Legal Bulletin
Turkey Legal News — 22 June 2026: AI Plan, KVKK and BAM Courts
Published 22 June 2026·10 min read
The week of 22 June 2026 brought several consequential developments in Turkish law. The Constitutional Court unanimously struck down a KVKK administrative fine imposed on a insurance company for processing publicly available personal data, ruling that the legal basis failed the principle of legality in sanctions. The Council of State (Danıştay) held that taxpayers can sue directly to challenge their placement on the VAT "special measures" watchlist — courts must rule on the merits, not dismiss on procedural grounds. Meanwhile, Law 7584 and Presidential Decree 11444 extending withholding tax rates entered force, and Turkey published its 2026–2030 AI Action Plan.
Legal Profession News
Performance Targets Extended to Regional Courts of Appeal
Justice Minister Akın Gürlek announced that the judicial case-duration target system — previously applied only to courts of first instance — now covers Regional Courts of Appeal (BAM) as well. Courts must meet set timeframe targets and report deviations.
What it means in practice: For litigants and lawyers working appeals-heavy cases, BAM docket management may shift. Whether performance pressure improves throughput or compresses deliberation time in complex appeals is worth monitoring.
Constitutional Court and Bar Sign Agreement on Fundamental Rights Implementation
Under a joint EU and Council of Europe project, the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) signed a memorandum of understanding. The project aims to strengthen how lower courts implement AYM individual application decisions.
What it means in practice: Lawyers working fundamental rights cases will benefit from the guidance documents and training the project produces. Stronger local-court implementation of AYM rulings means that constitutional arguments carry more practical weight before first-instance courts.
Court of Cassation Hosts Symposium on AI in the Judiciary
The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) organised a symposium examining the use of artificial intelligence in judicial proceedings — covering decision-support tools, case law research, and document automation. International experience and Turkey-specific challenges were both on the agenda.
What it means in practice: A Yargıtay-level event on this topic signals that AI integration in courts is moving from discussion to institutional planning. For lawyers, AI-assisted research tools are shifting from optional to a near-term operational necessity.
Turkey's 2026–2030 AI Action Plan Released
The Presidency published Turkey's 2026–2030 Artificial Intelligence Action Plan, setting out targets for AI integration in public services, domestic model development infrastructure, data governance, and a regulatory framework.
What it means in practice: Action plans do not carry direct legal force, but they map the legislative agenda. KVKK amendments, competition rules, and public procurement regulations specifically covering AI products and services are expected over the next few years. For IT and competition law practices, this plan is a forward-looking reference worth reading in detail.
UYAP June 2026 Update: Compensation Commission Applications Now Online
The Ministry of Justice IT Department announced that Compensation Commission applications — used for unreasonable trial duration and other violations of the Convention — can now be submitted through the UYAP Citizen Portal following the June 2026 system update.
What it means in practice: Lawyers directing clients to the Compensation Commission no longer need to manage physical documents for the initial application. The process is meaningfully faster for anyone with a UYAP account and a qualified electronic signature.
Revenue Administration Publishes Accommodation Tax Guide
The Revenue Administration (GİB) published a comprehensive guide on the application of the Accommodation Tax, which has been levied at 2% on hospitality services since 2020.
What it means in practice: The guide clarifies the tax base, exemptions, and documentation requirements. Lawyers advising hotels, resorts, and mixed-use properties will find it a useful reference, particularly for disputes about what counts as a taxable accommodation service.
Official Gazette and Parliament
Law 7584: Land Protection Amendments and Sector-Wide Changes
Law 7584 was published in the Official Gazette of 20 June 2026. The omnibus law introduces substantive changes across land protection, forestry, alcoholic beverage advertising, veterinary professional discipline, sugar beet cultivation regulation, and hydroelectric facilities operated by the State Hydraulic Works.
What it means in practice: Businesses in food, agriculture, energy and health sectors should review which provisions apply to them. The alcoholic beverage advertising changes are particularly relevant to commercial and marketing law practitioners. Full text available in the Official Gazette →
Music Licensing Documents Now Required for Tourism Facility Authorisation
A communiqué amendment published in the Official Gazette of 16 June 2026 makes it mandatory for accommodation facilities that use music in shared spaces to attach a music licence certificate — obtained from the relevant federation under Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works — to their authorisation applications.
What it means in practice: Hotels and resorts that play background music in lobbies, restaurants, and pools must now have a valid licence certificate from the relevant collective management organisation and keep it ready for inspection. Missing documentation will block authorisation renewal.
Cinema Ticket Discounts Expanded — Regulations Updated
Amendments published in the Official Gazette of 18 June 2026 update cinema discount rates: 40% for students and public employees, 50% for persons with disabilities, martyrs' relatives and veterans, and up to 70% for special-event screenings.
What it means in practice: Cinema operators must update their ticketing systems and pricing policies to comply. Documenting discount applications with an internal procedure reduces audit risk under the new framework.
Customs Reconciliation Commission Authority Threshold More Than Doubled
The Customs Reconciliation Regulation amendment published in the Official Gazette of 18 June 2026 raises the Regional Customs Directorate Reconciliation Commission's authority limit from TRY 3,000,000 to TRY 7,000,000.
What it means in practice: Importers and exporters facing customs penalties can now resolve higher-value disputes through pre-litigation reconciliation at the regional directorate level. For trade law practitioners, this widens the practical scope for negotiated resolution before court proceedings become necessary.
Withholding Rates on Government Securities Extended to 31 December 2026
Presidential Decree No. 11444, published in the Official Gazette of 20 June 2026, extends the withholding tax rates applicable to income from government bonds, Treasury bills, and certain lease certificates under Temporary Article 67 of the Income Tax Law through 31 December 2026.
What it means in practice: No change in the effective tax rate for individuals and institutions holding domestic government securities. Capital markets lawyers should update clients with fixed-income portfolios and confirm that modelling assumptions remain valid through year-end.
Constitutional Court and Judicial Decisions
AYM: KVKK Fine on Publicly Available Data Struck Down on Legality Grounds
The Constitutional Court unanimously annulled an administrative fine imposed by the Personal Data Protection Board (KVKK) on an insurance company for processing publicly available personal data. The Court held that the legal basis for the sanction violated the principle of legality in offences and penalties (Anayasa, Art. 38).
Legal background: The legality principle requires that any sanction be grounded in a clear, precise, and foreseeable statutory provision. The Court found that the KVKK's provisions on publicly available data do not set out the penal consequences with sufficient specificity.
What it means in practice: Companies that have received KVKK administrative fines based on the publicly available data category now have a strong constitutional argument in appeal proceedings. The ruling may also constrain future Board enforcement action in this area until the statutory framework is clarified by the legislature.
AYM: Presidential Authority to Set Additional Incentives in Industrial Zones Struck Down
The Constitutional Court annulled the provision in Law No. 4737 on Industrial Zones that authorised the President to determine additional incentives, along with a ministerial power to demand "all information and documents" from zone operators.
Legal background: The Court has consistently treated broadly drafted delegations of legislative power — especially those lacking defined criteria — as unconstitutional transfers of the legislative function. This ruling creates a gap in the industrial zone incentive regime.
What it means in practice: Investors in or considering industrial zones should monitor the legislative response closely. Until a new regulation is enacted to fill the gap, applications for additional incentives carry legal uncertainty.
Danıştay VDDK: VAT Special-Measures Watchlist Is Directly Challengeable in Court
The Tax Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay VDDK), in Case E: 2025/26, K: 2026/6, held that a taxpayer's placement on the VAT "special measures" list (kod listesi) is directly actionable in administrative courts, which must rule on the merits rather than dismissing on procedural grounds. Decision published in the Official Gazette of 19 June 2026 →
Legal background: Taxpayers on the special-measures list face enhanced scrutiny and delayed VAT refunds. Courts had previously dismissed some challenges on procedural grounds, leaving businesses with no effective remedy.
What it means in practice: Taxpayers placed on the watchlist can now bring a direct court action without procedural obstacles. This is a significant access-to-justice development in tax litigation; lawyers advising affected clients should file promptly given the administrative time limits.
Istanbul BAM: Ship Operator Who Pays to Lift Arrest Cannot Sue for Restitution
Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 15th Civil Chamber (E. 2022/3022, K. 2026/537, 27.04.2026) held that a ship operator who pays into the enforcement file to lift an arrest and a prohibition on sailing cannot bring a restitution claim (istirdat) for the amount paid. The right to sue for restitution belongs to the shipowner (donatan) whose assets were wrongfully diminished — not to the operator.
What it means in practice: Maritime lawyers must correctly identify the standing plaintiff in ship arrest disputes from the outset. Filing by the wrong party risks a procedural dismissal; the operator's lawyer should separately secure the client's right to indemnity from the shipowner through an appropriate contractual or statutory route.
Court of Cassation, 2nd Division: Post-Remand Amendment Right Survives Until End of Evidentiary Stage
Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber (E. 2024/10310, K. 2025/6377, 24.06.2025) held that when a file is remanded to the first-instance court following a cassation reversal or a BAM quashing, the parties may amend their claims (ıslah) until the end of the evidentiary stage — provided the first-instance court takes an evidentiary action upon receipt.
What it means in practice: For family law proceedings — alimony, custody, property division — that return to the trial court after an appeal ruling, parties retain a window to update their claims and factual allegations. Lawyers managing remanded files should monitor the court's first evidentiary action and advise clients on the amendment option without delay.
Court of Cassation, 6th Division: Uncertain-Amount Claim Filed for a Certain Amount Must Proceed as Partial Claim
Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber (E. 2023/218, K. 2024/2158, 13.06.2024) ruled that when a claimant files an uncertain-amount action under CPC Art. 107 for an amount that is in fact determinable, the court must continue hearing it as a partial claim rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.
What it means in practice: The risk of losing a client's claim due to a misjudged procedural form is reduced. Choosing the correct action type at the outset still matters; but where the wrong form was chosen, the substantive claim survives.
Court of Cassation General Assembly: Testimony Without Right-to-Refuse Warning Is Inadmissible
Court of Cassation Criminal General Assembly (E. 2013/1-251, K. 2013/454, 12.11.2013) established that testimony taken from a person who has the right to refuse to testify — without informing them of that right at the start of their statement and recording it in the minutes — is unlawful and inadmissible as evidence.
Legal background: CPC Art. 48 grants close relatives and certain others the right to decline to testify. Failure to give the required caution at the outset voids the procedural validity of the statement.
What it means in practice: In files where a conviction depends on the statement of a family member or other person entitled to refuse testimony, challenging the procedural validity of that statement is among the most effective defence arguments available.