Under Turkish law, commercial disputes are primarily resolved through litigation before state courts. The general court system remains the most commonly used dispute resolution mechanism for commercial matters. In addition, mediation is a mandatory pre-condition for some commercial disputes. As a result, parties are generally required to participate in a mediation process before initiating court proceedings.

In addition to the general litigation method, arbitration is also used as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, particularly in commercial contracts involving complex or cross-border transactions.

General Litigation

Litigation remains the principal method for resolving commercial disputes in Türkiye, as state courts constitute the default forum for most claims and arbitration requires a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the lengthy nature of court proceedings has increasingly encouraged parties to consider alternative dispute resolution methods, particularly arbitration.

Mediation

Mandatory mediation has become an important feature of Turkish dispute resolution practice. Pursuant to Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), mediation is a procedural pre-condition for commercial monetary claims, including receivables and compensation claims. Accordingly, a lawsuit filed before the commercial courts without first applying for mediation will be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Mandatory mediation also applies to several other categories of disputes, including:

• certain employment disputes;
• certain consumer disputes;
• certain lease disputes; and
• partition and dissolution of co-ownership disputes.

Arbitration

Arbitration has gained increasing prominence, particularly in disputes involving foreign elements and high-value commercial transactions. It is commonly preferred in sectors such as energy, construction, public-private partnerships, post-M&A disputes and distribution arrangements.

Mandatory mediation has become increasingly widespread in Türkiye since its institutionalisation in 2018. Its scope has gradually expanded across different types of disputes, mainly with the aim of reducing the courts’ caseload and encouraging amicable settlements.

Digitalisation is also playing a growing role in dispute resolution procedures. The National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP) enables parties and courts to manage many procedural steps electronically, while certain hearings may also be conducted online. In addition, the Ministry of Justice recently announced that it is working on an AI project aimed at further digitalising judicial processes.

Arbitration has likewise become more common, particularly in commercial disputes requiring swift and specialised resolution. In recent years, Turkish courts, including the Court of Cassation, have adopted a more arbitration-friendly approach, especially in relation to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Institutional arbitration under the rules of the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC), has also become increasingly established in practice.

General Principle

Pursuant to Article 146 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”), contractual claims are generally subject to a ten-year limitation period.

Specific Rules

Certain claims are subject to shorter periods in order to ensure legal certainty and commercial stability.

According to Article 147 of the TCO, a five-year limitation period applies to various claims, including:

• rent claims;
• claims arising from mandate, commission and agency agreements;
• partnership-related claims; and
• claims arising from contracts for work and services.

According to Employment Law No. 4857, key employee receivables such as salary, severance and notice compensation are also subject to a five-year limitation period.

According to Article 72 of the TCO, claims arising from tort are subject to a limitation period of two years from the date on which the claimant becomes aware of both the damage and the liable party, and in any event ten-years from the date of the act.

The TCC contains more specific limitation periods for certain commercial disputes.

• For liability claims against company directors: two years from the date the damage and the liable person become known, and in any event five years from the relevant act.
• For unfair competition claims: one year from the date the claimant becomes aware of the claim, and in any event three years from the date the right arises.

Under consumer law, claims relating to defective movable goods are generally subject to a two-year limitation period, while claims concerning immovable property are subject to a five-year period.

In administrative proceedings, the general time limit for filing an action is 60 days before the administrative court, while tax disputes are subject to a 30-day filing period under the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577.

The Turkish court system is mainly divided into two branches: judicial courts (adli yargı) and administrative courts (idari yargı). Each branch consists of first instance courts and higher review courts.

Judicial Courts

Proceedings before judicial courts begin before the courts of first instance, which are divided into civil and criminal courts. Decisions rendered by these courts may be appealed before the regional appellate courts, provided that the relevant statutory thresholds are met.

Subject to further statutory conditions, including monetary thresholds, decisions of the regional appellate courts may also be appealed before the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). The Court of Cassation acts as the highest court within the judicial branch and primarily reviews whether lower courts have correctly applied the law.

Administrative Courts

Administrative courts hear disputes arising from the acts and actions of public authorities. Within this branch, administrative courts and tax courts operate as courts of first instance, while regional administrative courts conduct appellate review.

The Council of State (Danıştay) is the highest court in administrative jurisdiction. In addition to its judicial role, it also serves as the state’s constitutional advisory body. Access to further review before the Council of State is subject to statutory thresholds.

Court of Jurisdictional Disputes

The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes is an independent high court responsible for resolving jurisdictional conflicts and conflicting judgments between judicial and administrative courts.

Constitutional Court

Separate from both judicial and administrative courts, the Constitutional Court of Türkiye reviews the constitutionality of laws and oversees individual applications concerning alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, following the exhaustion of ordinary legal remedies.

Under Turkish law, certain procedural requirements must be satisfied before a lawsuit can be examined. In civil proceedings, Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sets out the mandatory conditions of action (dava şartları).

One of the main requirements is jurisdiction. For example, commercial disputes fall within the jurisdiction of commercial courts, employment disputes are heard before labour courts and consumer disputes are resolved before consumer courts.

Another requirement is mandatory mediation. For disputes subject to mandatory mediation, parties must first attempt mediation before initiating court proceedings.

Additional procedural conditions include lis pendens and res judicata. Accordingly, a lawsuit cannot proceed if the same dispute between the same parties is already pending before a court or has already been finally resolved by a competent court.

In addition, in administrative proceedings, prior application to the relevant administrative authority may also constitute a mandatory precondition to litigation in certain cases.

If these procedural requirements are not fulfilled, the court will dismiss the case on procedural grounds without examining the substance of the dispute.

Court proceedings in Türkiye vary depending on the nature of the dispute, such as civil, criminal, or administrative cases. As a general practice, first instance proceedings typically take around one to two years. If appellate review is available, the appeal stages may extend the overall timeline by approximately two additional years.

Civil Procedure Overview

The main stages of civil proceedings are as follows.

Proceedings generally begin with the filing of a statement of claim by the plaintiff before the competent court, which formally initiates the lawsuit. This is followed by the exchange of petitions stage, during which the defendant submits a statement of defence, followed by the plaintiff’s reply and the defendant’s rejoinder (if applicable).

After the exchange of petitions is completed, the court proceeds to the preliminary examination stage. At this stage, the court reviews procedural requirements and preliminary objections, defines the scope of the dispute, and may encourage the parties to settle or refer the matter to mediation where appropriate.

Following preliminary examination, the case moves to the trial stage, where evidence is collected and examined. This includes hearing witnesses, obtaining expert reports and conducting site inspections where necessary. This stage is typically the most time-consuming part of the proceedings.

Once the evidentiary phase is completed, the parties submit their final statements and the court renders its judgment. 

The overall duration of proceedings depends on factors such as the complexity of the dispute, the workload of the courts and the efficiency of the evidence-gathering process.

Under Article 141 of the Turkish Constitution, court hearings are generally open to the public. This principle applies across civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings. However, hearings may be held in private in limited circumstances where strictly necessary, particularly for reasons of public morals or public security. In such cases, the court may decide to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing.

In practice, confidentiality measures may apply in certain situations depending on the nature of the proceedings.

In criminal proceedings, the investigation phase is conducted in private. In addition, hearings involving individuals under 18 years of age must be held in private. In such cases, the judgment is also pronounced in a closed hearing.

In divorce proceedings, the court may order a private hearing upon the request of one of the parties.

In civil, criminal, or administrative cases, courts may also restrict access to hearings or limit disclosure of information where necessary to protect personal data, trade secrets, or other sensitive information.

Interim relief is available under Turkish law and is commonly requested where the relevant legal conditions are satisfied.

In civil litigation, parties frequently apply for interim measures to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. The main types of interim measures under the CCP are: interim injunctions (ihtiyati tedbir), interim attachments (ihtiyati haciz) and preservation of evidence (delil tespiti).

In administrative litigation, an applicant may request a stay of execution (yürütmenin durdurulması) to suspend the implementation of an administrative act until the court renders its final decision. Under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law, a stay of execution may be granted where both of the following conditions are met: first, the implementation of the administrative act would result in irreparable or difficult-to-compensate damage, and second, the administrative act is manifestly unlawful.

In commercial litigation, the types of final relief vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the claims raised by the claimant.

An action for performance (eda davası) is the most common form of relief and is brought when the claimant requests that the court order the defendant to perform a specific act, deliver something, or pay a certain sum of money (ie, compensation).

Another key type is declaratory action (tespit davası), where the claimant seeks a judicial determination regarding the existence or non-existence of a legal right or relationship. Claims regarding the absence of a legal relationship between parties or the denial of a debt fall under this category.

Constitutive action (yenilik doğuran dava) is used to create, modify or terminate an existing legal status. A typical example of this in a commercial context is the dissolution of a commercial partnership or company.

In addition, special forms of final relief are provided regarding unfair competition and infringement of intellectual and industrial property rights.

In the Turkish legal system, courts determine the scope and amount of damages/compensation, as well as the method of payment, by considering the specific circumstances of the case. In this assessment, judges consider factors such as the nature of the incident, the degree of fault of the parties and their socio-economic situation. The purpose of compensation is not to enrich the claimant, and any awarded amount must comply with the principle prohibiting unjust enrichment.

In addition, the approach to calculating damages differs depending on whether the claim relates to pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss.

Lastly, where the calculation of damages requires technical expertise, especially in complex commercial disputes, Turkish courts may appoint a court expert.

Under Turkish law, arbitration is mainly available for disputes concerning matters over which the parties have free disposal. Arbitration is also firmly established as the dispute resolution method for cross-border commercial disputes in Türkiye. Accordingly, disputes related to international trade, maritime law, energy, construction and infrastructure are fields in which disputes are most commonly resolved through arbitration.

In addition, recourse to arbitration or similar quasi-judicial mechanisms is mandatory for certain types of disputes under specific legal regulations. For example, in consumer law, consumers are required to apply to Consumer Arbitration Committees for disputes below a statutory monetary threshold before initiating court proceedings.

Under Turkish law, arbitration is subject to limitations in certain subject matters and, according to Article 408 of the CCP, disputes in the following categories cannot be resolved through arbitration:

• Disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property located in Türkiye, such as ownership, easements, or mortgages, are not arbitrable.
• Disputes that are not freely disposable by the parties, such as those that cannot be settled or conceded by agreement, are also excluded from arbitration. This category includes, in particular, family law matters such as divorce, separation, custody, and filiation.

The use of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Türkiye offers several advantages.

Speed

A typical commercial dispute before Turkish courts may take approximately three to four years, including first instance proceedings and appellate review. In contrast, arbitral proceedings are generally completed in a significantly shorter period. For example, arbitration under the rules of the ISTAC usually lasts around 12–18 months, while expedited proceedings may be concluded within three to six months. International arbitration under ICC rules typically takes around 18–24 months.

Single-Instance Process

Judicial intervention is limited to annulment proceedings under the International Arbitration Law, which are available only on narrow and exhaustively listed grounds. This limited court supervision contributes to shorter overall dispute resolution timelines.

Autonomy

Arbitration provides procedural autonomy to the parties. Parties may freely determine key aspects of the proceedings, including the seat of arbitration, applicable law, language and procedural rules.

Expert Decision-Makers

The parties are able to appoint arbitrators with specific technical or sectoral expertise. This is particularly valuable in complex disputes in fields such as energy, construction and finance, where specialised knowledge can lead to more informed and commercially appropriate decisions.

Confidentiality

Although Turkish law does not establish confidentiality as a general statutory rule, confidentiality may arise from agreement or from institutional rules. This helps protect sensitive commercial information, trade secrets, and corporate reputation.

International Enforceability

While enforcing Turkish court judgments abroad can be challenging, arbitral awards are widely recognised and enforceable in many jurisdictions under the New York Convention, often with treatment similar to domestic judgments.

In addition to its numerous advantages, arbitration also entails certain disadvantages.

The costs of arbitration can be high compared with general litigation methods.

Arbitration awards may only be challenged by way of an annulment action, and the grounds for annulment are limited and primarily relate to procedural defects.

If the losing party fails to comply voluntarily with the award, the assistance of state courts is required to enforce the award, which may diminish the time advantage of arbitration.

In Turkish arbitration practice, both domestic and international institutional arbitration centres are actively preferred. The choice of an arbitration institution is typically determined by the nature of the dispute, the parties’ legal backgrounds, and the terms agreed upon in the underlying contract.

In this context, the prominent local institution in Türkiye is ISTAC. ISTAC offers modern and flexible arbitration rules, expedited procedure mechanisms, and relatively cost-effective structure.

Another arbitral institution in Türkiye is the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration and Mediation Centre (ITOTAM). ITOTAM provides an established institutional framework for the resolution of commercial disputes and institutional support of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce.

For international disputes, parties tend to prefer well-established arbitral institutions with global reputations. One of the most commonly utilised institutions in this regard is the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration.

Under the CCP and International Arbitration Law (IAL), unless the parties agree otherwise, the sole arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal is required to render a final award on the merits within one year. This period commences upon the appointment of a sole arbitrator or, in the case of a tribunal, on the date the minutes of the first meeting are drafted.

In practice, however, this statutory one-year period does not include the time required for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The pre-procedural, phase and the organisation of the first procedural meeting, typically takes an additional three to six months. In addition, arbitral awards may be subject to annulment proceedings before Turkish courts. Accordingly, the overall duration of arbitration proceedings may be longer than the statutory period.

In practice, institutional arbitration rules also provide more concrete timelines. For instance, under the rules of the ISTAC, arbitral awards are generally expected to be rendered within six months, subject to extension by the parties or the arbitral tribunal where necessary.

Furthermore, in the case of foreign arbitral awards, a separate recognition and enforcement process is required before Turkish courts. This may further affect the total time required for the award to become enforceable in Türkiye.

Arbitration in Türkiye is regulated by two primary laws, depending on whether the dispute involves a foreign element which is defined as a situation where a legal act, transaction, relationship, or dispute is connected to or involves more than one legal system.

IAL applies to the arbitration of disputes that contain a foreign element. This law was mainly based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and is designed to ensure compatibility with international standards.

The CCP applies to purely domestic disputes that do not involve any foreign elements. The arbitration provisions of the CCP are largely parallel to those of the IAL.

Furthermore, the New York Convention serves as the most significant international legal basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye.

The relationship between local courts and arbitration is built upon the principles of the priority of arbitration and the supportive role of the courts. While the choice of arbitration limits the jurisdiction of state courts, it does not entirely exclude it. Local courts intervene where matters fall outside the authority of the arbitral tribunal or require the exercise of coercive powers.

Since arbitrators have limited coercive power regarding the collection of evidence or the summoning of witnesses, courts may conduct preservation of evidence or hear witnesses upon the request of the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, parties may request the court to issue interim injunctions or preliminary attachments either before the commencement of or during the arbitral proceedings.

Courts also play a crucial role in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. According to Article 416 of the CCP, where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of arbitrators, a party may request the competent court to make the necessary appointment.

Turkish courts will only intervene in specifically defined circumstances. If a lawsuit is filed in a state court despite an existing arbitration agreement, the court will intervene upon a timely arbitration objection to stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration.

Additionally, as stated above, courts intervene to resolve deadlocks in the appointment of arbitrators or to decide on the challenge of an arbitrator if the internal challenge procedure fails.

In Turkish arbitration practice, the types of relief that an arbitral tribunal may grant are extensive; as a rule, most legal remedies available before state courts can also be achieved through arbitration. Depending on the nature of the dispute, the tribunal may issue damages, declaratory awards and constitutive awards. Furthermore, the tribunal may rule on various legal outcomes such as the rectification of a breach of contract, specific performance, rescission, or adaptation of the contract.

Regarding interim relief, Turkish law adopts a more cautious approach. Pursuant to both the CCP and the IAL, the arbitral tribunal has the authority to grant provisional measures, such as interim injunctions. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. Primarily, interim relief issued by an arbitral tribunal is not directly enforceable. For these orders to be effectively executed, the parties must seek assistance from state courts.

Additionally, the tribunal’s authority is limited regarding measures that bind third parties or require the intervention of public authorities. For instance, procedures such as placing an annotation on the land registry or directly freezing bank accounts can only be carried out through the courts.

In the Turkish legal system, mediation is the primary formal alternative dispute resolution mechanism available for commercial disputes. It operates in two forms: mandatory mediation and voluntary mediation. Mediation is conducted with the participation of an impartial and independent mediator who has received specialised training; it brings the parties together to engage in negotiations by applying certain techniques, establishes a communication process between them to ensure they understand one another and enables them to generate their own solutions.

Mediation is a mandatory pre-litigation step in certain disputes falling within the jurisdiction of commercial courts, employee–employer disputes and consumer courts; it constitutes a procedural precondition to litigation. If a claim is filed without first applying to mediation, the court will dismiss the case on procedural grounds due to the absence of a precondition to litigation.

Furthermore, if the mandatory mediation process is terminated because one of the parties fails to attend the first meeting without a valid excuse, that party will be liable for half of the litigation costs even if it prevails partially or fully in the subsequent proceedings.

If mandatory mediation is not pursued, the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds, and a new lawsuit cannot be filed regarding the same dispute.

In addition, according to the Law on Mediation in Civil Proceedings, if a settlement between the parties is reached as a result of mediation, the parties are precluded from initiating legal proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement.

Parties that wish to attempt mediation, or who are obliged to mediate, are required to apply for that mediation before filing a lawsuit or, at the latest, prior to the first hearing and before the court’s initial settlement attempt. Importantly, the initiation of such ADR processes suspends the running of limitation periods as well as preclusive time limits.

The mediation process is subject to the principle of confidentiality. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the mediator is obliged to keep all information, documents, and records submitted to or obtained in the course of the mediation process confidential.

The parties and all other participants in the mediation are likewise bound by this duty of confidentiality. Statements, proposals, offers, or any admission of fact made during the mediation process may not be used as evidence in subsequent court proceedings or arbitration, nor may they be the subject of witness testimony.

On the other hand, confidentiality in arbitration is not an absolute obligation directly imposed by law, but rather a feature that depends on the parties’ agreement. In order to ensure full confidentiality in arbitration, it is generally recommended to include an explicit confidentiality clause in the arbitration agreement or to adopt institutional arbitration rules.

Unless otherwise agreed, mediation fees and expenses are borne equally by the parties. In mandatory mediation, a party who fails to attend the mediation meeting without a valid excuse is held liable for half of the litigation costs. If no settlement is reached, the first two hours of mediation are covered by the Ministry of Justice, and this amount is treated as litigation costs and subsequently recovered from the unsuccessful party at the end of the proceedings (or apportioned between the parties in accordance with their respective degrees of success).

In arbitration, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal decides at the end of the proceedings which party shall bear the costs and in what proportion.

Given the often-lengthy duration of court proceedings in Türkiye, the legal system promotes alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation, in order to facilitate faster outcomes and preserve commercial relationships.

For more details, please see 1.3 Key Dispute Resolution Trends, 3.1 Prevalence and 3.3 Advantages of Arbitration.

Legal costs in Türkiye include court fees and attorneys’ fees incurred from the initiation of proceedings until their conclusion. Court fees, such as filing, decision and judgment fees, are regulated under Law No. 492 on fees.

Attorneys’ fees are governed by the Attorneyship Law and the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff, which sets minimum fee amounts applicable to legal services.

In addition, under Article 48 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Law, foreign plaintiffs may be required to provide security for litigation costs and potential damages, subject to certain statutory exceptions.

Turkish law does not contain any explicit provisions regarding third-party funding, nor does it prohibit such arrangements. Accordingly, third-party funding is generally considered permissible within the Turkish legal framework. However, its use remains relatively limited and not yet fully developed in practice.

Under Turkish law, contingency fee arrangements are, in principle, permitted and have a statutory basis. The Attorneyship Law expressly provides that conditional fee agreements may be concluded between a lawyer and a client. However, this possibility is not unrestricted; it is subject to mandatory limitations imposed on public policy grounds, such as a 25% cap, a minimum threshold under the official fee tariff, and a prohibition on pure quota litis (ie, taking a share of the subject matter of the dispute as payment).

Under Turkish law, it is possible to obtain insurance coverage for legal expenses arising from the resolution of legal disputes. Within this framework, depending on the scope of the policy, insurance companies may undertake certain litigation-related costs and expenses incurred in disputes connected with the insured’s contractual or statutory rights and obligations.

Under Turkish law, it is possible to recover dispute resolution costs from the opposing party; this is a fundamental procedural rule. Under the CCP, unless otherwise provided by law, litigation costs are ordered to be borne by the party against whom judgment is rendered (ie, the losing party).

In addition, if the case is partially accepted and partially rejected, the litigation costs are apportioned between the parties in proportion to their degree of success in the case.

According to Article 326 of the CCP, when awarding costs, as a general rule, litigation costs are allocated to the unsuccessful party. However, in the event of partial success, costs are apportioned in accordance with the parties’ respective degrees of success. Courts are required to rule on costs ex officio, even in the absence of a request from the parties.

In addition, the total amount of costs, the party bearing them and a detailed breakdown of each cost item must be expressly stated in the operative part of the judgment. In cases that are not decided on the merits, litigation costs are assessed according to the parties’ relative degree of success at the time the proceedings were initiated.

The primary types of interim measures under the CCP are interim injunctions (ihtiyati tedbir), interim attachments (ihtiyati haciz) and the preservation of evidence (delil tespiti), all of which aim to secure the outcome of the proceedings.

An interim injunction may be granted when there is a risk that the exercise of a right will become significantly difficult or impossible due to a change in the current circumstances, or if there is a probability of serious harm. In practice, interim injunctions are available across a wide range of disputes. For example, courts may order the suspension of the execution of general assembly resolutions of joint stock companies.

An interim attachment may be applied specifically to monetary claims and allows for the provisional seizure of the debtor’s assets to secure the debt.

The preservation of evidence ensures that evidence to be used in future proceedings is secured in advance by the court if there is a risk that such evidence might be lost or become difficult to obtain at a later stage.

Turkish courts may grant interim relief in support of arbitration and ADR proceedings. The existence of an arbitration agreement or the initiation of an ADR process does not prevent the parties from seeking interim relief from state courts.

As such, where the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted, or where the matter is urgent, the state courts remain the primary authority for granting such relief.

Similarly, the existence or continuation of mediation proceedings does not preclude a party from requesting interim relief.

Interim relief applications may be filed at any stage of the dispute resolution process. Under both legislation and established doctrine, such applications may be made before the initiation of proceedings (pre-litigation stage), during pending proceedings (litigation stage) and even after a final decision has been rendered, until that decision becomes final and binding during the appeal stages.

In addition, in cases where interim measures are granted prior to the filing of a lawsuit, the main action must be initiated within two weeks from the enforcement of the interim injunction and within seven days in the case of interim attachment. Otherwise, the interim injunction or attachment automatically lapses.

A party may apply for security for costs under Turkish law, both before state courts and in arbitration proceedings.

Arbitral tribunals typically grant such requests if there is a substantial risk that the claimant will be unable to satisfy a future cost award, particularly in cases of insolvency or when a foreign plaintiff is involved and no reciprocity agreement exists between the relevant states.

Before state courts, Article 84 of the CCP regulates security for costs and it may be required particularly where the claimant is a foreign party without domicile or habitual residence in Türkiye. In such cases, the court may order the claimant to provide security to cover potential litigation costs and damages. In practice, the amount of security is determined at the court’s discretion, typically ranging between approximately 10% and 20% of the amount in dispute.

Additionally, parties requesting interim injunctions or interim attachments are required to provide security, unless an exception applies.

Parties are entitled to seek interim injunctions before state courts or, where applicable, before the arbitral tribunal, to safeguard their rights throughout the proceedings. Courts typically grant such relief where the statutory conditions are met, as further explained in 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief, 6.2 Interim Relief to Support Arbitration and ADR and 6.3 Timing of Applications for Interim Relief.

Turkish law does not recognise summary judgment as a formal procedure, primarily due to the strict protection afforded to the right to be heard and a full evidentiary examination. If there is no reason for dismissal on the procedural grounds, state courts generally require a complete examination of the merits before rendering a final decision.

Turkish law does not recognise class action mechanisms in the sense commonly found in US or certain European jurisdictions. However, within civil law procedure, Turkish law provides more limited forms of collective litigation through group actions (topluluk davası) under the CCP, as well as certain representative mechanisms under specific legislation.

A group action allows associations, foundations, and other legal entities to bring proceedings within the scope of their statutes in order to protect the interests of their members or the group they represent. Such actions may seek the declaration of an unlawful situation, its cessation, or the prevention of future violations, but they are generally not designed to obtain damages for individual losses.

For instance, under consumer protection legislation, authorised entities may bring representative actions aimed at safeguarding collective interests.

Standing in group actions is subject to strict limitations. The right to bring such an action is not granted to individuals; only associations, foundations, and other legal entities may initiate a group action within the scope of their statutory purposes. The legal entity brings the claim in its own name and it does not act as a direct procedural representative of its members or the individuals whose interests it seeks to protect.

The types of relief available in group actions are limited. Such actions primarily allow for declaratory relief (ie, the determination of the existence of an unlawful situation), injunctive relief (ie, the cessation and removal of the unlawful conduct), and preventive relief (ie, the prevention of future infringements).

By contrast, group actions do not generally encompass claims for damages aimed at compensating individual losses; such compensation must, as a rule, be pursued through separate individual proceedings brought by the affected persons.

Class actions are rarely brought in arbitration under Turkish law. This is mainly because arbitration is a consensual, contract-based mechanism that generally requires a clear arbitration agreement binding all parties, which limits its suitability for large group disputes.

In addition, Turkish law does not provide a developed framework for class actions or mass arbitration as in other jurisdictions.

Turkish law does not provide a structured class action system, and mass disputes are generally resolved through individual lawsuits or administrative mechanisms rather than collective litigation. Thus, there is no general trend towards expanding collective legal remedies.

The approach to document disclosure in Turkish law is based on the principle that the parties are responsible for presenting their own case. Under the CCP, each party must substantiate the facts on which it relies and submit the evidence supporting those facts together with its pleadings. Parties are also obliged to produce documents in their possession, including those relied upon by the opposing party. In addition, the judge may request the presentation of evidence in cases where it is necessary to clarify the dispute.

However, Turkish law does not recognise a general and unlimited duty of disclosure. The court may order a party to present a specific document if it is established that the document exists and is relevant to the dispute. If the document is not presented without justification, the court may draw adverse inferences against the non-complying party.

Turkish law protects various categories of secrets through specific rules governing the right to refuse to testify and the obligation to produce documents. As a general principle, documents cannot be withheld or excluded from disclosure solely on the grounds of confidentiality or secrecy. Courts assess confidentiality claims on a case‑by‑case basis and typically balance competing interests before deciding whether disclosure is required.

Only in exceptional circumstances may the obligation to produce documents be effectively limited. These situations mainly concern state secrets or information subject to absolute professional secrecy.

For example, the attorney–client relationship is subject to a strict confidentiality obligation under Turkish law. It allows attorneys to refuse to testify and to refrain from producing documents relating to client communications.

An attorney’s duty of confidentiality may, in principle, be lifted with the client’s express consent. However, even where such consent is given, the attorney retains the right to refuse to testify. Confidentiality may also be deemed waived by implication, for example where the client voluntarily introduces the protected information into court proceedings.

Confidential information outside the attorney–client context, such as banking, medical, or commercial secrets, is subject to sector‑specific protections. Disclosure of such information may be ordered by a court or requested by a competent public authority, provided that the applicable legal safeguards are observed.

Only in exceptional cases, particularly involving state secrets or strict professional secrecy obligations, may disclosure be restricted more strongly. Otherwise, confidentiality does not automatically prevent the production of evidence.

In addition, where documents contain personal data, Turkish personal data protection legislation does not apply if the data is processed explicitly for use in legal proceedings. This statutory exemption allows personal data to be used or disclosed for litigation purposes without triggering the general restrictions under personal data protection rules.

Witness evidence is admissible in Turkish law and constitutes a means of proving factual matters in dispute. Witnesses are heard in court hearings in the presence of the parties, and their testimony is given orally before the judge.

Witnesses may be questioned both by the judge and by the parties, and the procedure allows for questioning that is functionally similar to cross-examination. However, due to the judge’s role in taking evidence, the system operates as a hybrid model rather than a fully adversarial cross-examination system controlled exclusively by the parties.

Under Turkish law, expert evidence is commonly used in matters requiring technical or specialised knowledge. Experts are appointed by the court either ex officio or upon the request of the parties and are selected from official lists prepared by the Ministry of Justice.

Experts carry out their duties under the direction and supervision of the court. Their primary obligation is to provide objective, independent and technical opinions on the issues requiring expertise. They are also required to comply with the court’s summons, take an oath, conduct the necessary examinations and submit their expert report within the prescribed time limits.

According to the International Private and Civil Procedure Law, in order for a foreign court judgment to become enforceable in Türkiye, a recognition (tanıma) or enforcement (tenfiz) decision must be obtained. In general, the enforcement proceedings are brought before the civil courts of first instance, and the applicant must submit the duly certified original or copy of the foreign judgment, duly apostilled, together with a certified Turkish translation and proof that the judgment has become final.

Once the application for the enforcement is made, the court examines whether the statutory conditions are met. These include, inter alia, the existence of reciprocity, absence of conflict with Turkish public policy, respect for due process and that the matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

For Domestic Arbitral Award

The domestic arbitral awards have the same enforceability as court judgments and may be directly enforced without the need for a separate enforcement decision. For enforcement, it is generally required that the award has been duly served on the parties and that no annulment action has been filed, or that any such action has been dismissed.

For Foreign Arbitral Award

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Türkiye, however, is subject to a recognition and enforcement decision by Turkish courts under the International Private and Civil Procedure Law and the New York Convention.

The procedural steps and required documents are set out in 9.1 Enforcements of Judgments. In summary, in recognition and enforcement proceedings, Turkish courts do not conduct a review on the merits of the arbitral award.

Actions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards are heard by the civil courts of first instance. Proceedings at this level typically take between one and two years, depending on the complexity of the case and the court’s workload.

In addition, first‑instance decisions may be appealed before the regional courts of appeal, where proceedings generally take approximately one additional year. Further appeal to the Court of Cassation is available subject to applicable thresholds, which may extend the overall duration of the process by around one more year.

Enforcement of foreign court judgments may be refused in the following cases:

• the judgment is manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy;
• the right of defence has been violated;
• the judgment originates from a state that does not satisfy the reciprocity requirement;
• the foreign court has rendered a decision despite lacking jurisdiction under its own law; or
• if the decision concerns a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may similarly be resisted on grounds such as:

• there being valid arbitration agreement;
• a party has not been duly informed of the arbitration proceedings or been deprived of its right to present its case;
• the arbitral tribunal exceeding its authority;
• the award is not final or having been set aside;
• the arbitration procedure not being conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreed procedure; or
• the award being manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy.

Under Turkish law, the use of AI in dispute resolution is not subject to any specific regulatory framework.

Within the judiciary, digitalisation initiatives have improved procedural efficiency and AI is sometimes used in administrative workflows.

In April 2026, the Ministry of Justice announced that it is working on an AI-supported “Citizen Platform” project aimed at further digitalising judicial processes. Moreover, within the announcement made by the Ministry of Justice on 12 May 2026, it is stated that the UYAP AI Decision Support System will be implemented. This system is intended to analyse more than 30 million precedent decisions as well as complex case files within seconds, with the aim of accelerating judicial proceedings.

In Türkiye, courts have not adopted AI as a formal decision-making tool, and judicial decisions continue to be rendered exclusively by judges. However, recent announcements indicate steps toward integrating AI-supported tools into the judicial system.

Accordingly, it is anticipated that the use of AI within the Turkish court system will become more widespread.