Turkey: Non-Competition Clauses For Employees: Limitation Of Non-Competition Clauses In Terms Of Place, Time, Subject And Restriction Authority Of The Judge

Introduction

Provisions regarding non-competition agreements between employers and employees that limit competition liberty and economic future of the employees1 are stipulated in Articles 444-447 of Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 ("TCO"). Valid conclusions of non-competition agreements are subject to the conditions regulated in Article 444 of the TCO. If these conditions; i.e. employee's capacity to act, a written agreement and legitimate interest of the employer that is worth protecting, are not present, or if there is no possibility of obtaining information for the employee regarding the circle of customers of the employer, production secrets or the works conducted in the workplace, or if there is no possibility that the employee may harm the employer, then the contract shall be subject to sanction of nullity and is, therefore, invalid2. According to Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code, the burden of proof for the presence of the validity conditions stipulated by the TCO rests on the employer3.

In addition, pursuant to Article 445/1 of the TCO, the obligation of non-competition of the employer as regulated by the non-competition agreement must be determined in a limited manner in terms of place, time and works that are within the scope of the prohibition; otherwise, Article 445/2 of the TCO recognizes the authority of the judge to limit extensive non-competition clauses in terms of scope or time:

"The judge may limit the extensive non-competition clause in terms of scope and time by freely evaluating all the circumstances and the conditions, and by taking into consideration the opposing deed that may be undertaken by the employer, in a just manner."

The Court of Cassation is of the opinion that the non-competition clause shall not be valid so long as it is not limited in terms of place and type of work, and limitations should be determined according to the characteristics of the work, and even to the features of the employee. Nevertheless, in this context, application of Article 445/2 of the TCO of the Court of Cassation demonstrates inconsistency. Below, decisions of the Court of Cassation in relation to this authority of the judge to limit non-competition clauses will be examined.

Practice of the Court of Cassation Regarding Agreements that were Terminated during the Term of Code numbered 818

Firstly, it is vital to indicate that according to the established case-law of the Court of Cassation, Article 349 of the Code of Obligations numbered 818 is applied to the non-competition clauses in the employment agreements that were terminated before the TCO's entry into force. Pursuant to this provision, in a dispute before the Court of Cassation, the Court deemed invalid a non-competition clause stipulating that the employee cannot be involved in any kind of work or activity in the area of business of the company in three designated areas for a time period of two years after the termination of the contract, as the limitation of geographical area that incorporates a significantly large area could result in the financial destruction of the employee4. Although dissenting votes in the aforementioned decision indicate that the judge can uphold the agreement by exercising his judicial discretion by applying the provisions of Code of Obligations numbered 818, the Court of Cassation's application in this respect appears to be consistent. Therefore, as there is no regulation that permits a judge's intervention in the agreement according to Code of Obligations numbered 818, in contrast to Article 445/2 of the TCO, the sanction of nullity of the agreement shall be applied to the non-competition clauses that violate the law (that involves limitations that incorporate a significantly large scope, and that could result in financial destruction of the employee).

The Court of Cassation Decisions that Invalidates the Non- Competition Clause

The Court of Cassation's case-law demonstrates inconsistency concerning the agreements involving non-competition clauses during the term of the TCO regarding the application of Article 445/2 of the TCO. In certain decisions of the Court, specifying the geographical limits of the non-competition clauses as being within the Republic of Turkey is deemed to be contradictory to Article 445/1 of the TCO, and considered so as to not specify any particular area. For this reason, the Court deemed the non-competition clause invalid as it violates the liberty of labor that is protected under the Constitution. In the dissenting vote of the aforementioned decision, it is argued that alleging that the agreement is invalid with respect to the same province, and even to the same neighborhood, by only giving the justification of inferring a considerably large area in the agreement, even if the agreement's identifying the whole of the Republic of Turkey is not right5. However, in the aforementioned decision of the 11th Civil Chamber, Article 445/2 of the TCO is not mentioned, and the judgment is based on a constitutional justification regarding the liberty of labor.

Court of Cassation Decisions that Adopt the Opinion of a Judge's Authority to Limit Non-Competition Clauses in a way that sustains the Clause

In many Court of Cassation decisions, it is emphasized that pursuant to Article 445/2 of the TCO, the judge may limit an extensive non-competition clause in terms of scope and time by freely evaluating all the circumstances and the conditions, and by taking the opposing action that may be undertaken by the employer into consideration, in a just manner6. In this respect, the Court of Cassation deems it inappropriate to render the non-competition clause invalid in agreements in which the limitation is made in a broad manner, without making an evaluation under Article 445/2 of the TCO. For example, the Court of Cassation reversed the decision of the first instance court that qualified an agreement stipulating a 5 year time limitation period for non-competition as a tying contract7. In this respect, the Court of Cassation reached the conclusion that under Article 445 of the TCO, the judge may limit this time period. According to the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber, in the event there is an extensive non-competition clause, taking the Constitution and other legislation provisions and the concrete case into account, the authority to make adaptation in terms of the scope and time of the prohibitions is granted to the judge, and this authority could be exercised both in a case of adaptation and in a case of compensation claims that would be commenced in case of a breach.

In terms of non-competition agreements that do not make any limitations, there is no consistency with regard to the Court of Cassation decisions. In a decision regarding the validity of a non-competition agreement that does not include any limitation, the 11th Civil Chamber analyzed the topic as follows:

"... Although provisions that stipulate non-competition inside the borders of the country are deemed invalid, limitation inside the borders of a province or a district could be seen valid as regards to the qualification of the case. In this specific case, when the provisions regulating the non-competition between the plaintiff and the defendant and the provisions referring to non-competition are evaluated, the fact that the time period for the non-competition in the noncompetition agreement is decided as one year, but there is no limitation with regard to the locus and business time is adopted as the reasons of invalidity, the claim is dismissed. However, it is stated in the agreement that the defendant employee cannot operate in the same context as the subject of the agreement in other companies and institutions operating in the same field. It is also stated that the non-competition shall be industry-specific and a penal clause shall be added in the event of infringement of the non-competition clause, irrespective of the existence of the company's damage. The defendant worked in the claimant company inside the borders of ... Province as sales manager and in the company where he lately started working with the title of sales manager, and his work field is determined as ... Province ... District. Although, there is no explicit regulation with respect to locus in the non-competition agreement, it is apparent that the defendant works in another company in the same sector, within the borders of the same province, under the same title. Moreover, it is understood that the defendant who is in the position of sales manager in the plaintiff company acquired information regarding the circle of customers of the company, and usage of this information is potentially harmful and to the detriment of the plaintiff company."8

Therefore, the case-law of the Court of Cassation supports the opinion that the judge may sustain the agreement even if there is no limitation in the non-competition clause, provided that the employee works in the same area, operation field and type of work, in the specific case. Moreover, the Court of Cassation, in another dispute that it elaborated upon in this respect, is of the opinion that Article 445/2 constitutes a special provision with respect to the other provisions of law:

"It may be inferred that the reasoning underlying this provision is to give the judge the authority to limit the non-competition clause at the legal and appropriate level by way of considering the equitable principles pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code, in the event that the non-competition agreement exceeds the limitations that are stipulated in the TCO. The sanction of nullity shall not be applied, as Article 445/2 of the TCO is deemed as a special norm with respect to Articles 27/1 of the TCO and 23/2 of the Civil Code. Considering these explanations, although the first instance court accepted that the sanction for the expression of "Whole World" in the agreement concluded between the parties was a nullity, Articles 445/1 and 2 of the TCO gives the judge the authority to take the measures to sustain the agreement against the excessive clauses and to interfere in the agreement. In this case, as the will of parties corresponds, there is no situation of nullity, but an invalidity that can be eliminated by the intervention of the judge."9

The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in another decision along the same line, emphasizes that Article 445/1 of the TCO stipulates locus and time limitation for non-competition clauses, and that pursuant to the second paragraph of this provision, the judge can limit the non-competition clauses in respect of scope and time in the event that they contain excessive limitations10. The 11th Civil Chamber, considering the fact that the employee has commenced work with another competitor enterprise, which operates in the same city as the employer, holds that alleging the nullity of the non-competition clauses, because the latter addresses a very broad geographical area, would be inconsistent with Article 2 of the Civil Code. In other words, in this case, the Court of Cassation acknowledges that the judge may use his/her authority to limit the non-competition clause under Article 445/2 of the TCO and sustain the agreement, if alleging the nullity of the non-competition agreement constitutes an abuse of right.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in the event that the labor agreement that is subject to the dispute is terminated during the term of the TCO, much of the Court of Cassation's decision regarding the limitation of the non-competition clause accepts that Article 445/2 shall be applicable, and that the judges may use their discretion in cases where there is an extensive limitation, or where there is no limitation in the agreement. In these decisions, whereas the Court of Cassation leans upon various reasoning, generally, the Court considers the conditions of each case, and acknowledges the discretion of the judge to limit the non-competition clause in the event that the employee starts working in the same district as the employer, in its operation field, and under the same title. Nevertheless, there is also a Court of Cassation decision in which the Court ignored the judge's authority to adapt the non-competition clause that contains extensive limitations, and held that the extensive non-competition clause is rendered invalid as it breaches the liberty of labor, as is protected under the Constitution. On the other hand, the Court of Cassation has established case-law determining that in the event that the agreement is terminated during term of Code of Obligations numbered 818, the judge may not sustain the non-competition agreement that is not in conformity with the legal limitations, and that the related contractual provision shall be deemed invalid.

Footnotes

1 Eren, Fikret: Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, 2nd Edition, Ankara 2015, s.567.

2 Süzek, Sarper: "Yeni Türk Borçlar Kanunu Çerçevesinde İşçinin Rekabet Etmeme Borcu", İÜHFM

C.LXXII, S.2 s. 457-468, 2014, s.462.

3 Süzek, Sarper: "Yeni Türk Borçlar Kanunu Çerçevesinde İşçinin Rekabet Etmeme Borcu", İÜHFM

C.LXXII, S.2 s. 457-468, 2014, s.462.

4 Court of Cassation 11. HD. , T. 16.3.2017 , E. 2016/2751, K. 2017/1589 , http://www.kazanci.com.tr/

(Access Date: 23.11.2017).

5 2 Court of Cassation 11. HD., T. 14.5.2015, E. 2015/1789, K. 2015/ 6904, http://www.kazanci.com.tr/

(Access Date: 23.11.2017).

6 For examples see: Court of Cassation 11. HD, T. 10.5.2017, E. 2015/15290, K. 2017/2808; Court of Cassation 11. HD., T.19.4.2017, E. 2015/ 14741, K. 2017/2261; Court of Cassation 11. HD., T. 17.11.2016, E. 2015/12799, K.2016/8956; Court of Cassation 11. HD, T. 16.6.2016, E. 2015/12450, K. 2016/6672; Court of Cassation 11. HD., T. 30.3.2016, E. 2015/8396, K. 2016/3470; Court of Cassation 11. HD., T. 1.3.2016; E. 2015/1658, K. 2016/2244; Court of Cassation 11. HD., T. 22.2.2016, E. 2015/7354, K. 2016/1838 http://www.kazanci.com.tr/ ( Access Date: 23.11.2017).

7 Court of Cassation 11. HD. , T. 19.4.2017, E. 2015/ 14741, K. 2017/2261, http://www.kazanci.com.tr/

(Access Date: 23.11.2017).

8 Court of Cassation, 11. HD, T. 30.3.2016, E. 2015/8396, K. 2016/3470, http://www.kazanci.com.tr/

(Access Date: 23.11.2017).

9 Court of Cassation 11. HD, T. 16.6.2016, E. 2015/12450, K. 2016/6672, http://www.kazanci.com.tr/

(Access Date: 23.11.2017).

10 Court of Cassation 11. HD. , T. 22.2.2016, E. 2015/7354, K. 2016/1838, https://www.lexpera.com.tr

(Access Date: 24.11.2017).

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
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”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions