Turkish law allows Claimants to seek injunctions over
Defendants' assets by way of preliminary injunction orders
issued at pre-litigation stage in order to obtain security for
Since the new Civil Procedures Code numbered 6100 entered into
force on 1 October, 2011, there has been a debate amongst the local
courts and different chambers of the Court of Appeal on whether
decisions rendered by courts on (i) dismissal of applications for
injunction orders or (ii) dismissal of objections Defendants raise
against injunction orders are appealable or not.
The Court of Appeal recently rendered an Order for the
Unification of the Precedents issued in this regard by different
chambers ("Unification Order") and held
that local courts' judgments on dismissal of objections by
Claimants or Defendants as stated above are not appealable. The
Court of Appeal based its judgment on the arguments that
(i) the right to appeal may only be exercised on
judgments on the merits of disputes and (ii) the
injunction order is merely a provisional decision and raising
objections before local courts is the only remedy against such
The importance of this precedent is that Orders for Unification
of Precedents are rarely issued and such orders have the force of
law in that they are binding on both first tier courts and the
Court of Appeal. It follows that until and unless this order has
been reversed, it is no longer possible for Claimants or Defendants
to appeal decision of local courts on matters relating to
preliminary injunction orders. Needless to say, this order is
likely to be criticised by Turkish lawyers as it paves the way for
local courts to issue different orders in identical or similar
cases given that such decisions shall not be scrutinized by the
Court of Appeal which has been providing harmonisation of orders by
local courts so far.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a judgment harking back to the principles in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that the manufacturer of a defective product installed to prevent fire was not liable...
A year-long arbitration pilot scheme to provide a cost-effective, straightforward and quick method of solving legal disputes between claimants and participating members of the press commenced on the 26th July 2016.
Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread – the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy.
Each year businesses around the world face a growing number of risks that could potentially jeopardize hundreds of billions of euros.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).