TÜRKIYE Law and Practice Contributed by: Tansu Akin, Akin Legal
legally ambiguous or contradictory matters or to intro - duce any additional evidence crucial for resolving the case. If a party hesitates to comply with such an order to produce evidence, the court may decide to shift the burden of proof, as described above. 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases Under the Civil Procedural Law, the parties may request the court to appoint expert witnesses to analyse and comment on the technical aspects. This appointment commences with a specific discovery session with the participation of the parties, the judge and the experts. The judges also have the authority to appoint expert witnesses if they require any technical assistance to resolve specific matters. The costs of the expert witness are borne by the party bearing the burden of proof, to be later reimbursed by the losing party at the conclusion of the proceedings. Under the Expert Witnesses Act, a list of qualified sworn expert witnesses is annually announced in each judicial area. If the expert opinion is deemed insufficient, parties may request, or the judge may independently decide to, request further details from the experts, appoint a different expert or a committee of experts, or summon the expert witness(es) to clarify their technical opinion. In product liability and product safety cases, the Court of Appeals often expects the lower courts to appoint expert witnesses. While the Civil Procedural Law allows parties to utilise their own expert opinions, these opinions do not carry the same weight as those of court-appointed experts. 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases While the general principle places the burden of proof on the claimant, the Turkish Civil Procedural Law stip - ulates that both parties are responsible for proving their allegations or defences with sufficient evidence. In principle, the establishment of a fact should be beyond doubt. The Civil Code requires evidence to reasonably prove the alleged incident or situation. If
the alleging party fails to provide sufficient evidence reasonably indicating the alleged fact, the courts will conclude that they have not met their burden of proof. In product liability cases, this principle often hinges on court-appointed expert reports. In the absence of suf - ficient evidence, experts may draw conclusions based on the balance of probabilities, and courts may tend to rely on such reports. However, if the appealing party insists on the strict application of the burden of proof, appellate courts may remand the case due to insuf - ficient evidence. An exception to the reasonable proof burden exists in cases involving general life expectations or presump - tions. If a party’s claims contradict common sense or general expectations, the burden of proof shifts, and the court may require them to substantiate their allegations. It is important to note that in strict liability cases, the burden of proof rests with the defendant. 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought Generally, product liability cases in Turkey are heard by civil courts of first instance, presided over by a first-class judge. However, if the claimant is a consumer, they must file their claim in a consumer court, which is also presided over by a first-class judge. When both parties are merchants or the dispute is commercial in nature, the case falls under the jurisdic - tion of a commercial court. Commercial courts typi - cally consist of a panel of three first-class judges, but commercial disputes with a value below an annually adjusted threshold are heard by a single judge of com - merce. Due to high inflation, this threshold must be reviewed and adjusted each calendar year. The Turkish legal system does not employ trial by jury. All judicial reviews and decision-making are exclusive - ly conducted by judges.
284 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook