Legal Bulletin
Turkey Legal News — 1 June 2026: CMK 134 and Arbitration Reform
Published 1 June 2026·8 min read
1 June 2026 brought one of the most consequential rulings in recent Turkish criminal procedure: the Constitutional Court annulled Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stripping digital searches of their principal statutory basis and opening a significant legislative gap. Alongside that decision, the Ministry of Justice established a dedicated arbitration department, extended the e-Hearing system to appellate courts, and the Court of Cassation issued important new rulings on severance pay, enforcement law and traffic insurance claims.
Legal Profession News
Ministry of Justice Establishes Arbitration Department for Commercial Disputes
The Directorate General of Legal Affairs within the Ministry of Justice has formally established an Arbitration Department (Tahkim Daire Başkanlığı). Its mandate is to facilitate faster and more effective resolution of commercial disputes through out-of-court mechanisms.
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which parties submit their disagreement to independent arbitrators rather than state courts. It is especially prevalent in commercial, investment and construction law. Turkey has long been working to strengthen its arbitration infrastructure and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
A dedicated Ministry of Justice arbitration unit creates an institutional counterpart for disputes involving public entities, government contracts and investment disputes. Commercial lawyers and practitioners in international arbitration will be watching closely to see how the department defines its remit and operational authority.
e-Hearing System Extending to Regional Appeals Courts
Justice Minister Akın Gürlek announced that the e-Hearing (e-Duruşma) system, already in use at first-instance courts, will be extended to the Regional Courts of Appeals (BAM) — Turkey's intermediate appellate tier.
The e-Hearing system allows parties and their counsel to attend hearings remotely without being physically present in the courtroom. Introduced at pace during the COVID-19 period, it has since become standard at first-instance level. Bringing BAM within its scope means that appeal proceedings — a key stage for litigants contesting first-instance judgments — can also be attended remotely.
This reduces travel costs and scheduling burdens, particularly for firms with offices in multiple cities or clients spread across different provinces. A timeline for the rollout across individual BAM locations has not yet been announced.
Standard Guarantee Letter Templates Integrated into the UYAP System
The Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Banks Association of Turkey, has completed standard bank guarantee letter (teminat mektubu) templates ready for integration into the UYAP judicial information system.
A bank guarantee letter is a written commitment by a bank to pay a specified amount to a creditor on behalf of its client if required. In litigation, they are used widely as security for interim injunctions, precautionary attachments, and court deposits. Standardising the template format removes friction in bank correspondence and reduces the court's burden of reviewing non-uniform documents.
Expropriation Payment Tracking Moving to a Centralised System via VakıfBank
The Ministry of Justice and VakıfBank have agreed to route expropriation payments — sums determined by courts and deposited at the bank on behalf of rights-holders — into a centralised tracking system. Technical work to integrate the relevant court instruction templates into UYAP is ongoing.
Expropriation compensation is the payment the state is required to make when it acquires private property for public use. In contested proceedings, the amount is deposited at a designated bank pending resolution. A centralised system will improve transparency for rights-holders seeking their funds and for lawyers managing expropriation cases.
UYAP Lawyer Portal Login Change: Arksigner Channel Closed from 1 June
The Kayseri Bar Association announced that from Monday, 1 June 2026, access to the UYAP Lawyer Portal is available only through two channels:
- Ministry of Justice E-Signature Application
- E-Government (E-Devlet) Login
The login channel using the Arksigner software (known as "UYAP E-İmza ile Giriş") has been closed as of this date. Lawyers who have not yet migrated must switch to one of the two supported methods.
Parliament
"Terror-Free Turkey" Process: New Bill Announced for After the Holiday
DEM Party Deputy Speaker of Parliament Pervin Buldan announced that draft legislation is being prepared under the "Terror-Free Turkey" (Terörsüz Türkiye) peace process, with a bill expected to come before Parliament after the public holiday.
The process is expected to involve substantial changes to anti-terror legislation and the criteria for prosecution on charges related to armed organisations. For defence lawyers working on terrorism-related cases and for defendants currently before courts under those charges, the shape of any new legislation will be closely significant.
Constitutional Court
Constitutional Court Annuls CMK 134: Legal Gap in Digital Evidence Collection
The Constitutional Court of Turkey (AYM) annulled Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271), the provision entitled "Search, Copy and Seizure from Computers, Computer Programs and Files."
Previous position: CMK Article 134 authorised prosecutors and courts to order the search of suspects' computers and digital storage media, copy their contents, and seize them as evidence. This provision formed the digital evidence pillar of a wide range of criminal proceedings — from economic and cyber crime to organised crime and terrorism cases.
The ruling: The Constitutional Court held that the provision was unconstitutional. Once published in the Official Gazette, Article 134 ceased to be in force.
Practical significance: Without a valid statutory basis, the lawfulness of digital searches — even those conducted pursuant to a court order — becomes open to challenge. In ongoing proceedings, defence lawyers will likely contest whether digital evidence obtained under Article 134 can still be relied upon. Parliament is expected to enact a replacement provision, but until it does, a significant gap in Turkish criminal procedure law remains.
Court of Cassation Rulings
Court of Cassation 9th Chamber: Limitation Period Does Not Run During AYM Process
Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber (Case No. 2025/6650, Decision No. 2025/9689, 09.12.2025):
The limitation period does not run between the date of an individual application to the Constitutional Court and the date on which retrial begins following the Constitutional Court's ruling.
Legal context: When a claimant files an individual application with the Constitutional Court (AYM) alleging a rights violation, proceedings effectively enter a holding pattern. If the AYM finds a violation and orders a retrial, a question arises as to whether the claims at issue have become time-barred during the intervening period.
Practical significance: The Court of Cassation has now expressly excluded the AYM waiting period from limitation calculations. For workers whose labour rights cases have passed through lengthy AYM proceedings, this means the period spent awaiting the AYM's ruling cannot be used as a limitation defence.
Court of Cassation 12th Chamber: Interim Injunction Required to Halt Fraudulent Enforcement
Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber (Case No. 2025/6061, Decision No. 2026/311, 21.01.2026):
Where a claimant seeks to cancel an allegedly fraudulent (muvazaalı) enforcement proceeding, the applicable protective measure is an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir). Both the enforcement proceeding itself and any sale processes connected to it must be stayed by interim injunction.
Legal context: Muvazaa (fraud/simulation) refers to a transaction that conceals the parties' true intentions. In enforcement law, a fraudulent proceeding may involve initiating execution on the basis of a non-existent or artificially inflated claim to seize the debtor's assets. The type of interim relief available in such cases had been uncertain.
Practical significance: The Court of Cassation has specified the applicable measure as an interim injunction, which must cover both the enforcement proceeding and connected sale processes. In enforcement and insolvency litigation, identifying the correct procedural mechanism for interim protection is essential to preventing irreversible harm to the debtor.
Court of Cassation 4th Chamber: Mediation Filing Satisfies Highway Code Written Notice Requirement
Court of Cassation, 4th Civil Chamber (Case No. 2024/7247, Decision No. 2024/7656, 12.09.2024):
Where a mediation application is made without first sending written notice to the insurance company, this must be accepted as satisfying the written notice precondition under Highway Traffic Code (KTK) Article 97.
Legal context: Article 97 of Law No. 2918 (KTK) requires claimants in traffic accident compensation cases to send written notice to the relevant insurance company before commencing proceedings — a formal precondition for admissibility. With the introduction of mandatory mediation, claimants who went directly to mediation without first giving written notice to the insurer faced the risk of having their claims rejected on procedural grounds.
Practical significance: The Court of Cassation treats the mediation application as equivalent to the KTK Article 97 written notice. Traffic accident victims who proceed straight to mediation no longer risk dismissal on the basis that they failed to send a prior written notice to the insurer — a ruling that will substantially reduce procedural objections in traffic compensation claims.
Court of Cassation 9th Chamber: Time-Barred Overtime Claims Do Not Forfeit Severance Pay
Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber (Case No. 2025/3410, Decision No. 2025/4040, 05.05.2025):
Even where overtime pay and public holiday pay (UBGT) claims relied upon as grounds for justified termination have become time-barred, this does not prevent the employee from being entitled to severance pay (kıdem tazminatı).
Legal context: Under Turkish labour law, an employee whose employer has failed to pay overtime or public holiday wages may terminate the contract with just cause and claim severance pay. However, the five-year limitation period for claiming those underlying wages may have expired by the time termination occurs.
Practical significance: Employers had argued that because the overtime claims themselves were time-barred, they could no longer constitute valid grounds for justified termination and therefore no severance was owed. The Court of Cassation rejected this argument: the right to claim payment of a debt is legally distinct from the right to terminate based on the non-payment of that debt. Labour lawyers acting for employees will find this a directly applicable precedent in severance disputes.