TURKEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Gökşin Kekevi, Yıldız Akınsal and Öykü İncekara, Özay Law Firm
11. Funding and Costs 11.1 Litigation Funding
Court of Appeals may be further appealed before the (High) Court of Appeals. Such appeals may be based on both errors of fact and procedural deficiencies.
Under Turkish law, there is no legislative provision pro - hibiting third-party litigation funding or the assump - tion of the financial risks associated with litigation. Nevertheless, such arrangements remain uncommon in practice. 11.2 Costs When the court renders its final judgment on the mer - its of the case, it also rules on the allocation of litiga - tion costs. As a general rule, litigation costs are borne by the unsuccessful party. The defendant may request that the claimant provide security for litigation costs in the following circum - stances: • where a Turkish citizen who does not have a habit - ual residence in Türkiye files a lawsuit or intervenes in proceedings as a third party; or • where it is established that the claimant is in finan - cial distress – for example, as a result of a prior bankruptcy decision, the commencement of con - cordat or restructuring-by-settlement proceedings, or the existence of a certificate of insolvency. The court may also order security for litigation costs on its own motion where the statutory requirements are met. The court determines both the amount and the form of the security. However, where the parties have agreed on the form of the security in a contract, the court will determine the security accordingly. If the required security is not provided within the time limit set by the court, the action will be dismissed on procedural grounds.
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
The number of antitrust damages actions in Türkiye is expected to increase in the near future, due in part to the growing awareness among injured parties of their right to seek damages. The availability of triple damages (three times the actual harm suffered) under Turkish law makes such actions particularly attractive. Beyond the financial incentives, however, the settle - ment mechanism introduced into the Competition Act in 2020 has become a significant driver of private damages litigation. An undertaking that chooses to settle expressly acknowledges that it has committed a competition law infringement, and this admission substantially reduces the claimant’s burden of proving the infringement in subsequent damages actions. Fur - thermore, although there is no explicit legal require - ment, under the established approach of the Court of Appeals, courts generally treat a final TCA decision as a prerequisite for damages actions. Since settlement decisions cannot be appealed and therefore become final rapidly, subsequent damages proceedings before the courts may progress more quickly. It is important to note that reaching a settlement with the TCA does not shield an undertaking from civil damages actions or liability. Likewise, Turkish competition law does not provide any exemption from potential private dam - ages claims for leniency applicants. The TCA’s recent infringement decisions imposing administrative fines are also expected to generate further damages actions. In particular, the TCA has recently imposed substantial fines in relation to labour market infringements, including no-poach agreements as well as information exchanges on compensation and benefits across a wide range of sectors. Moreo - ver, cartel cases continue to account for a significant proportion of the administrative fines imposed by the TCA. Consequently, it is likely that parties harmed by
12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal
Where the monetary value of the dispute exceeds the applicable statutory thresholds, the relevant court decisions may be appealed. In this regard, judgments rendered by the court of first instance may first be appealed before the competent Regional Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the decisions of the Regional
207 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook