Legal Bulletin
Turkey Legal News — 4 May 2026: Lawyer Killed, Tax Cut, Rulings
Published 4 May 2026·13 min read
The past week in Turkish law was marked by a deadly attack on a lawyer carrying out her professional duties, prompting a joint response from the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) and Istanbul Bar. Presidential Decrees published in the Official Gazette brought the most senior-level reshuffles in police and provincial governance, while the accommodation tax rate, the State contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and the TBB Advertising Ban Regulation all underwent significant changes. On the judicial side, four rulings from the Court of Cassation and the Council of State will directly affect daily practice.
Legal Profession Agenda
Lawyer Hatice Kocaefe Killed in Bursa While on Duty
In Gürsu, Bursa, Lawyer Hatice Kocaefe, who had initiated enforcement proceedings on behalf of her sister, was shot and killed in front of a cold-storage facility owned by her sister. The attacker, Hakkı Çetin, opened fire while Kocaefe was carrying out her professional duty. Of the seven suspects detained in connection with the incident, five were arrested.
The boards of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) and the Istanbul Bar issued a joint statement describing the attack as "a serious crime committed directly because of professional duty and aimed at the practice of advocacy itself." The statement underlined that the rhetoric targeting lawyers and the climate of impunity create the ground for such attacks.
The case has reopened the debate on the public-service nature of advocacy under Article 1 of the Turkish Advocacy Law and the professional safety of lawyers. Bar associations have long been calling for legislative protection for lawyers; this killing is expected to intensify pressure for that demand to translate into concrete policy change.
Constitutional Court 64th Anniversary: AI to Assist Individual Applications from September 2026
The Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) held its 64th anniversary ceremony together with the swearing-in of new member Şaban Kazdal at the Yüce Divan Hall. President of the Constitutional Court Kadir Özkaya announced that, starting in September 2026, artificial intelligence will be deployed to assist with reading, summarising and categorising individual application forms.
Özkaya stressed that AI will only support rapporteurs at the preparatory stage: "We will not attribute any legal value to the outputs produced by artificial intelligence; the final legal assessment and decision will, as always, belong to human reasoning and conscience."
The move responds to the heavy caseload — over 100,000 individual applications per year — built up under the Article 148 individual-application mechanism. For lawyers, the algorithmic triage of titles, summaries and case classification may translate into faster identification of formal deficiencies and a clearer pre-screening signal.
TBB: "A Lawyer Cannot Be Forced to Defend Themselves Instead of Their Client"
TBB Chair Lawyer Erinç Sağkan, commenting on the situation of Lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan — Ekrem İmamoğlu's detained lawyer — emphasised that forcing a lawyer to defend themselves rather than their client because of their professional activity is a clear violation of the right to a fair trial.
The statement points to a sensitive matter that must be assessed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 38 of the Turkish Advocacy Law and the principle of defence immunity. Maintaining the distinction between the views advanced by a lawyer in defence and the lawyer's own person is regarded as a foundational guarantee of the rule of law.
Following the announcement, bar associations are expected to intensify their monitoring of investigations against lawyers. The use of defence-related work in client files as evidence in criminal investigations will likely remain on the agenda.
Annulment Action Against Justice Minister Akın Gürlek's Appointment
Five lawyers from the Ankara Bar filed a lawsuit before the Council of State seeking the annulment and stay of execution of the appointment of Akın Gürlek as Minister of Justice. The 12th Chamber of the Council of State rejected the stay-of-execution request but ruled that the petitioner lawyers have standing to sue, allowing the case to proceed to a substantive examination.
The decision is laying the groundwork for an important precedent on how the "interest violation" criterion under Article 2 of the Administrative Procedure Code (Law No. 2577) is interpreted with respect to lawyers' standing to challenge ministerial appointments. The chamber's decision on the merits could redefine the boundaries of judicial review of senior administrative appointments.
The clear emergence of the "abstract interest" debate in administrative-justice practice is also crucial for clarifying the practical limits of broad-purpose litigation by bar members.
HSK First Chamber Decree on Judges' Standing Authorisations
The First Chamber of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) issued an announcement on the decrees determining the standing authorisations of judges in both the ordinary and administrative judiciary. A standing authorisation is the administrative arrangement that lets a judge sit continuously at a court different from their main posting.
The decree shapes the authorisation regime under Article 47 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors (Law No. 2802) for the year ahead. For lawyers, the practical impact is the possibility of a change of judge in pending files and consequent shifts in hearing schedules.
Once the standing authorisations have been published province by province, hearing loads at the regional courts of appeal are expected to be rebalanced. Adjustments aimed at provinces with judge shortages will directly affect overall trial duration.
Halit Çelenk Legal Awards 2026: Criminal Law Theses Take the Stage
The Halit Çelenk Legal Award 2026, organised with TBB support, was shared this year between two works. Arzu Balan's thesis "Metamorphosis in Criminal Law Theory: Endangerment Offences" and Ceren Tuğlu Olpak's thesis "The Role of Criminal Law in the Construction and Protection of Social Order" were both deemed worthy of the prize.
Both theses address increasingly important areas of Turkish Penal Code practice — endangerment offences and the impact of the concept of social order on criminal law — both of which feature regularly in recent Court of Cassation case law. The criminalisation of endangerment offences without requiring proof of concrete harm remains a contested topic.
In an area as practice-oriented as criminal law, these scholarly works are likely to serve as reference points for shaping defence strategies in the years to come.
Official Gazette and Legislative Changes
National Police Chief and Provincial Governors: Reshuffles by Presidential Decree
A Presidential Decree (CBK) published in the Official Gazette removed National Police Chief Mahmut Demirtaş and appointed Nevşehir Governor Ali Fidan in his place. The same instrument appointed Ankara Governor Vasip Şahin as Chair of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (TİHEK), with Aydın Governor Yakup Canbolat moving up to fill the Ankara post.
Senior policing appointments — assessed under the Police Organisation Law (Law No. 3201) and the TİHEK Law (Law No. 6701) — carry weight for both security policy and human-rights monitoring mechanisms. In daily practice, this means a change in the administrative counterparts that lawyers face in criminal and administrative litigation.
TBB Advertising Ban Regulation Amended: Violations Tracking Centre Established
The Regulation Amending the TBB Advertising Ban Regulation was published in the Official Gazette. A new Article 12/A introduces a five-member Advertising Ban Violations Tracking Centre within the TBB, tasked with detecting alleged advertising-ban violations across written, audio, visual and online channels.
The Centre will identify violations, report them to the TBB, and follow up on the post-violation process before the bar associations. The regulation brings the application of Article 55 of the Advocacy Law and the TBB Advertising Ban Regulation on social media and digital platforms under a systematic supervisory umbrella.
In concrete terms, lawyers' posts on Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn will now be subject to centralised monitoring. Faster detection of violations that may lead to disciplinary proceedings is expected.
HSK Principle Decision: Promotion Rule for First-Class Judges and Prosecutors Changed
A HSK Principle Decision published in the Official Gazette introduced a significant change to the promotion criteria for judges and prosecutors. The previous requirement of "applying the percentages 10 points lower" for judges and prosecutors who are first class or who have been transferred to first class has been removed.
This is a technical but important change to the seniority and performance-record system under the Law on Judges and Prosecutors (Law No. 2802). Because the success threshold for upper-grade promotion has shifted for first-class judicial members, the talent pool feeding higher courts will rebalance.
For lawyers, the indirect effect is real: changes in the profile of judges at the regional appeal and Court of Cassation level can either soften or sharpen prevailing case-law trends.
Accommodation Tax Cut from 2% to 1% — Until 31 December 2026
The accommodation tax rate under the Expenditure Taxes Law (Law No. 6802) has been reset. A Presidential Decree published in the Official Gazette reduces the tax from 2 percent to 1 percent, with the new rate to apply until 31 December 2026.
The change is particularly relevant to operators of hotels, motels, holiday villages, pensions, apart hotels, guest houses and campsites. In tourism-heavy provinces such as Antalya, accommodation businesses will see a tangible cost benefit during the entire 2026 season.
The temporary nature of the reduction means the rate will need to be reassessed from 1 January 2027. Accommodation businesses should structure their pricing strategies — and especially early-booking campaigns — with this timeline in mind.
State Contribution to Unemployment Insurance Fund Cut from 1% to 0.5%
A Presidential Decree published in the Official Gazette reduced the State contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund from 1 percent to 0.5 percent, effective 1 May 2026. The change directly affects the State-share component under the Unemployment Insurance Law (Law No. 4447).
The cut significantly lowers one of the main inflows feeding the Fund. The Fund's financial position — which underwrites short-time working allowance, unemployment benefit and job-loss compensation, especially during economic downturns — will face pressure over the medium term.
For employment lawyers and HR professionals, this change keeps the Fund's payment capacity in the spotlight, particularly in the context of mass dismissals and short-time working applications.
Authorisation Certificate Rules for Motor-Vehicle and Real-Estate Trading
The Ministry of Trade's new rules on motor-vehicle and real-estate trading entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette. Authorisation-certificate procedures in vehicle and real-estate trading have been revised. The educational requirement for motor-vehicle trading has been reduced from a high-school diploma to a primary-school diploma.
Information changes on the authorisation certificate will require an amendment, while changes of trade name or business name will trigger renewal. The framework is implemented under the Law on the Regulation of Retail Trade (Law No. 6585) and the relevant secondary legislation.
Lowering the educational threshold may increase the number of operators in the second-hand vehicle and real-estate sectors. Consumer-law mechanisms protecting buyers will therefore need to be enforced more strictly in practice. An uptick in demand for legal advice in sectoral disputes can be expected.
Court Rulings
Council of State VDDK: Litigation Costs in Annulment/Refund Suits When Interest Claim Is Rejected
The Tax Litigation Chambers Board of the Council of State (VDDK) ruled that, in annulment and tax-refund suits, where a portion of the interest claim is rejected, the court must partially dismiss the action for that portion and allocate the proportional litigation costs to the claimant.
The ruling clarifies the litigation-costs regime applied through Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Code (Law No. 2577) — which refers back to Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). In tax cases, while the principal sum is often accepted, there had long been a debate over whether the case was deemed wholly successful when only the interest claim failed.
Under the new approach, taxpayers and their lawyers must be more careful about the start date and rate of interest calculations. Particularly in refund claims, an inaccurately stated interest component can convert into a litigation-cost burden by the end of the case.
Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber: Bank Manager's Overtime Claim Rejected
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (E. 2025/7997, K. 2025/8076, 20 October 2025) ruled that an overtime claim by a bank manager who had no superior issuing instructions in the workplace must be rejected, and that legal fees must be awarded to the opposing party in such cases.
The decision once again draws the line on the application of the overtime regime under Article 41 of the Labour Law (Law No. 4857) to senior-executive employees. Where there is no superior to issue instructions, the manager effectively sets their own working hours, undermining the theoretical basis of overtime.
For employment-law practitioners, the practical takeaway is significant: claims by general managers of banks, holdings and corporates seeking overtime now face a stronger counter-precedent. Because rejection means the legal fees burden falls back on the claimant employee, the decision to file such claims must be considered far more carefully.
Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber: Assignment of Claim and Additional-Damage Claim
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (E. 2025/811, K. 2026/141, 13 January 2026) ruled that, unless expressly stated in the assignment-of-claim agreement, the assignment of the principal claim does not result in the assignment of the additional-damage claim. The injured party may seek additional damages for the period between the date of default and the date of assignment.
The ruling clarifies the legal nature of additional-damage compensation under Article 122 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098) and its relationship to the assignment of claims under Articles 183 et seq. of the same Code. Additional damages — recoverable when default interest does not cover the actual loss — are characterised as an independent claim.
The lesson for lawyers is clear: assignment-of-claim contracts must expressly state whether the additional-damage claim is also assigned. Otherwise, the right to additional damages for the pre-assignment period remains with the original creditor.
Court of Cassation General Assembly: Expert Report from Enforcement Court Admissible in Negative Declaratory Action
The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (HGK) (E. 2025/11-344, K. 2026/118, 25 February 2026) ruled that, in a negative declaratory action filed in connection with a bills-of-exchange enforcement, there is no obstacle to relying on an expert report obtained in the enforcement court that examined the signature challenge in the same enforcement proceedings.
The ruling reinforces the interpretation of the expert-evidence regime under Article 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and Article 170 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). The barrier to evidence transfer between the enforcement court and the civil court is removed, which also aligns with the principle of procedural economy.
For check, promissory-note and bill enforcement actions where signature denial is a frequent strategy, the precedent provides binding guidance. Lawyers should plan their strategy assuming that an expert report obtained in the enforcement court may be used in the parallel file.
Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber: Limitation Period Suspended During Constitutional Court Individual Application
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (E. 2025/6650, K. 2025/9689, 18 February 2025) ruled that between the date of an individual application to the Constitutional Court and the date the case is reopened following the Court's decision, the limitation period must be deemed not to have run.
The decision is critical because it links the suspension-of-limitation provisions under Articles 152 and 153 of the Turkish Code of Obligations to the constitutional-justice process. Once the Constitutional Court issues a violation decision and proceedings are reopened, the time elapsed in between is not counted for limitation purposes.
In long-running labour-law and other prolonged proceedings, the precedent provides a favourable legal foundation for lawyers re-litigating files following a Constitutional Court decision. The individual application is now seen not only as a constitutional safeguard but also as a strategic element in managing limitation periods.