injunction, the court may impose the sanctions provided under Articles 398–399 of the CPC. These include disciplinary fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, coercive detention. In addition, the injunction may be enforced through the enforcement offices to ensure that the required act is carried out or that the prohibited conduct is stopped.

A respondent who breaches an injunction may also be held liable for any damages caused to the applicant as a result of the violation. Although Turkish law does not recognise contempt of court in the common-law sense, these statutory sanctions serve a similar function in compelling compliance with interim measures.

Trials in Türkiye follow a mixed written–oral procedure. The action is initiated through written pleadings, in which each party sets out its claims, defences and evidence. After the exchange of petitions, the court conducts a preliminary examination and then schedules hearings for the evidentiary phase. Hearings are generally public and allow for oral submissions, examination of witnesses by the court, expert testimony and, where necessary, on-site inspection.

Once the evidentiary stage is completed, the proceedings move to the oral-argument phase, after which the court renders a written, reasoned judgment. Appeals and cassation proceedings are predominantly conducted in writing, although hearings may be held if required by the appellate court.

Shorter hearings are commonly held for interim applications and procedural matters. Requests for injunctions, attachments or other interim measures are usually handled through brief, judge-led hearings in which the parties present limited oral submissions, and the court may issue its decision immediately or shortly thereafter.

Case management is primarily conducted at the preliminary examination hearing regulated under Articles 137–142 of the CPC. At this stage, the court identifies the issues in dispute, determines whether the conditions of the action and preliminary objections are satisfied, and sets the timetable for the submission of evidence and the progression of the case. The court may also schedule additional procedural hearings where necessary to manage the steps leading up to the evidentiary phase or trial. These hearings ensure that the case proceeds efficiently and that deadlines for evidence and submissions are clearly established.

Türkiye does not have jury trials in civil cases. All civil proceedings are adjudicated by professional judges, and there is no mechanism for lay participation in fact-finding. The process is conducted through written submissions supported by documentary and oral evidence, with hearings held in open court. While parties may present oral statements and witnesses, the case is decided solely by the judge, and the procedure does not resemble a jury trial model.

The admission and use of evidence in civil proceedings is governed by Articles 187–293 of the CPC. Evidence may consist of written documents, witness testimony, expert reports, and on-site inspections, depending on the nature of the dispute. Certain claims must be proven with written evidence, and where a written document is required, witness testimony may not be used in its place.

During the preliminary examination hearing, the court identifies the disputed issues and sets the timetable for submitting evidence. Evidence must also comply with Article 189 of the CPC, which excludes unlawfully obtained evidence. Parties may challenge the reliability or relevance of evidence presented by the other side. Where evidence is at risk of being lost, the court may order its preservation (delil tespiti). Expert opinions are admitted when technical or specialised knowledge is required and may be contested by the parties.

Expert testimony is permitted, but it is obtained primarily through court-appointed experts under Articles 266–287 of the CPC. Where the dispute requires technical or specialised knowledge, the court appoints an expert or expert institution to prepare a written report and, if necessary, provide oral clarification at the hearing. The parties may submit written objections to the report and request additional questions or a supplementary assessment.

Parties may obtain private expert opinions, but these are treated as party submissions rather than formal expert evidence. If the court finds the initial expert report inadequate or contradictory, it may request a supplemental report or appoint a new expert or expert panel. Ultimately, expert evidence is controlled and administered by the court rather than introduced directly by the parties.

Civil hearings in Türkiye are generally open to the public in accordance with the principle of publicity. This ensures transparency and is a component of the right to a fair trial. However, the publicity of hearings does not extend to the case file or hearing transcripts, which are accessible only to the parties and their authorised counsel.

The court may order a closed hearing where required by public morality, public order, protection of personal or commercial secrets, or the privacy interests of the parties. Hearings before juvenile courts are confidential under the Child Protection Law. Where confidentiality is ordered, access to the minutes and related documents is restricted.

Civil proceedings in Türkiye are judge-led. The judge actively manages the hearing, directs the order of submissions, examines witnesses, and ensures that only relevant and admissible evidence is introduced. Judges intervene frequently to clarify factual or legal issues and to maintain the procedural order required for a fair trial.

Decisions on procedural matters – such as the admissibility of documents, preliminary objections, or interim applications – may be given immediately at the hearing. By contrast, judgments on the merits are typically reserved, as the court must evaluate the full evidentiary record and prepare a written, reasoned decision. Complex cases, or those involving expert reports or detailed factual assessment, are more likely to be decided at a later date following deliberation.

Timeframes for commercial disputes vary depending on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence and the number of parties. In practice, first-instance proceedings typically take between 12 and 24 months, and longer for technically complex matters requiring expert reports. The process begins with the exchange of written pleadings, followed by the preliminary examination hearing, after which the evidentiary phase proceeds through successive hearings for witness and expert examination. Hearings are generally brief and held at intervals set by the court.

The duration of the trial phase itself may range from several months to more than a year, depending on the need for expert opinions or multiple evidentiary steps. Courts set internal targets to promote timely adjudication, but actual durations depend heavily on the specific circumstances of each dispute.

Court approval is not required for ordinary settlements, and parties may resolve their dispute privately at any stage. However, where a settlement is reached during pending proceedings and submitted to the court, the court issues an order confirming the settlement, which then has the effect of a final judgment.

Court approval is required where one of the parties lacks legal capacity, such as minors or persons under guardianship, and the settlement must be authorised by the competent court to ensure protection of their interests. In matters involving non-disposable rights or issues touching public order – such as certain family-law or status-related disputes – the court must also review the settlement to ensure compliance with mandatory rules. Outside these circumstances, parties may settle without judicial approval.

A settlement reached privately between the parties may remain fully confidential, and the parties may include contractual confidentiality provisions preventing disclosure of the settlement terms to third parties. Such clauses are enforceable under general contract law and protect both legal and commercial interests.

If the settlement is submitted to the court and recorded in the file, it forms part of the case record, which is accessible only to the parties and their authorised counsel, but not to the general public. Where necessary to protect personal data, privacy or commercial secrets, the court may issue a confidentiality order restricting access to specific documents or information. Information obtained during settlement negotiations may not be disclosed without authorisation, and breach of confidentiality may give rise to contractual or statutory liability.

Settlement agreements are binding contracts under the Code of Obligations, and a breach gives rise to contractual remedies, including a claim for damages. A private settlement reached outside court is enforced in the same manner as other contracts; it may be enforced through the execution offices only if it qualifies as an enforceable document, such as a notarial deed with an enforcement clause. Otherwise, the aggrieved party must bring an action for performance or damages.

If the settlement is concluded before the court and recorded in the minutes, it is approved under the CPC and has the effect of a final judgment. Such judicial settlements constitute enforceable titles and may be directly submitted to the enforcement office for execution in the same manner as court decisions.

Settlement agreements may be set aside only on recognised legal grounds. A private settlement concluded outside court is a contract under the Code of Obligations and may be annulled for reasons such as illegality or immorality, lack of legal capacity, or defects of consent, including mistake, fraud or coercion. Where a defect in consent is alleged, the aggrieved party must bring an action within the statutory time limits starting from discovery of the defect. Failure to comply with mandatory form requirements may also render the settlement invalid.

If the settlement has been concluded before the court and recorded in the minutes, it has the effect of a final judgment and may be challenged only through the procedural remedies available for court decisions, including actions for revocation or other extraordinary review mechanisms. Outside these situations, settlement agreements remain binding and cannot be set aside without a legal basis.

A successful litigant may obtain various forms of relief depending on the nature of the claim. The court may order specific performance of contractual obligations, issue declaratory judgments, or require the defendant to perform or refrain from certain acts. Where loss has been sustained, the court may award pecuniary damages, including both direct loss and loss of profit, and non-pecuniary damages under Article 56 of the Code of Obligations for violations of personality rights.

Where appropriate, the court may also order restitution or annulment of a legal act. The prevailing party is entitled to recover court costs and statutory attorney’s fees. Following the final judgment, the successful party may seek enforcement of the decision through the execution offices. Interim injunctions granted during the proceedings are temporary measures and do not form part of the final remedies awarded at trial.

Turkish law recognises only compensatory damages. Pecuniary damages consist of actual loss and loss of profit, and the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and amount of the loss. Non-pecuniary damages are available under Article 56 of the Code of Obligations for violations of personality rights and are assessed by the court on the basis of equity.

Punitive or exemplary damages are not permitted in Turkish law, and the prohibition of enrichment governs the assessment of all awards. Although there is no general cap on damages, various statutes impose specific limitations – for example, compensation limits in insurance policies, statutory formulas under labour law, and sector-specific ceilings in regulated areas. Outside these special regimes, damages are calculated with reference to the circumstances of the case and must reflect the actual loss suffered.

A successful party may recover pre-judgment interest if the debtor has fallen into default, which occurs either upon expiry of a specified due date or upon service of a notice of default. Pre-judgment interest is calculated at the statutory legal interest rate or, in commercial matters, at the statutory commercial default interest rate published pursuant to the Turkish Commercial Code. These rates apply from the date of default until the date of judgment.

Post-judgment interest is also recoverable. If the claimant has requested interest in the statement of claim, interest ordinarily accrues from the filing date; otherwise, it accrues from the date of the judgment. Interest continues to run until full payment is made. Turkish law does not provide for punitive interest and prohibits excessive or compound interest, except in limited commercial contexts. Both pre- and post-judgment interest are awarded within the framework of statutory legal or commercial interest rates.

A domestic court judgment is enforced (ilamlı icra) before the competent enforcement office. The creditor files an enforcement request and submits the original or a certified copy of the judgment. The enforcement office then issues a payment order to the debtor.

Unlike ordinary debt collection, a debtor cannot block enforcement by a simple objection. Enforcement proceeds unless the debtor obtains a stay order through a complaint or by filing an action to prevent or reverse enforcement. If payment is not made, the enforcement office may seize movable and immovable property, bank accounts, receivables, and wages, and proceed to sale where necessary.

If the debtor fails to comply with the enforcement steps, coercive measures under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may apply. The judgment remains enforceable until the creditor is fully satisfied.

A foreign judgment may be enforced in Türkiye only after an enforcement decision is obtained under Articles 50–59 of the Private International Law and Procedural Law Act No 5718. The party seeking enforcement must file a petition before the competent civil court of first instance and submit the authenticated foreign judgment, proof of its finality, and certified translations.

The court examines whether the statutory conditions for enforcement are met, including reciprocity, compliance with due process, the absence of exclusive Turkish jurisdiction, and whether enforcement would violate Turkish public order. If these requirements are satisfied, the court grants an enforcement order, and the foreign judgment becomes enforceable in Türkiye in the same manner as a domestic judgment. Enforcement proceedings may then be initiated before the enforcement offices.

Turkish law provides a multi-tier appeal structure. First-instance judgments may be appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal, which conducts both factual and legal review. The appeal must be filed within two weeks of notification of the reasoned judgment. Decisions of the Regional Court of Appeal may then be challenged before the Court of Cassation, which examines only whether the law has been correctly applied. A cassation appeal must also be filed within two weeks from notification of the decision. In limited circumstances, a party may request correction of judgment within 15 days of the Court of Cassation’s decision.

After ordinary legal remedies are exhausted, a party claiming a violation of constitutional rights may file an individual application to the Constitutional Court within 30 days of the final decision. Once all domestic remedies are exhausted, an application may be made to the European Court of Human Rights, subject to the four-month time limit.

A first-instance judgment may be appealed once the reasoned decision has been served on the parties. An appeal to the Regional Court of Appeal must be filed within two weeks of notification, and the Regional Court of Appeal conducts both a factual and legal review.

Decisions of the Regional Court of Appeal may be further challenged before the Court of Cassation, which examines only whether the law has been correctly applied. As of 2026, cassation review in civil and commercial matters is available only where the monetary value of the dispute exceeds the statutory threshold (approximately TRY682,000) and the appellant alleges a legal error.

Appeals may be lodged by the parties or their authorised representatives. Failure to submit an appeal within the statutory period, in the absence of a legally recognised excuse, will result in the loss of the right to appeal.

An appeal must be filed within two weeks from notification of the reasoned first-instance judgment. The appellant submits an appeal petition to the first-instance court identifying the alleged legal errors and paying the required fees; the court then transmits the file to the Regional Court of Appeal.

If the Regional Court of Appeal issues a decision that meets the 2026 cassation threshold, the parties may file a further appeal to the Court of Cassation within two weeks of notification. Missing these deadlines, unless excused through a successful request for reinstatement, results in loss of the right to appeal.

Upon review, the Court of Cassation may affirm the judgment, reverse it and remit the case for retrial, or correct minor legal errors and uphold the decision.

The Regional Court of Appeal may review both factual and legal aspects of the first-instance judgment. It reassesses the existing evidence but, as a rule, does not collect new evidence and conducts the review primarily on the case file, holding a hearing only where necessary.

New claims or defences cannot be raised on appeal. However, matters that must be examined ex officio, issues of public order, or supervening facts or legal changes may be considered if they affect the outcome.

At the cassation stage, the Court of Cassation conducts only a legal review, examining whether the law has been correctly applied without re-evaluating the facts or evidence.

Appeals are subject to the procedural requirements set out in the CPC. The appellate court does not impose discretionary conditions, but an appeal will only be admitted if statutory prerequisites are met. These include filing the appeal within the two-week deadline, paying the required fees and costs, and submitting a petition that identifies the alleged legal errors and the parts of the judgment being challenged.

If these requirements are not satisfied, the appeal is procedurally rejected. In cases of curable formal defects, the court may grant a short period to remedy the deficiency; however, the statutory time limit for filing the appeal itself cannot be extended.

After reviewing an appeal, the appellate court may uphold the first-instance judgment, amend it, or reverse it in whole or in part. If the record is sufficient, the Regional Court of Appeal may also decide the case on the merits and issue a new judgment. Otherwise, a reversal results in the file being remitted to the first-instance court for retrial in line with the appellate court’s legal reasoning.

At the cassation stage, the Court of Cassation conducts only a legal review. It may affirm the judgment, reverse it and return the case for retrial, or correct minor legal errors and uphold the decision. The appellate courts may hold a hearing if necessary, but they do not collect new evidence, except in narrow circumstances at the regional appeal level. Partial affirmance or partial reversal is also possible, with non-finalised sections being reheard.

Under Articles 323–326 of the CPC, litigation costs are borne by the unsuccessful party. The prevailing party is entitled to recover court fees; service and notification expenses; expert, witness and discovery costs; and the statutory attorney’s fee set by the minimum fee tariff. Contractual attorney’s fees agreed between a lawyer and client are not recoverable from the opposing party.

Where each party partially succeeds, costs are apportioned in proportion to their respective success or failure. Cost determinations may be challenged through appeal or cassation together with the judgment.

When awarding costs, the court primarily considers the outcome of the case in accordance with Articles 323–326 of the CPC. A party who fully prevails is entitled to recover the necessary litigation expenses from the losing party, while in cases of partial success the costs are apportioned proportionately.

If a counterclaim has been filed, its costs are assessed separately based on the result of that claim. The court also excludes expenses it deems unnecessary or incurred through a party’s own fault. Where multiple parties are held liable, costs may be apportioned among them or imposed jointly and severally depending on the nature of the judgment.

Interest may be awarded on court costs, as they constitute a monetary obligation recoverable by the prevailing party. Unless the judgment specifies another date, legal interest generally begins to accrue from the date on which the judgment becomes final. The applicable rate is the statutory legal interest rate in force during the relevant period. Interest is calculated for the period between the date of finalisation and the date of payment and may be recovered through enforcement proceedings, together with the underlying costs.

Mediation is well established in Türkiye and is viewed as an efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes. Law No 6325 provides the legal framework, and mediation is mandatory before initiating a number of civil actions, including labour, commercial and consumer disputes.

Arbitration is also widely used, particularly in complex commercial and international matters, and is governed by Law No 4686 as well as the arbitration provisions of the CPC. Institutional arbitration, including before the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC), has gained prominence in recent years.

Informal settlement mechanisms are also common, but mediation and arbitration remain the most prevalent ADR methods in practice.

Turkish law actively promotes ADR, particularly mediation. For certain types of disputes – including labour, commercial and consumer matters – mediation is a mandatory condition of filing a lawsuit, and the mediator’s report forms part of the court filing. Lawsuits brought without completing mandatory mediation are procedurally dismissed.

While parties are free to decline settlement, attendance at the mandatory initial mediation meeting is compulsory. A party that fails to attend without justification may be ordered to bear the related mediation costs. Apart from this attendance-based consequence, there are no separate sanctions for refusing ADR. Arbitration is also encouraged in commercial matters, though it remains voluntary unless contractually agreed.

Türkiye has a well-organised institutional framework for ADR. Mediation is administered and supervised by the Department of Mediation within the Ministry of Justice, supported by an official registry of mediators and accredited training institutions. The system is well developed, particularly due to the introduction of mandatory mediation in commercial, labour and consumer disputes.

Arbitration is also institutionally supported, with organisations such as ISTAC and various chamber-based arbitration bodies providing modern procedural rules and case management. Overall, ADR institutions in Türkiye are structured, regulated and widely used, contributing to faster and more efficient resolution of disputes.

Arbitration in Türkiye is governed by the CPC for domestic arbitration and by Law No 4686 for international arbitration seated in Türkiye. An arbitration agreement must be in writing, and the parties may appoint one or three impartial and independent arbitrators. The parties are free to determine the procedural rules, including whether a hearing will be held; in the absence of agreement, the tribunal conducts the proceedings subject to fundamental due-process requirements.

Domestic arbitral awards may be enforced through the competent civil court, and foreign awards are recognised and enforced under the New York Convention and Articles 60–63 of the Private International Law Act. The court issues an enforcement order unless one of the limited refusal grounds applies. Arbitral awards may also be challenged by an annulment action only on the statutory grounds provided in the relevant legislation.

Under Turkish law, only disputes involving rights that the parties may freely dispose of can be submitted to arbitration. Accordingly, criminal matters; family law issues concerning personal status, bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings; and administrative disputes involving the exercise of public authority are non-arbitrable. Civil and commercial disputes of a disposable nature remain generally arbitrable.

Arbitral awards in Türkiye may only be challenged through an annulment action on limited statutory grounds. These include invalidity of the arbitration agreement, improper constitution of the tribunal, the tribunal exceeding its authority, violations of due-process rights such as lack of notice or inability to present a defence, and situations where the dispute is non-arbitrable or the award is contrary to public order. Annulment applications are filed with the competent civil court of first instance at the seat of arbitration.

Domestic arbitral awards are enforced by applying to the competent civil court of first instance for an enforcement order. The court conducts only a limited review, examining whether the award meets the statutory formal requirements and whether any public-order objections arise. Once the enforcement order is granted, the award is executed in the same manner as a court judgment.

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced under the New York Convention and Articles 60–63 of the Private International Law Act. The applicant must submit the authenticated award, the arbitration agreement and certified translations. The court issues an enforcement order unless one of the Convention’s refusal grounds – such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of due process, excess of authority, or conflict with Turkish public order – is established. Upon recognition and enforcement, the award becomes enforceable through the Turkish execution system.

Türkiye continues to consider reforms aimed at accelerating court proceedings and expanding the use of ADR. Recent legislative discussions have focused on further digitalisation of court processes, strengthening mandatory mediation, and enhancing institutional arbitration frameworks. While several proposals are under evaluation by the Ministry of Justice, no specific draft has yet been finalised or given a definitive implementation timeline.

Significant growth in commercial disputes in Türkiye is seen in cross-border trade; construction and infrastructure projects; banking and finance; and technology and intellectual property matters. E-commerce and consumer disputes have also increased with the expansion of digital markets and regulatory oversight.

International contracts and multi-jurisdictional transactions continue to generate complex conflicts, leading to greater reliance on arbitration and other ADR mechanisms for resolution.