- Home
- News & Insights
Search by
Latest
Turkish Constitutional Court (Pilot Judgement): Prolonged Seizure Annotations under Article 128 Breach Property and Remedy Rights
In its decision dated 12 December 2024 and published in the Official Gazette No. 33046 on 13 October 2025, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of long-term seizure measures imposed under Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 5271) through land registry annotations. The Constitutional Court held that the extended maintenance of such seizure annotations, even without physical confiscation, constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to property protected under Article 35 of the Constitution, and that the limited interpretation of Article 141(1)(j), which allows compensation only where there is physical seizure- renders the right to an effective remedy under
Turkish Constitutional Court: Excluding Inflation and Currency Fluctuations from Proving Additional Damages Violates Property and Access to Justice Rights
The Turkish Constitutional Court’s Plenary Decision in Caner Şafak (published in the Official Gazette on 29 September 2025) reviewed the prevailing judicial approach to proving additional damages. What is Additional Damage? Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”) defines additional damage as a creditor’s loss exceeding statutory or contractual interest. In other words, it covers real losses arising from late payment that go beyond default interest. For instance, if a creditor must borrow at a higher interest rate or suffers from adverse exchange rate movements due to delayed payment, such losses qualify as additional damages. Current Practice For many years, Türkiye’s Court
Rekabet Yasağı Uyuşmazlıklarında Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi’nin Görevli Olduğuna Karar Verildi
Eylül 2025 – 12 Eylül 2025 tarihinde yayınlanan Resmi Gazete ile Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun (“Yargıtay İBK”) rekabet yasağına ilişkin uyuşmazlıklarda görevli mahkeme belirlemesine ilişkin bağlayıcı kararı (“Karar”) yayımlandı. Karar Öncesi Uygulama Uygulamada, işçi-işveren ilişkilerinden kaynaklanan rekabet yasağı uyuşmazlıklarında görevli mahkeme konusuna yönelik Yargıtay daireleri arasında farklı yaklaşımlar bulunmaktaydı. Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi, iş sözleşmesinden kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıklara bakan iş mahkemelerinin rekabet yasağı hükümlerinden doğan uyuşmazlıklarda da görevli olduğuna karar verirken; Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi
Jurisdiction in Non-Compete Disputes Clarified by Turkish Court of Cassation
On 12 September 2025, a landmark decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation’s Board for the Unification of Case Laws (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) (“Decision”) has been published in the Official Gazette. With this landmark Decision, the issue of which court is competent for disputes arising from non-compete obligations has been resolved. Background The question of jurisdiction over employment-related non-compete disputes has long been debated. In practice, different chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) had taken divergent positions. The 9th Civil Chamber held that labour courts (iş mahkemeleri), which hear disputes arising from employment agreements, should have