TÜRKIYE Law and Practice Contributed by: Tansu Akin, Akin Legal
their case. However, public funding of proceed - ings and pro bono legal aid by an attorney are generally not permitted unless authorised by the relevant Bar Association. 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co- Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims Class action is not recognised in the Turkish judi - cial system. However, while class actions are not avail - able, the Consumer Protection Law empowers consumer associations and foundations to file determination cases or seek preliminary injunc - tions to safeguard the interests of their members or the groups they represent. Also, the Ministry of Commerce, relevant author - ities and consumer associations may file law - suits for declaratory judgment actions or pre - liminary injunction for prohibition or suspension of unlawful consumer-related matters under the Consumer Protection Law. Co-ordinated proceedings are not recognised as each claimant is expected to file a separate lawsuit. However, in practice, courts may informally co- ordinate several cases if the defendant and the cause of action are the same across a series of lawsuits. This may involve running parallel judg - ment procedures or designating one case as a pilot case for the remaining ones to follow. 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims A recent comprehensive summary of product liability law by the Trabzon Court of Cassation (4th Chamber) provides insight into the evolving
legal landscape in Turkey. This case involved a toddler’s tragic suffocation after crawling into a washing machine. Expert investigation revealed that the machine’s cover easily locked with mini - mal pressure, deviating from general expecta - tions for similar products. The court ruled that the manufacturer’s liability should be based on the Product Safety Law, a departure from the previous reliance on tort law principles under the TCO. The court referenced a 1996 ruling by the General Chamber of the Court of Appeals, which established fault-based liability for manufacturers. However, the court emphasised that fault should not be interpreted strictly, as manufacturers also bear the burden of showing diligent care as required by law. A manufacturer must prudently assess potential risks and dangers likely to occur during product use. Failing to take precautions to avoid such potential risks should be classified as a faulty act. In light of recent jurisprudence, it can be summa - rised that (i) the courts tend to apply the terms of the Product Safety Law more frequently than the tort law principles of the Code of Obligations, and more importantly, (ii) there is a shift in the judiciary’s evaluation of manufacturer (product) liability from fault-based liability towards strict liability. This shift involves heightened care and diligence expectations in the design and manu - facturing of products. 3. Recent Policy Changes and Outlook 3.1 Trends in Product Liability and Product Safety Policy The Council of the European Union has adopt - ed the new EU Directive on Liability for Defec -
266 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook