Hakkı

Instructor

Personal rights entail the absolute rights a person has over their body and property that make up their personality. Personality rights recognize individuals as physical and spiritual beings and allow them to enjoy their sense of existence; these rights are protected to various degrees in different countries. The human-oriented nature of laws makes the regulations regarding personal rights and legal status even more important. The impact of this importance reveals itself not only in private law but also in all other legal areas. The first and most important feature of personality rights are that they are absolute rights. Other features of personality rights are that they involve the rights of personal property and are closely dependent on the individual. The principle of limited independent variety does not apply to personal rights, and things such as a person’s life, health, bodily integrity, title, visage, photograph, honor and dignity, voice, and living space are considered within the scope of personality rights. With regard to German Law, the presence of a general personality right can be mentioned that covers all aspects of personality and can be accepted as a source from which concrete, private personality rights arise spontaneously. The general personality right guaranteed by Grundgesetz [Basic Law/GG] § 1 is regulated in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Civil Law Book/BGB] § 823/1 as a fundamental norm in tort law. Basic norms regarding the protection of personality in Swiss privacy law appear in the Zivilgesetzbuch [Swiss Civil Codes/ZGB] Articles 27 and 28 These appear as general articles that should be specified in terms of personal rights andprotections. The concept of general personality rights cannot be mentioned with regard to English Law, whose legal system was largely developed on the basis of individual cases and case law. In terms of English Law, personal rights and their violations and protections are evaluated within the scope of tort law. Titles and honorifics are the general name given to all the forms parties use to address one another during mutual conversations and generally show a sign of respect. Honorifics are obligatorily used among people of a certain status and are extremely important for the development and smooth progress of social relations. However, as the degree of status inequality between people changes and familiarity increases, honorifics and any other titles are seen to be avoided. The honorifics that are used also reveal an effect in terms of establishing the connection to the language society uses with regard to social events. An individual’s reputation can be considered as an aspect of personality rights. Reputation arises from the fact that a person is just a human being and involves the values that embody that person in society in terms of moral value judgments. In addition, everyone has equal dignity and respectability. In this regard, a connection can be established between an individual’s reputation and the honorific used to address them. Based on all of these facts, this study believes that evaluating and linking honorifics to the social personality rights that are considered alongside an individual’s dignity and reputation to be appropriate. However, despite this relationship between honorifics and personality rights, points are also found where these things differ from each other. To abstain from using the honorifics that are generally used as a sign of respect in a society or to use slang or mockery to address an individual may constitute a violation of personal rights. However, while making this determination, each situation needs to be evaluated internally as well as through its dynamics. Inother words, things should be taken into account such as an individual’s position, social status, and the surrounding order of events. If some of the titles or honorifics used involve slangs or sarcasm, a violation of personal rights may occur here as well due to the ability this can have to damage a person’s social reputation.

Are Honorifics a Personal Right?

Deniz

Settlement procedures in competition law involve a method based on the principle of obtaining reduced fines and reaching an agreement regarding specific measures in return for accepting liability that they have committed the violation under investigation and giving up certain rights granted to them, thus allowing for the early termination of the investigation. The settlement mechanism was adopted in Turkish law through the amendments made to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition through Law No. 7246 After these amendments, the Settlement Regulation entered into force by being published in the Official Gazette on July 15, 2021 in order to determine the procedures and principles of the settlement mechanism. Shortly after, the Turkish Competition Board and parties to the proceedings provided the first examples. The settlement mechanism is primarily related to the enforcement policy and has an expanding effect on the competencies of the Turkish Competition Board. Therefore, the mechanism deserves to be examined in detail. Based on this matter’s importance, the current article will discuss the settlement mechanism, which is a new institution in Turkish competition law. While doing so, the article will examine the Settlement Regulation comparatively with two other sets of regulations. The first is the Draft Settlement Regulation, which was opened to public opinion prior to the final version of the Settlement Regulation. The article will assess the change in provisions between the two regulations, as well as the legal consequences that may result. The second comparison occurs with the regulations in the European Union competition law, which were taken as a general example when creating the regulations in the Turkish competition law. Even though these regulations are broadly similar, they have some fundamental differences, and the article will reveal its findings and opinions in this regard. The article consists of five sections. The first heading under Section 1 will explain the meaning of settlement in competition law. The second heading will present the concept of hybrid settlements and the relevant main procedural and legal problems. The article will discuss in this context whether hybrid settlements violate the presumption of innocence of the non-settling parties in light of the decisions made in the European Union. Section 2 will explain how the settlement mechanism has been designed in Turkish law through all its phases. This same section will also discuss the constitutionality of the Settlement Regulation regarding closing the right to seek legal remedy as a result of the settlement. The article considers this provision to possibly contradict the principle of the rule of law in Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (1982), as well as the right to legal remedies in Article 36 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the article will also mention what changes occurred between the DraftSettlement Regulation that had been opened to public opinion prior to the Settlement Regulation and the final version of the Settlement Regulation. This study finds that some important legal assumptions can be made from this assessment. For example, the article holds the opinion that the parties to the proceedings can be argued to be able to seek legal remedies in terms of the elements removed from the content of the settlement submission. Section 2 will additionally examine all the settlement decisions the Turkish Competition Board have given.Section 3 will examine settlement procedure in the European Union, with the first heading under Section 3 discussing the purpose of introducing settlement procedure in the European Union and comparing this to the purpose in Turkish law. The second heading under Section 3 will analyze settlement practices in the European Union. In this context, the article will first assess whether settlement procedure is widely used in the European Union in light of statistical data. This same heading will also examine the cooperation procedure used for violations other than cartels in the European Union. The third heading under Section 3 will explain settlement procedure in the European Union through all its phases. While doing so, the articlewill mention the differences the European Union’s settlement procedure have with Türkiye’s Settlement Regulation. One of the most important differences is seen to be that the European Union allows legal remedies to be sought against a given settlement decision. Therefore, this article will also examine examples where settlement decisions had been appealed in the European Union. Section 4 discusses the relationship between the settling and non-settling parties. In this context, it will examine whether a settlement violates the principle of equaltreatment for the non-settling parties by referring to precedents in the European Union. Section 5 finishes by evaluating the consequences of the settlement mechanism from the perspective of private law.

Settlement Mechanism In Competition Law

Furkan

Turkish law has two types of co-authorship structures (i.e., authorship of a compound work and joint authorship) that are regulated in Articles 9 and 10 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (LIAW, 1951) No. 5846. Unlike works subject to joint authorship, a compound work can be divided into parts without deteriorating the work. Ordinary partnership provisions in the Turkish Code of Obligation (TCO, 2012) No. 6098 are applied analogously to both authorships of compound works and joint authorships in the matters not regulated under LIAW. 	Based on Paragraph 2 of Article 9 in LIAW, as long as the authorship of a compound work continues, authors may apply to the court against the one who objects to a transaction related to the compound work. If the objecting author cannot prove just cause, the court decision replaces the consent of the objector. From this perspective, termination of authorship of a compound work means that the authors can no longer be compelled to utilize their own contribution in the compound work. On the other hand, copyrights arising from authorship of a created and still existent compound work should be noted to continue, because the compound work is based on both the agreement of the authors and the de facto act, or Realakt in German. Therefore, in case of an infringement against an existent compound work, authors may still demand prevention or halting of the infringement, as well as claim compensation. With regard to making transactions related to a compound work, however, authors can no longer claim or force each other based on Article 9 in LIAW. 	As previously mentioned regarding termination, ordinary partnership provisions in the TCO are applied analogously. In this regard, if authors decide upon a fixed period of time or certain limitation (e.g., a one-time edition of a book) regarding a compound work, the compound authorship terminates upon completion. Prior to this, the compound authorship may be terminated by applying to the court on the basis of just cause. If the authors have not decided upon any limitation regarding the term of a compound work, one of the authors may give a notice of termination or apply to the court demanding immediate termination with just cause. According to Article 640 of the TCO, the termination of a compound authorship goes into effects after six months have passed since the notice of termination. 	In order to remove a section belonging to one of the authors of a compound work, all authors of the compound work must agree to this. Nevertheless, in some cases, the court may order the removal of a section belonging to one of authors upon the application of the other authors based on Article 9 of LIAW. For instance, when one of the authors objects to updating a book according to the new TCO or is unable to update the book, the other authors may apply to the court. If the objector cannot prove just cause, the court should order the section belonging to the objector to be removed, because the court cannot order the author to update that author’s section in the book. And also, one author may demand his part be removed by court order by relying on just cause. 	If one of the authors of a compound work dies, the financial rights respective to this section pass on to the deceased’s heirs. Heirs cannot be removed from the union. Furthermore, one of the authors may analogously waive the financial rights regarding that author’s section in accordance with Article 60 of LIAW, provided that this harms neither the compound work nor the other authors. Upon waiving this right, that author’s permission will no longer be required for utilizing financial rights related to that compound work. 	Joint authorship arises ipso jure with the creation of the work and ends with the expiration of the preservation period or the destruction of the work. Consequently, terminating a joint authorship is not possible by notice of termination or by court decision with just cause, as the provisions in the TCO regarding the termination of ordinary partnerships are not suited to the structure of a joint authorship. 	Paragraph 3 of Article 639 in the TCO, which is regarding termination of an ordinary partnership in the event of a partner’s share being liquidated through compulsory execution unless otherwise agreed, cannot be applied to joint authorship, as joint authorship cannot be liquidated due to the lack of any liquidation shares. The results concerning the death of one of the authors in a joint authorship are also specifically regulated in Article 64 of the LIAW. Additionally, one of the authors may waive financial rights in favor of the other author or authors. In this case, the rights of the others will be expanded.

Terminating and Leaving a Union in Co-Authorship

Halil

Res. Assist.

Basic knowledge about nomina transscripticia, among the literal contracts in the contractus system of Roman law, has been gathered from Gaius’ Institutiones and other literary works. Based on these texts, this article analyzes the main features and components of nomina transscripticia as a literal contract within its historical background as well as its process of emergence and disappearance. This literal contract was unable to achieve widespread usage because it had begun being used in the period when the verbal formalist structure of early law had started to cease due to the emergence of consensual contracts. Literal contracts have advantages over verbal contracts in some aspects, such as being able to be established at a distance, not being in need to be stated with words according to certain patterns and being able to be used to validate contracts for those with hearing and speech impediments. However, literal contracts have become useless compared to consensual contracts that can be formed through consensus only. Entries for the formation of nomina transscripticia were inscribed in a ledger called codex accepti et expensi. Whether the double-entry accounting technique was applied while keeping this ledger is a matter of controversy. In this regard, however, the prevailing view is that the ledger was filled out using two complementary entries, with the second one demonstrating that the previous debt had been eliminated. Nomina transscripticia is an institution of ius civile, and a contractus protected by actio that burdens one party with a monetary debt. Gaius mentioned two types of nomina transscripticia in his book Institutiones: nomina transscripticia are in personam and nomina transscripticia a persona in personam. When executing the nomina transscripticia a re in personam, a debt that had arisen from a consensual contract would be transformed into an obligation arising from a literal contract, thus resulting in a contract that has iudicia stricti iuris. Besides, when executing nomina transscripticia a persona in personam, the debtor changes, a new debtor goes into the debt and creditor has iudicia stricti iuris against new debtor. Within the contextof both types of this contract, the previous debt is hypothetically eliminated as if the payment had been made, but no actual payment has occurred. Monetary debt, arising from a legal ground such as a sale is deemed to be lent to the same person as

Nomina Transscripticia as a Literal Contract in Roman Law

Özge Ceren

Article 28 of the Law on Payment and Securities Settlement Systems, Payment Services, and Electronic Money Institutions (Law No. 6493, 2013) penalizes engagement in such activities as being an unauthorized system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution, as well as leaving the impression of being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without proper authorization. The legal value that is preserved by punishing these crimes is the stability and security of the financial system. Anyone who commits the act described in the law can be judged a perpetrator of these crimes, with the victim being every member of society. The crime regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 involves the act of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution or electronic money institution without obtaining the required permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493. The crime regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 28 involves the act of using words and/or phrases that leave the impression that they are engaged in activity as a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution in relation to trade names, any type of documentation, announcement, and/or advertisement, or public statement without having obtained the required permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493. The crimes regulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 can only be committed with direct intent, because particular emphasis about illegality is placed on the legal definition with the expression “without obtaining the necessary permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493,” with crimes committed by negligence not being regulated by Law No. 6493. Additionally, the permission clause mentioned in the definition of the crimes involve the principle of typicality. For this reason, the intention of the perpetrator must also involve the issue of permission, which also pertains to the principle of typicality. Therefore, any misuse regarding the obligation to obtain permission should be considered an elemental error. Therefore, such a situation should be stated as eliminating the intent of the perpetrator. In addition, a perpetrator cannot be punished should they have not taken the necessary attention and care and thus made an elemental error. This is due to Law No. 6493 not regulating crimes that are committed by negligence.The offense of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without proper authorization as regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of Law No. 6493 is an uninterrupted crime. For this reason, the provisions regarding an attempt at this crime may be applied up until the completion of the crime. Meanwhile, attempting to leave the impression of being an unauthorized system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution can be considered an offense if the act can be divided into parts. An implied primary-auxiliary norm relationship exists between the two crimes regulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 of Law No. 6493. Therefore, perpetrators who have committed the two crimes regulated in these paragraphs should only be punished for the crime in Paragraph 1. Otherwise, if the act constitutes one of the crimes regulated in the Turkish Penal Code as well as one of the crimes regulated in Law No. 6493, the provisions of Law No. 6493 as the special case law must be applied when the same legal value has been violated. Therefore, this situation also applies to Article 28 of Law No. 6493. In addition, the crimes regulated in Article 28 of Law No. 6493 are optional crimes. As a result, committing only one of the optional acts of these crimes will be sufficient for the completion of that crime. The offense of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without the required authorization as regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 in Law No. 6493 calls for imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to 5,000 days, while the offence of leaving the impression of being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without the required authorization as regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 28 in Law No. 6493 calls for imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to 5,000 days. If either of these two crimes are committed within a workplace, the decision may be made to close this workplace for two to six months or, in the case of recurrence, to be shut down permanently.

The Offense of Unauthorized Engagement in Activities such as System Operator, Payment Institution, or Electronic Money Institution

Mustafa

Prof.

The rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms as regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution as amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017 has raised the question of whether or not presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing this rule. This question was analyzed by Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop in his article titled “The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System” which was published on March 2022 (Şentop, 2022). In that article, it has been put forth that the parliamentary period should not be taken into account while implementing Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution during the presidential system of government, departing from the meaning given to that paragraph according to the legal interpretation methods and also from the principles concerning the application ratione temporis to of statutes. On the other hand, a paper titled “On the Constitutional Rule of Being Elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most”, which was published by Kemal Başak on September 2022 (Başak, 2022), criticized the assessments made in the previous article, arguing that presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing the same rule.The purpose of this article is to examine Başak’s (2022) paper, without making a fresh assessment of Article 101 of the Constitution and to seek an answer to the question of whether or not the objections put forward in Başak’s paper legally invalidate the findings of the previous article (Şentop, 2022) regarding the meaning, the scope and the manner of the application ratione temporis of Article 101 of the Constitution. In this regard, the reason for examining Başak’s paper here as a separate academic article on the same legal matter is the fact that Başak’s (2022) paper&nbsp;provides an extensive summary of the opinions of academicians as well as politicians who expressed the view that, regardless of the change in the governmental system, all presidential elections should be taken into consideration while applying Article 101 of the Constitution, which has been the focal point of the public debate on the matter.&nbsp;The views put forward in Başak’s (2022) paper are based on the presupposition that the constitutional rule regarding a person’s ability to be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms was not amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017. The current paper thus, firstly examines this presupposition and seeks to answer the question of whether two separate Constitutional Articles were entered into force at separate times regarding the matter, as previously argued in Şentop’s (2022) article or whether only one Constitutional Article has been in force, as argued by Başak (2022). It is expected that the answer to this question, by determining whether the provision contained in Law no. 6771 of 2017 has a separate legal existence from the provision established by Article 4 of Law no. 5678 amending the Constitution in 2007, will provide a better understanding of the legal characteristic of the rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms. Thereafter, this article examines the legal validity of Başak’s (2022) objections with regard to Şentop’s (2022) assessments concerning the application ratione temporis of statutes, as well as the application of the literal and historical interpretation methods for determining the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution.”&nbsp;

The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System - 2

Cüneyt

The Republic of Cyprus was actually established in 1960 as a state resulting from certain international treaties. The Republic of Cyprus was established based on the equal partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Another feature of the Republic of Cyprus was that it had limited powers. Additionally, the Republic of Cyprus was organized as a form of functional federalism. The treaties that established the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus were very important as they gave Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots the right to separate representation and quotas in the state administration. Unfortunately, this state only survived for three years. After 1963, the ethnic conflicts between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots began and continued until 1974, when Türkiye intervened in the island based on its right to function as a guarantor. After this intervention, the Turkish Cypriots first unilaterally declared the Turkish Cypriot Federated State. The efforts to bring the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots together on the island and the negotiations between the two communities were ongoing, but no conclusion was reached at the end of these negotiations. On November 15, 1983, the parliament of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus made the unanimous decision to declare their independence and establish the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. After 1974, the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus began governing only the southern part of Cyprus. Greek Cypriot authorities took the properties of the Turkish Cypriots that had been left behind under the control of foundations under the Guardianship Law. These properties continued to belong to Turkish Cypriots but were controlled by foundations. The new Greek Cypriot users of the related properties who’d migrated from the north were not given the ownership of these properties. Just because the property policy of the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus is more appreciated by the international community does not mean their policy is perfect. Violations of the property rights of Turkish Cypriots are seen to have occurred regarding certain fundamental points, the first of these being the non-immediate payment of expropriated properties. Another violation involves the properties leased under the Guardianship Law not requiring the consent of the Turkish Cypriotowners for lease agreements. The rental income obtained from these properties also does not get paid to the Turkish Cypriot owners. Similar to the expropriation costs, the statement has been made that the rental costs will be paid upon reaching a comprehensive settlement regarding the island. Meanwhile, the fact that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus authorities has given ownership rights to those who left their properties in south Cyprus as well as to the immigrants who came to the island is one point where the international community has criticized Turkish Cypriots. After Turkish Armed Forces’ second military intervention for maintaining peace and security on the island, Varosha was declared a military zone and left closed to resettlement. Afterward, Varosha started to be known as a ghost city. Varosha is actually within the borders of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but its legal status is perceived to be unclear just because it has remained closed to settlement. Before the region was opened to visitors in 2020, only those with special permission, UN officials, and members of the Turkish Armed Forces were allowed to enter the region. The population of Varosha was stated to have been 34,700 people before 1974, of which 29,700 were Greek Cypriots and the remaining population was predominantly Armenian, Maronite, British, and other ethnic groups. Currently, the sovereignty in Varosha belongs to the Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus authorities, and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Türkiye are located in this region. The inhabitants of Varosha before being closed to settlement in 1974 are known to have been predominantly Greek Cypriots. Part of Varosha was opened to civilian visits 46 years later with consensus from Republic of Türkiye President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus President Ersin Tatar. Following this, President Erdoğan announced during his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on July 19-20, 2021 that Varosha would be reopened to settlement, after which President Tatar stated that 3.5% of Varosha would be returned to its owners through the Immovable Property Commission and that the 3.5% of this area would lose its status as a military zone. This partial initiative regarding Varosha actually means that the Greek Cypriots who’d been residents of Varosha before 1974 can benefit from exchanges, compensations, or restitutions if they apply to the Immovable Property Commission. The international community expects that the initiatives regarding Varosha must involve the return of former residents, and clearly the Turkish Cypriots have no other goal than this. Having the Turkish Cypriots announce to the international communitymore strongly that the aims of this partial reopening do not exceed this goal would be appropriate. Varosha poses some other problems as well, especially in terms of the various property right claims of Cyprus Foundations Administration as the records dating from July 20, 1974 regarding Varosha indicate Greek Cypriots as property owners. The Cyprus Foundations Administration should prioritize its claims with evidence, both internationally and nationally.

The Varosha Dispute: The Partial Opening Initiative and the United Nations’ Approach and Evaluation of the Issue of Property

Çağla

Assoc. Prof.

French administrative law has had an impact on the organization of Turkish administrative law and its structure. Nonetheless, significant differences have arisen between the two legal systems due to regulations on the organization, duties, powers, and functioning of local authorities. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between local authorities and central government in French law and the evolution of decentralization with regards to the French centralization policy in terms of administrative law by taking into consideration the amendments adopted into the French constitution by Law No. 2022-217 (in force since February 2022). The study is limited to the principles guaranteed by the French Constitution of 1958 and the enacted laws. The study has omitted legislation on overseas and special-status territorial communities, including Corsica, from its scope as they include exceptional rules that do not reflect the main features of the relationship between local authorities and the central government. 	The study first focuses on the term collectivité territoriale [territorial communities], with territorial referring to the centralization policy, while the term administration is not used in any way. The change to concept of local community as a term into a territorial community with the French Constitutional Amendments of 2003 is seen to have been not a coincidence but a clear indication of the dominance of France’s tradition of centralization. 	The second part of the study analyzes the evolution of the decentralization policy in the shadow of centralization, particularly in light of Law No. 2022-217 enacted in February 2022. The decentralization policy hadn’t taken place in the French Constitution of 1958 until an amendment in 2003. Until then, the principle of territorial communities’ free administration assured the administrative autonomy by local authorities instead of the central government. 3 	Another principle supporting the administrative autonomy of local authorities in French law is the clause of general competence that takes its roots from the Municipal Code of 1884. Article 72/2 of the Constitution mentions that territorial communities may make decisions regarding all matters arising under powers that can best be exercised at their level. This disposition has been adopted to comply with the principle of subsidiarity in the next step of constitutionalizing decentralization that occurred in 2003. Within the context of the regulations adopted to empower local authorities in 1982, the general clause regarding the scope of application of competences was expanded to include district, departmental, and regional authorities. In the following years, only district authorities remained within this scope. The differentiation principle, being the greatest innovation of Law No. 2022-217, appears to have avoided the negative effects of excluding departmental and regional authorities from being able to take advantage of the general clause of competence. This law was prepared on the basis of the conclusions from the Great National Debate of 2019 following the intense social events known as the Yellow Vest Protests. 	The third part of this study focuses on the organization and functioning of local authorities regarding the relationship between local authorities and the central government. The decentralization policy has clearly gained power since 1982, especially by being constitutionalized in 2003. Nonetheless, local authorities have yet to prevail against the central government. Indeed, the elected communé [community] mayors still have a hierarchical relationship with the central government in certain areas. Because no minimum population condition exists for their establishment, nearly 35,000 commune authorities are found in France. Hence, they are in a situation where some of them cannot even give local public services due to a lack of resources. These services are instead provided by public establishments for cooperation between local authorities. Even though some regulations have been adopted to expand the competencies of departmental and regional authorities, their exclusion from the scope of the clause of general competency has continued to produce negative effects alongside the limited financial resources. Although Law No. 2022-217 had been adopted as a result of the debates arising from previous social events, scholars mention that has not brought as many changes as expected for strengthening decentralization. 	The fourth part of the study concerns the administrative control powers the central government has over local authorities. These powers are explained on the grounds of protecting general public interest in the face of local public interest or as the continuity of public services. Nevertheless, governors’ administrative supervisory competency over local authorities’ actions has been replaced by an institution of prefectural application for judicial review, which enables the governor to apply to the competent First Instance Court regarding any illegalities arising from the concerned administrative actions or contracts. Supervision as a term has been removed from the 4 	Constitution with the amendments of 2003, with the term of administrative control having taken its place. However, the regulations regarding the central government’s administrative supervision over local authorities still exist, as well as those concerning the power of substitution. Consequently, the central government still has significant powers over local authorities. The study has been unable to conclude the local authorities or the policy of decentralization in France to have built up a strong position over centralization, even after decentralization had been constitutionalized in 2003.

Local Authorities in French Law Regarding Their Relationship with Central Government

Ömer

Prof. Dr.

Ayşe

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Elif

Turkish Law has recently witnessed new developments in product liability law. With Code No. 7223 on Product Safety and Technical Regulations (ÜGTDK), which was published in the Official Gazette on March 12, 2020, and entered into force one year later, the regulatory gap regarding the liability of the manufacturer, which existed in Turkish Law for approximately six years, was eliminated. With the Code, European Union Council Directive 85/374/COD was tried to be integrated into national law. However, approximately one year after the Code entered into force, new developments regarding product liability law in the European Union came into the spotlight.There is no doubt that the current Product Liability Directive 85/374 in the European Union is a valuable tool for compensating individuals who have suffered personal injury or material damage due to defective products. However, with rapid advances in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence, autonomous devices, and the circular economy, the current directive may not be sufficient to address emerging challenges and adequately protect the interests of injured parties. The Proposal for a new Product Liability Directive was published on September 28, 2022, to overcome these issues. This proposal aims to modernise the existing directive and adapt it to the realities of the modern digital economy, technological innovations, and developments.The proposal addresses some key issues:First, it provides liability for products from the modern digital economy: Determining liability has become more complex with the increasing use of artificial intelligence and other technologies in the field of products. The proposal introduces provisions to clarify the liability of manufacturers when these technologies are involved in product defects.Second, it introduces liability for products that come from the circular economy: The circular economy promotes the recycling and reuse of products, which can also lead to complexity in determining liability for damages caused by defective products. The proposal could establish explicit guidelines for determining liability in such cases.In addition, it facilitates proof of damage: The proposal aims to simplify the process for injured parties to provide evidence of bodily or property damage caused by defective products. This could involve new approaches to gathering and presenting evidence, particularly as advancing technology can sometimes make it impossible for injured parties to provide evidence of product defects. The proposal seeks to support the injured party in such impossible situations and to enable them to compensate for&nbsp;their losses. However, these proof methods are also new to EU law but may not be entirely new.It also balances the interests of injured parties and manufacturers: A fair balance must be struck between the rights of injured parties and the responsibilities of manufacturers. The proposal arguably seeks to achieve this balance while promoting product safety and innovation.Finally, it protects damage to data: Damage to intangible goods is, as a principle, not recoverable under the product liability directive. However, the Directive introduces a major innovation in that it recognises that data damage is compensable under the product liability law. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates the EU’s commitment to updating and improving its product liability regulations to keep pace with technological developments and economic changes and to provide better protection for consumers and injured parties.This comprehensive research study delves into the proposed amendments introduced by the EU Product Liability Directive Proposal. It meticulously analyzes the potential impacts of these amendments on the Turkish legal framework, especially when compared to the Turkish Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223. The aim is to explore a deeper understanding of how the proposed amendments could be integrated into Turkish law to strengthen product liability and protect consumers’ rights more effectively.&nbsp;

Evaluation of The Implications of The European Union’s New Product Liability Directive Proposal No. 2022/0302

Caner

The provision of Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, which mandates that every adult who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or longer, along with the related provisions of Articles 407/2 and 471 of the same Code, have been annulled by the Constitutional Court. To address the legal vacuum and potential uncertainties in practise arising from the delayed implementation of this annulment decision, the legislator has reorganised the relevant provisions. Because of these amendments, custodial sentences will continue to exist as a condition requiring guardianship, albeit under different conditions. In this context, the idea that every adult who begins to serve a custodial sentence of a minimum fixed term duration should be restrained has been rejected. With the new regulation, it is not possible to restrict an adult who is in a penal institution for the execution of a finalised prison sentence without his or her request for this reason. However, the manner in which Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code is structured is open to discussion. This is because, in its current form, the provision is suitable for interpretation as the person may assert any of the requests for guardianship or appointment of a trustee and the judge is bound by this request. However, interpreting Article 407/1 of the Turkish Civil Code in this way is not an appropriate application in terms of the discretionary authority of the guardianship authority, which is also emphasised in the Constitutional Court’s decision. It is also unacceptable in terms of “public guardianship” carried out by guardianship offices consisting of guardianship authority and supervisory authority within the scope of Article 397/1 of the Turkish Civil Code. In any case, Article 487/1 of the Turkish Civil Code should be interpreted as an implicit addition to the reasons stipulated in Article 408 of the Turkish Civil Code and as giving the judge the discretionary power not to restrict the person. For persons who have been sentenced to a total of five years or more of finalised imprisonment, a restraining order may be issued ex officio if deemed necessary for the protection of their personality or assets. In fact, we are of the opinion that it is not appropriate to determine this situation, which raises the possibility of restriction of the person against their consent, only&nbsp;according to the duration of the custodial sentence and ultimately to leave it entirely to the discretion of the judge. In its new version, Article 407/3 of the Turkish Civil Code clearly regulates that guardianship authorities must listen to the individual before making a decision. This provision must be applied in both cases where a guardianship examination is made upon request or ex officio. According to the wording of the provision, it is obligatory for the guardianship authority to hear and listen to the person concerned. The guardianship of a person who is restricted due to their custodial sentence shall be terminated automatically upon the lawful termination of this sentence. If the total sentence of imprisonment during the execution process is less than five years, the guardianship over the person must be terminated upon the request of the person. If the total imprisonment is five years or more, the court, which will conduct an examination upon the request of the person, may decide to terminate the guardianship if the reason for the protection of personality or assets disappears. Nevertheless, the provision of Art. 471/2, b. 1 of the Turkish Civil Code (The Regulation) regarding the termination of guardianship in the presence of a total sentence of less than five years is open to discussion. This is because, in such a case, it may be concluded that the guardianship may not be terminated in line with the wording of the provision; in other words, the judge is given a discretionary power in this regard. However, this expression, which gives discretionary power to the judge, should be read together with the provisions of Article 407/1-2 of the Turkish Civil Code and should be specific to persons who have been sentenced to a total of five years or more; in other words, guardianship examination is carried out ex officio. In such cases, the judge has a right to decide whether the reason for protecting personality or assets has disappeared. However, this amendment to the provisions of Art. 407 and Art. 471 of the Turkish Civil Code, which was made as a result of the Constitutional Court’s annulment decision and which gives priority to the person’s request to be heard, should be considered a positive development in favour of fundamental rights and freedoms, despite its shortcomings and possible problems.

Evaluation of Amendments to Law No. 7499 on Custodial Sentence as One Condition Requiring Guardianship

Cemile

Assist. Prof. Dr.

Dilşah

In Turkish inheritance law, heirs obtain the entire estate as a whole upon testator’s death. This classical understanding, which is rooted in Roman and Pandect law, is also acknowledged in the Turkish-Swiss legal system as well (Art 599 of the Turkish Civil Code; Art 560 of the Swiss Civil Code).When multiple heirs exist, they form a community of heirs. In this case, the heir jointly bears the rights and assets of the inheritance. For this reason, they must make a unanimous decision on all disposals of the probate property. They are also under joint and several liability for the debt of the estate. Joint ownership of the estate continues until division. However, joint and several liabilities for debts do not cease with the division of the property. As a rule, in order for the division or assumption of the debts of the estate among the heirs to be effective against creditors, the heirs must consent to an agreement between them (Art 681 of the Turkish Civil Code).&nbsp;Art. 655 of the Turkish Civil Code regulates this special provision. According to Art. 655, “The heir who inherits an estate property pledged for the debts of the deceased shall assume the debt secured by that property.” There is a dispute concerning whether this provision establishes an exception to Article 681. The debate centres on whether the consent of the creditor is required for the assumption of debt or whether a mere transfer of the property that is pledged to the heir is sufficient.The first requirement for the application of Art. 655 of the Turkish Civil Code is the establishment of a pledge on the deceased’s own property. The scope of the provision includes pledges concerning movable and immovable property. The second condition is that the pledge must be established for the deceased’s debt. Although a pledge is generally granted by the debtor of the receivable it secures, it may also be granted by another person to the debt of another person. If the deceased has established a pledge for the debt of a third party, Art. 655 shall not be applicable and the heir to whom the pledged property is assigned shall not have assumed the original debt. Under these circumstances, the heir only has to bear the risk that if the debt is not fulfilled, the property will be sold and the receivable will be collected. The last requirement for the application of the provision is that the pledged property is left to the heir. This is done through division of inheritance. The heirs may conclude a written sharing agreement (Art 676 of the Turkish Civil Code), or if they cannot agree, a partition lawsuit is filed (Art 642 of the Turkish Civil Code).When interpreting Article 655, Article 888 of the Turkish Civil Code should be taken into account where the pledge concerned an immovable property. Accordingly, in the event that the immovable property on which the mortgage is established is left to one or more of the heirs in the division of inheritance, the creditor must notify the land registry officer in writing that he reserves the right to apply to the other heirs&nbsp;within one year following the notification of this circumstance to him. Otherwise, the debt is assumed by the heirs to whom the property was left. Thus, other heirs are released from liability.&nbsp;The basic principles of inheritance law should be considered when assigning other pledged probate assets. For the protection of the creditors of the deceased, the legislator has provided a double guarantee by allowing recourse to both the estate of the deceased and heirs’ personal assets. The joint and several liabilities of the heirs against the creditors end upon the approval of the creditors to the agreements regarding the debt’s assumption by one of the heirs or upon the expiration of the 5-year period stipulated in the law. All of these regulations are primarily intended to protect the creditors of the deceased. There is a risk that the pledged creditor may be harmed by leaving the pledged probate property to an heir that is financially unstable. As a result, it should be accepted that the provision regulates only the internal relations of the heirs and cannot be asserted against creditors without their consent.

Transfer of Pledged Estate Property to the Heir within the Liability for Inheritance Debt Framework

Esra

The most characteristic feature of negotiable instruments is the unity of right and bill. As a result, right cannot be claimed separately from bills, and the debtor is only obliged to pay for the bill submission (TCC2 1 645). When a negotiable instrument is lost, it becomes either objectively difficult or impossible to claim the right within the bill. The annulment sanction can only be applied in the event of the loss of a negotiable instrument; therefore, it shall be accepted as limitedly applied method. An annulment decision gives a person who is a bill holder at the time of loss the opportunity to claim right without a bill or to request a new issued bill (TCC 651, 652). Thus, while the right holder is protected from the risk of not being able to obtain his/her right due to loss, the debtor is also protected from the risk of paying to an unentitled person.Annulment decisions have two effects, positive and negative. With its positive effect, it authorises decision holder to claim his rights against the debtor. However, its negative effect removes the diagnostic function of the lost bill. Since an annulment does not affect its function of transferring the right, third parties who have acquired the bill may obtain the right under the bill. Nevertheless, to place the right of third parties before the decision holder requires their acquisition in good faith (TCC 686/2, 792).When a bill, which was subjected to an annulment decision, is held by third parties, the debtor may be exposed to two separate claims for enforcement because one of them is the decision holder and the other is the bill holder. There are no regulations in law regarding how debtors should act in this case. Considering the problem in the context of the Procedural law, the content of an annulment decision should be respected unless proven otherwise, even if it is taken within an ex-part proceeding. In this case, neither the annulment decision nor the contrary of the decision was proven. Moreover, there is evidence supporting the maliciousness of the bill holder.Regarding the effects of an annulment decision; since the diagnostic function of a bill is removed by annulment, it is impossible to determine the right holder on a bill in accordance with the formal entitlement principles (TCC 686/1). Therefore, bill holders cannot take advantage of the entitlement presumption. However, contrary to this, it has been concluded in the present case that a regular endorsement chain is sufficient to accept the bill holder as the right holder.The holder of a bill, which has been removed from its owner in any way, is obliged to return it if he/she is malicious or has a gross fault in his/her acquisition (TCC 686/2, 778/1,a, 792). As a rule, the burden of proof of the maliciousness of a bill holder belongs to the decision holder. In the meantime, the criterion of ordinary life&nbsp;flow can be used, and the characteristics of the present event should be considered. According to some data in the present event (such as the fact that the check holder has not submitted the check to the court despite being aware of the annulment process, not notified the addresses of endorsers -except one- at the executive proceeding stage), accepting the bill holder in good faith is contrary to the ordinary life flow. In addition, a check holder who deliberately prevented the implementation of the return process regulated in law by not submitting the bill to the court should not be disadvantaged. Therefore, the bill holder should have been held liable to prove his good faith.&nbsp;When we consider the problem from the viewpoint of debtor; debtor shall be discharged if he or she pays to the decision holder in good faith (TTK 646/2, 710/3). The fact that debtors’ awareness of bills circulation does not change the result. However, if the debtor is aware of the annulment decision, he/she should avoid paying the bill holder. Since the decision holder benefits from the presumption created in his favour with TCC 652/1, the bill holder shall bear the negative effect of the annulment decision.The Supreme Court of Appeals has consistently held in its previous precedents that a debtor must not ignore the consequences of an annulment decision; otherwise, he or she cannot discharge. According to previous precedents, it is necessary to determine the right holder in a case between the bill holder and the holder of annulment decision, and the debtor can only be held liable to the person entitled in this case. On the contrary, in the present event subjected to this study, it has been accepted that the annulment decision will automatically become ineffective when the bill subjected to the annulment decision was procured by third parties; thus, the acquisition of the bill holder has been prioritised. However, a solution requires creating a balance between the interests of the holder of annulment decisions, the bill holder, and the debtor by considering the legal nature and effects of annulment decisions and the circulation purpose of negotiable instruments. Otherwise, debtors will unfairly be subjected to the negative consequences of bill annulment just because they have issued a bill and have no fault in the loss of the bill.&nbsp;

The Precedent Change of the Supreme Court of Appeals: The Punitive Effect of the Annulment of Negotiable Instruments on the Debtor (Upon the Decision of the Assembly of the Civil Chambers Identified As 19-1636/319, 19.3.2019)

Murat

Art. 33-35 of the SRR contain provisions on the establishment of ship mortgages. These provisions are “supplementary provisions” with respect to the provisions of Art. One thousand and fourteen et seq. of the TCC concerning the establishment of ship mortgages. Therefore, the provisions of Articles 33-35 of the SRR apply to matters that are not regulated under Articles 1014 et seq. of the TCC. Articles’s provisions 33-35 of the SRR shall apply to ships registered in the registry. Accordingly, if a mortgage is to be established on ships registered in the National Ship Registry and ships and yachts registered in the Turkish International Ship Registry, the provisions of Art. 33-35 of the SRR shall be applied together with Art. 1014 et seq. of the TCC. A ship mortgage may be established to secure a receivable that may arise in the future or that is conditional or contingent upon a negotiable instrument. However, as stated in Art. 35/1 of the SRR, ship mortgages cannot be established for receivables that are contingent on a mortgaged promissory note or revenue bond. It is possible to establish mortgages on more than one ship or share for the same receivable. In addition, ships need not be registered in the same registry. In the event that a mortgage is established on more than one ship or ship share for the same receivable, the procedures to be performed in the ship registry are regulated under Art. 34 of the SRR.In the case of shared ownership, each shareholder may establish a ship mortgage on his or her share. However, after a ship mortgage is established on one or more shares, the shareholders cannot establish a mortgage on the entire ship. In addition, if all shares of a ship belong to a single owner, it is not possible for the owner to establish a ship mortgage on separate shares in favour of separate persons. On the other hand, in the case of joint ownership, a ship mortgage can only be established on the whole ship with the approval of all shareholders. The contractual pledges of the ships registered in the registry are provided through ship mortgage only. Accordingly, a pledge cannot be established on an individually registered ship within the framework of the provisions of Law No. 6750 on Movable Pledge in Commercial Transactions (TITRK). However, within the scope of Article 5/2 c. 1 of the TITRK, if a movable pledge in commercial transactions is established on the entire commercial or tradesman enterprise or on a certain movable asset, the ship registered in the registry is also included in the scope of the pledge if there is a ship registered in the registry among the pledged movable assets.&nbsp;In order to establish a mortgage on a ship registered in the registry, a formal mortgage agreement must be concluded, the mortgage fee must be paid, and the mortgage must be registered in the ship registry. Under Art. 33/2 c. 1 of the SRR, the mortgage agreement must be provided for in writing and the signatures must be approved by a notary public or the ship registry directorate. In addition, the mortgage agreement may be executed in the form of a notarial deed, or the signatures in the&nbsp;written mortgage agreement prepared by the parties may be approved by the notary public. On the other hand, to establish a mortgage on a ship registered in the registry, a sum corresponding to 11.38 per 10,000 of the amount of the receivable subject to the mortgage must be paid as a fee. The last condition to be fulfilled to establish a mortgage on a ship registered in the registry is registration of the mortgage in the registry. For this purpose, the parties to the mortgage agreement or their authorised representatives must submit a registration request to the ship registry directorate. If the registration request petition is submitted to the registry office together with its annexes, the registry office personnel shall record the information specified in Article 1016 of the TCC in GESBIS and in the section of encumbrances of the ship in the registry book kept in a physical environment. Thus, a ship mortgage is registered and established in the registry.&nbsp;

Evaluation of Ship Registry Regulation Provisions on Establishment of a Ship Mortgage

For the last few decades, copyright on intellectual and artistic works and related rights over performances, phonograms, cinematographic productions, and radiotelevision broadcasts have been subjected to violations very easily and on a large scale, especially with innovations in the field of digital technologies. Therefore, on the one hand, regulations are being made at the international level, such as the TRIPS and WIPO Internet Agreements, while on the other hand, many of the states in the world are making various legal regulations to combat more effectively the violations of the rights of rights holders over their intellectual products on a national scale.&nbsp;The basis of various changes and new regulations in the Turkish Copyright Code (TCC) in the year 1995 and thereafter is essentially the aim of combating more effectively the violations of rights on intellectual products increased by technological innovations. In fact, it is necessary to evaluate the amendments made in 1995 and after Article 68 of the TCC regarding the refutation of infringements of financial rights on copyrighted products.&nbsp;In this essay, the amended provisions of Article 68 of the TCC are examined. To put it briefly, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 68; the right holder who is subject to infringement of any of the financial rights in the form of processing, reproduction, dissemination, representation, and communication to the public on the work and intellectual and artistic products that are the subject of related rights may request the application of the method of refutation of infringement by demanding three times (namely triple compensation) the usual price. Although it is not explicitly stated in this Article, natural and legal persons defined as holders of rights under Article 80 of the Law can also use the same powers. Accordingly, those who adapt, reproduce, disseminate reproduced copies, represent, or communicate to the public a work, performance, phonogram, or production without obtaining written permission from the rights owner, or transmitting any sign, sound, or image to the public, without the permission of the rights holders, shall not be entitled to the price they may claim in the event of a contract, or they may request a maximum of three times more than the current market price to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Law. As can be seen, in a copyrighted work unauthorised use of any of the rights of adaptation, reproduction, dissemination, representation in public places and transmission to the public is sufficient to demand more than three times the usual price of the infringed product, namely treble damage.&nbsp;However, in the second and third paragraphs of Article 68 of the Law, other rights are granted to the right holder in addition to the demand for three times the price in cases where the right to reproduce the copyrighted product alone and the right to disseminate it are violated. Other refutation methods, other than the triple&nbsp;compensation request, can only be used in cases of infringement of the right to reproduce and distribute along with reproduction. For example, if the action of a perpetrator violates any of the rights of processing, dissemination, representation, or transmission to the public, the refutation methods defined in the Law specific to the right of reproduction are not applied. In fact, due to the nature of these refutation methods specific to the right to reproduction, it is not possible to apply them in cases of infringement of other financial rights related to copyrighted work. Likewise, since the right to reproduction or dissemination is the most violated in practise, the second and third paragraphs of Article 68 include reproduction and dissemination as the only financial rights that can be subject to refutation methods other than the request for more than three times the usual price of infringed work.In this context, if the copies reproduced without permission are not put up for sale, the right holder may request the destruction of the reproduced copies, films, moulds and similar tools used for reproduction, or that they be given to him for an appropriate price not exceeding the production cost price, or, in the case of a contract, three times more than the amount he may request. This does not eliminate the legal liability of the unauthorised reproducer. If copies reproduced without permission are put up for sale, the rightful owner may use one of the options in the second paragraph regarding the copies in the possession of the infringer. However, for the second and third paragraphs to be implemented by rights holders other than the owner of the work, written reproduction permission from the owner of the work in accordance with Article 52 of the TCC is required.Rights claims arising under Article 68 can only be used in cases of violation of financial rights. If the rights violated are of a moral nature or if moral rights are violated along with financial rights, it is not possible for the plaintiff to request a decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 68 in respect of moral rights. The request for a reconsideration of moral rights can only be made within the scope of Articles 66 and 67 of the TCC.Finally, with the amendments made after 1995, the demand for three times the usual price, the payment of appropriate compensation for pirated copies, or the exercise of the right to destroy both copies and reproduction means, which is granted to the right holder on intellectual products in Article 68, is not conditioned on the fault of the perpetrator. It is not necessary for the plaintiff, whose financial rights have been violated, to suffer any damage in order to make such claims. In order to file a lawsuit according to Article 68, it is sufficient that the act attributed to the perpetrator is contrary to the law, that is, an unlawful act. Assuming that the use of the rights recognised in the TCC without the permission of the right owner and without any other reason for compliance with the law violates the rights, to deter possible&nbsp;and future infringements, the right owner is requested to pay three times the price he would have requested if he had made a contract with the infringer or the market value of the right subject to violation. Although such legal claims do not comply with the basic principles of Turkish compensation law, such sanctions are considered punishments specific to private law.

A Review on (Art. 68 of TCC) the Termination Methods for Infringement of Financial Rights on Copyrighted Products

Onur

The majority rule is one of the fundamental principles governing the limited companies. This means that the decisions taken, and the management followed by the majority affect other stakeholders who may have different interests other than those of the majority shareholder. As any power, the powers vested in the majority shareholder of a public company (in Turkish case, anonim ortaklık – briefly AO) thanks to majority rule may be abused by such shareholder.&nbsp;&nbsp;Against an abusive majority, the position of shareholders of a privately held AO is rather challenging and their options limited, due to lack of a viable access to liquid markets for their shares. This paper focuses on abuse by majority and how to mitigate this issue in an independent and privately held public company with an examination of the Turkish public company law on the matter regulated under Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 (briefly TCC).TCC art 202 governs unlawful use of the control for group of companies (conglomerate/ konzern). However, general provisions of limited companies lack any articles that directly regulate the issue of potentially or materially abusive behaviours by a majority (in broader terms, controlling) shareholder. Furthermore, TCC art 202 cannot be directly applied to the independent companies. Yet, an independent AO, either publicly or privately held, may well be the arena for an abuse by majority similar to the cases governed by TCC art 202. Current protections provided by TCC seems to fail to prevent chronic/systematic cases of abuse by majority in an independent and privately held AO; in return judicial and/or legislative intervention may be required. But how?This article examines the EU legal landscape with Member States’ approaches and European Model Companies Act while comparing them to Turkish perspective for finding effective ways to mitigate abusive majority behaviour in an independent and privately held AO.In order to provide such a perspective and to understand where the Turkish law stands, the following topics are discussed: differing legal approaches concerning abuse by the majority, equal treatment of shareholders, and exit rights as an effective remedy to mitigate the abuse by the majority.The EU legislation does not contain a general provision on how to prevent abuse by majority. In Member States, two approaches prevailed without a harmonising EU legislation. One approach seeks both a damage to company and to minority (eg France), the other finds it sufficient just damage to the minority in order to classify the action as an abuse by majority. For the minority, proving that company’s interest is also violated is a rather difficult task and as a result hinders the sought minority protection in most of the cases. Therefore, a single-threshold approach which&nbsp;requires minorities to prove only the damage to their interests should be the approach upheld. In independent and privately held AO, the options for a locked in minority are limited and a further minority protection is required. Single-threshold approach helps providing the sorely needed protection in a more efficient and global way.According to ECJ’s Audiolux ruling, no immanent principle of equal treatment of shareholders exists under EU law and the EU legislation does not force Member States the implementation of a blanket equal treatment principle of shareholders. Certain Member States tend to provide one. EMCA also regulates the issue directly. This is also the case in Turkish law via TCC art 357. With a provision explicitly imposing the company organs to uphold the principle of equal treatment of shareholders in the same position, single-threshold approach seems to be the prevailing approach in Turkish public company law, and thus Turkish law is positioned to provide an effective protection for minorities in an independent and privately held AO.&nbsp;&nbsp;With the Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 Amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132, for cross-border conversions, mergers, and divisions of limited liability companies, Member States are under the obligation to provide a right to dispose of their shares for an adequate cash compensation, ie an exit right, to the company’s members who voted against the resolutions concerning the related transactions in the general assembly. These provisions may be used by the minority to protect itself from abuses, potential ones included in the aforementioned transactions.&nbsp;EMCA provides a more comprehensive protection by regulating the liquidation due to fraud on the minority in Section 11.33, the right to sell out provided to minority stipulated in Section 11.35. Furthermore, according to Section 11.37, shareholders who incurred a loss have a right to be redeemed if the company, individual shareholders, the company’s creditors or other third parties incur a loss due to a shareholder’s intentional or grossly negligent action, and there exists a risk of continued abuse.&nbsp;Concerning the remedies to save the minority from the abuses committed by majority in independent and privately held AOs, a sell-out provision forcing the majority to buy the minority’s shares should also be introduced to TCC. In order to provide the minority with better options, and legal clarity and to protect it from judicial surprises, TCC art 531 on dissolution by just cause should also be modified in a way that it provides minority to directly request from the court to exit the company, if possible, at the majority’s expense. This type of mechanism would significantly ameliorate the minority’s position in companies, since the risk of paying the relevant cost would create a better incentive for majority to refrain from abusing its power. Furthermore, for the minorities, especially in an independent and privately held AO where they are deprived of an access to liquid markets, it would create the opportunity to be fairly compensated for their shares.&nbsp;

EU Legal Landscape and EMCA on Mitigating Abuse by Majority Shareholder(s) in Public Companies: Any Inspiration for Minority Protection in Independent and Privately Held Turkish Anonim Ortaklık?

Muhammet

In Turkish Penal Code No. 765, misdemeanours were defined as a type of offence. This Code classified offences into two categories: crimes and misdemeanours. However, with the introduction of Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, misdemeanours are no longer included as a type of offence. Removal of certain acts constituting a misdemeanour from the Penal Code require a separate code. Consequently, the Misdemeanours Code was adopted and came into force to create a system for acts requiring administrative sanctions, which are scattered throughout the legislation, and to ensure consistency in their implementation.With the enactment of the Misdemeanours Code, many problems and debates have arisen. First, these debate concerned whether some articles of the code conform to the constitution. Beyond constitutional debates, there are also discussions about how legal regulations should be applied and interpreted. There is no consensus on the nature of the Misdemeanours Code, primarily because it is closely related to both administrative and criminal law. Administrative sanction decisions against misdemeanours are considered “administrative actions”. There is no doubt about this matter. However, annulment procedures, which follow classical administrative procedures, cannot be applied to all administrative sanction decisions. Acts requiring administrative sanctions are broadly and uniformly regulated in the legislation. The Misdemeanours Code defines all acts requiring administrative sanctions as misdemeanours and establishes general provisions applicable to them.The Misdemeanours Code also provides specific legal remedies against decisions involving administrative fines and property transfer to the public. According to this regulation, judicial jurisdiction (criminal judge) generally serves as the judicial remedy, except where otherwise provided, against decisions involving administrative fines and property transfer to the public. Before the Misdemeanours Code came into force, the administrative judiciary was typically responsible for administrative sanction decisions. Previously, although a clear regulation in law was necessary for the judicial judiciary to be responsible for decisions involving administrative sanctions, the Misdemeanours Code now requires that this responsibility must be explicitly stated in law for the administrative judiciary.It has been argued that some provisions of the Misdemeanours Code are unconstitutional, leading to applications being made to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye for the annulment of these provisions. In particular, the constitutionality of provisions on legal remedies has been debated. The core of these debates is whether the administrative judiciary has a constitutional basis and whether its judicial power is constitutionally limited. Thus, there is a question of whether the legislator can, through legal regulation, assign the resolution of a&nbsp;dispute falling under the administrative judiciary’s jurisdiction to the judicial jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court annulled some articles of the Misdemeanours Code as unconstitutional, leading to their revision. Following the new regulations, an application for annulment was filed again, claiming unconstitutionality, but the Constitutional Court rejected the request for various reasons. The criteria used by the Constitutional Court were “public interest” and “justified reason.”&nbsp;The Misdemeanours Code refers to the Turkish Penal Code in many articles under its general provisions. However, the Turkish Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code does not serve as general laws in the context of the Misdemeanours Code. The Misdemeanours Code is a distinct piece of legislation with its own legal remedy system. It regulates “application” and “objection remedy” against decisions involving administrative fines or the transfer of property to the public due to an act constituting a misdemeanour. A debate has been held on whether an application can be made against decisions resulting from the objection remedy. The most significant debate in this context is whether the extraordinary legal remedies laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code can also be applied to misdemeanours. Although the doctrine contains different opinions, the Court of Cassation has issued varying decisions on this issue.

A Review on the Remedies Arranged in the Misdemeanors Law Against Decisions of Administrative Sanction

The Ottoman Empire, within the constraints of its own circumstances, made reasonable efforts to modernize the profession of “legal representative for the case” (“dava vekilliği”) existing under the term “attorneyship for being party in the case/hearing” (“husumete/murafaaya vekalet”) in Islamic Law. In this regard, the Regulation on Legal Representatives for the Case of Regulatory (“Nizamiye”) Courts (“Mehakim-i Nizamiye Dava Vekilleri Hakkında Nizamname”) dated 1875, is the first regulatory framework related to the legal profession. It holds the status of being the foundational regulation for the profession of advocacy in the Turkish legal system.When the Turkish Republic era was reached, the prevailing view was that the legal institution of legal representative for the case was inadequate, and there was a need to create a new professional branch. In this context, within the ongoing judicial reform efforts, the aim was to establish a transitional period with Attorney’s Act numbered 460 (“Muhamat Kanunu”) until a more comprehensive law was enacted.Attorney’s Act consisted of a temporary total of 18 articles, led to the emergence of decisions in the post-war period with a predominant political aspect through the commissions (“tasfiye komisyonları/meclis-i tefrik”) established under this act as well as it facilitated the establishment of a new profession known as attorneyship (“muhamilik”), defined the rights, powers, and duties of this profession, specified the conditions for acceptance and transition into this profession, ensured the formation of a new professional organization under the name of the bar association, and introduced principles that still hold validity today such as activities incompatible with attorneyship or the prohibition of participation in a lawsuit.The consensus that has been present since the Ottoman period on the fundamental solutions outlined in the Attorney’s Act has led to debates in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye focusing more on secondary issues. These issues include (i) the duration and form of the internship required to be eligible for the profession of attorneyship, (ii) whether graduation from a law school is a prerequisite for practicing as an attorney, and (iii) whether the terms “muhami” and “muhamat” deriving from the Arabic word “himaye”, “mahmi” and meaning that “protector”, are suitable for the newly established profession.&nbsp;In today’s context, the first two of these three discussed issues still retain their significance. Specifically, the 36-month internship system, originally envisaged as a civil servant within the judiciary and financed by the state according to the Attorney’s Act, has now transformed into a 12-month internship with an uncertain work structure, funded by the candidate themselves. When the current internship approach falls short of meeting the average characteristics of practices in other countries compared to the&nbsp;internship system outlined in the Attorney’s Act, it is observed that there has been a regression in terms of the duration and financial burden of the internship, limited progress regarding the choice of internship placements, and an ongoing expectation for the implementation of the bar exam. Therefore, it should be emphasized that a thorough review of the internship provisions in the regulations for lawyering would be highly beneficial.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the other hand, although it was not considered a reputable view during the Attorney’s Act discussions in the parliament, it is seen that two years after the Act’s enactment, graduates of the school of political sciences were allowed to practice as a lawyer by taking additional courses and completing exams. This practice continued for over 40 years. While investigating the rationale behind this, it is noted according to some approximate data that in the 1920s, only 20-30 people graduated from law faculties each year; considering that Ankara Law School produced its first graduates in 1928, a significant change in this number until the 1930s seems unlikely; in 1939, there were a total of 1,631 lawyers in Türkiye; from the 1960s to the late 1970s, the two law faculties in Türkiye produced a total of 950 graduates each year; in 1961- 1962, that the ratio of lawyers in Türkiye to the population was deemed sufficient pursuant to the research conducted by the State Planning Organization. Therefore, it can be inferred that the opportunity for political sciences graduates to practice law was provided until the gap in the legal professional workforce was filled; in other words, until the days when the ratio of lawyers to real persons in Türkiye decreased from one lawyer for every 10,000 individuals to one lawyer for every 2,485 individuals. However, today, by the ratio of lawyers to real persons, which is 459, in Türkiye, the question of whether graduates from other fields should practice law has evolved into the question of “Is there a need for so many legal professionals/lawyers?”&nbsp;

Transition to Modern Attorneyship Profession During the Republican Era, Discussions in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM), and Criticisms Regarding Today

One of the common features of law and literature is world-building with names. Ursula le Guin’s She Unnames Them All can be read as a text that considers the ordermaking function of names and challenges masculine character of naming. She, the main character of story, detaches things from their names, in a way approaching the divine violence of Benjamin’s conceptualization. She purifies nature from culture and returns it to its original state. This move to undo the established order can be considered as an anarchist attitude. Because, in line with Benjamin’s description of divine violence, main character of story does not replace names with new ones, she just unnames them. In the story, the justification for this is that names are not useful to non-humans anyway, and that living things are a homogeneous unity when stripped of their names. It is implied that nature is good in itself. While the association of names with usefulness meets the categories of labor and work, which Arendt presents as human conditions, it excludes the category of action. By using names, humans make designs that will ensure their survival, but beyond that, names make it possible for humans to think universals such as justice and beauty and to act in accordance with these universals. In other words, language makes it possible not only to make means but also to assign ends. Thus, the abandonment of universals is not only the abandonment of the means of human survival, but also the abandonment of freedom as a political end and justice as a legal end. So, the detachment of names from action means the rejection of law, which can be characterized as political naming. On the other hand, another fictional character, Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings, does not turn his back on names while maintaining the implication that nature is good in itself. Another Tolkien character, the elves, who, like Tom Bombadil, are good with names, not only build a world with names but also resist evil. They defend peace, plurality and heterogeneity in Middle-earth by taking into account the balance of power. In the Lord of the Rings universe, it is not naming that is evil, but rule through naming. There are three types of use of names in the Lord of The Rings universe. Natural names representing pure science like Bombadil’s, names that are the product of conscious design like the elves’, and misnomers of evil characters like Sauron and Saruman. Different uses of names correspond to different forms of the reason. Misnaming refers to the subject’s manipulation and destruction of the nature of the object for its own purposes. In this sense, misnaming corresponds to instrumental reason. The villains are characters who not only instrumentalize nature but also dominate the people. On the other hand, elves, or wizards like Gandalf, that is, those who give things a name that corresponds to their nature, are characters who do not destroy nature while making use of it, and who take care of nature like a gardener. In this context, the gardener is the symbol of the right ruler. The struggle against evil characters, those who want power for domination, is also a struggle against the substitution of means for ends. The symmetry of Ursula’s anarchist attitude in Tolkien&nbsp;is the maxim “power corrupts”. In this statement, which is the essence of the concept of checks and balances embodied in American constitutionalism, law is seen not as a form of domination but as an antidote to arbitrariness. It is no coincidence that gardener hobbit, a representative of the natural law principle of protecting harmony in nature, and his employer are assigned the task of destroying the ring of power. This is because these two are from the Shire, which offers an example of an unstratified society.

Naming, Order and Power: She Unnames Them All of Ursula & Lord of the Rings of Tolkien

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Assist. Prof.

One of the principles that Civil Procedure Law based on is the “dispositional control of the parties principle”. Under this principle, parties’ have the right solve private law disputes according to their dispositions. Under the principle, dispute parties are free to decide choose or not to choose litigation as way of resolution. Principle also covers to end the dispute by an settlement (in principle). One of the dispute ending options under the principle is the parties settlement agreement. Settlement agreement, generally, is an agreement in which parties agree to ending the dispute with mutual compromise. In other words, it can be also defined as an agreement in which parties completely or partially ending the dispute mutually. Settlement agreement, regulated as an stand alone regulation for the first time in the Article 313/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) numbered 6100. Under the Article, settlement agreement means that the parties agreement on to ending the dispute completely or partially in an outstanding case. This definition only covers the in-judicial settlement. Because the definition requires a settlement in front of the court. Out of judicial/court settlement is not regulated under the CCP. Because, this kind of settlement fall in the area of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement is an agreement out of the court in which the parties agreed to end the dispute completely or partially at mutual interest point they considered. There is no necessity of an outstanding ongoing case process at this point. Additionally, an ongoing trial process would not affect the out of judicial settlement. It is needed a transformation of the out of judicial settlement to an in-judicial settlement to affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Out of judicial settlement is an substantive law agreement. This agreement is fall in the provisions (General Provisions) of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement agreement is not be need to be made in written because of the “freedom as to form” principle of the Turkish Code of Obligations. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it could affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Parties convey the out of judicial settlement to the court and then court get in record the agreement. After that moment, out of judicial settlement is evaluated as an in-judicial settlement. It is not needed that the whole provisions of the out of judicial settlement to get in recorded in the trial documents. Article 315/1 of the CCP regulates the provisions on effects and solutions of settlement agreements. Under this provisions when the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same legal power and&nbsp;solutions of it. The first solution of this transformation is the ending of existing dispute, in other words ending of the existing court trial. The second important outcome of the in-judicial settlement agreement is that it would have the same legal effect of final court decision. In-judicial settlement has an important another legal effect that it would has the power of the final court decisions under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code Article 38. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same affect as well.

Out of Judicial Settlement and Its Effect on Trial

Involvement of persons with disabilities in business life is extremely important – just as much as in their access to education and health services - and in their enjoyment of social protection because unemployment makes individuals becoming unemployed feel like they are useless. Involvement of persons with disabilities in business life, and pursuing the same eliminates the social effects caused by the risk of unemployment. In addition, working persons with disabilities benefit from social insurance protection based on their work, and thus a decrease occurs in the expenses made for persons with disabilities from the social security budget. While the policies relevant to persons with disabilities started with passive policies such as protecting persons with disabilities, today they have transformed into active policies such as ensuring the complete participation of persons with disabilities in employment. In Turkey, the number of persons with disabilities recorded on the National Database on Persons with Disabilities is 2.461.828 for the first half of the year 2019. And the rate of participation of persons with disabilities in employment is 22.1 percent. When compared with the data for the EU and OECD, this number is very low. Thus, increasing the participation in employment of persons with disabilities is also among the objectives relevant to business life. When the legal regulations in Turkey are examined, it can be observed that rules relevant to the protection of persons with disabilities have taken place in Constitutional Law for the first time. According to Article 17 of Constitutional Law, everyone has the right to live, and to preserve and improve their material and moral presence. And, according to Article 49 of Constitutional Law, working is everyone’s right and obligation. The government takes the required measures to increase the standard of living of employees, protect the unemployed, and support working. The government’s actualization of this obligation is especially important in terms of persons with disabilities who are experiencing many difficulties in involvement in business life. For this reason, it is required that the government should take special measures for persons with disabilities, and to provide the work environment for them. Hence, in Article 50 of Constitutional Law, it has been emphasized that no one could be employed in works not conforming to their strength, and the rule of “the ones having physical and psychological insufficiency are distinctively protected in terms of working conditions” has been established. And the most basic law regarding persons with disabilities is the Law on Persons with Disabilities no 5378. This law intends that persons with disabilities should benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms, and to ensure their participation in social life under equal conditions with other individuals. Article 30 of Labour Law no 4857 regulates the details relevant to the liability of employers to employ persons&nbsp;with disabilities. Article 30 was regulated again in 2008, and new principles were established regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. In accordance with this, employers employing fifty or more employees in the workplace have to employ a specific number of persons with disabilities. When Article 30 of Labour Law is examined, it is observed that the straightforward quota method has been adopted regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. The quota determined within this scope is three percent for workplaces in the private sector, and four percent for workplaces in the public sector. It is required that the following conditions are present for liability of the employer to employ persons with disabilities to arise : i) The workplace’s inclusion in the scope of Labour Law, or Maritime Labour Law, ii) Employment of fifty or more employees in the workplace. In case of the presence of these conditions, the employers are required to employ persons with disabilities whose rate of disability is at least 40 percent. Persons with disabilities should be employed through the Turkish Employment Agency. But the employer may also employ a person with disabilities through his own means. In this case, it is required to inform the Turkish Employment Agency, and to have the person with disabilities recorded at the Agency. An administrative fine is imposed on the employer acting against the liability of employing persons with disabilities. Another method regarding the employment of persons with disabilities is the concept of sheltered employment. Briefly, this method is ensuring the employment of persons with disabilities – for whom it is difficult to bring them in business life - within the frame of special conditions. In this system, there are sheltered workplaces where the working environment is specifically arranged in order to ensure the employment of persons with disabilities. In Turkish Law, the principles of this subject have been regulated in the Law on Persons with Disabilities, and in a certain regulation issued on this subject. That Regulation first came into force in 2006, and it was renewed in 2013. Persons with disabilities who will be employed at sheltered workplaces, are not only persons with physical disabilities but persons with mental and psychological disabilities. In terms of acquiring the status of a sheltered workplace, some conditions have been sought by the Regulation. Above all, it is required that the workplace is one which holds the qualifications determined by the Regulation, and where at least eight persons with disabilities are employed. In addition, the ratio of the number of persons with disabilities who will be employed at a sheltered workplace to the number of total employees shouldn’t be less than seventy five percent. In the Regulation, the physical conditions and equipment that the sheltered workplace has to have (safety, traffic safety, fire protection etc.) were also specified. A specific part of the remunerations&nbsp;of the persons with disabilities being employed at sheltered workplaces is paid by the government. In Turkish law, amendments made in time in Article 30 of Labour Law being the basis of the liability of employing persons with disabilities, and especially the increase in incentives for the employers in private sector are deemed as proper regulations. Again, allowing the employers to find workers who will be employed by their own means is also among those steps which would facilitate employment. Certainly, considering the measures ensuring employment as incentives rather than a quota and fine method would be a more constructive approach.

The Liability of the Employer to Employ Disabled Employee

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Night work has been the subject of many discussions due to its contradictory nature to the biological structure of the human body. This attribute of night work requires that night work and day work should not be handled in the same way in the legal order. The developments in the field of Occupational Health and Safety Law, and the researches regarding the effects of night work on the human health, constantly demand the review and improvement of the regulations regarding night work. In this regard, the most important protective provision regarding the workers working at night could be the limit on the night working time. In accordance with the Article 69 (I) of the Labour Law No. 4857, “night” is defined as the period starting at the latest at 20.00 in the evening, and lasting at the earliest until 06.00 in the morning, which in any case lasts maximum eleven hours. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 69 (III), night work shall not exceed seven and a half hours. However, significant exceptions have been recently adopted to this rule. The amendment, enacted in 2015, allows employers in some sectors (private security, tourism and jobs related to healthcare) to demand night work in excess of seven and a half hours by obtaining written approval from the worker. It should be noted that the regulations concerning night work are particularly important regarding the work carried out by shift work. Taking into consideration the need for governing special procedures and principles on this subject, a regulation specifically on shift work has been issued, and exceptions to the rule on the limit of the night working time are also included in this regulation. In my opinion, the propriety of this change amendment is highly debatable. It can be argued that the service should continue uninterruptedly in the sectors mentioned in the Article (private security, tourism and jobs related to healthcare). However, the employment of the workers for longer periods is not the only way to ensure the continuity of the service. Although written approval of the worker enabling the night work in excess of seven and a half hours is stipulated, the worker-protective approach of the Labour Law which protects the workers even from themselves, especially on the issues regarding occupational health and safety should not be disregarded. It should also be noted that the Regulation on shift work also includes a statement which is not included in the text of the Labour Law. In the Regulation; it is prescribed that the workers employed by the subcontractor in the workplaces, where private security, tourism and health services are carried out, also fall under this scope. If the letter of the statement is followed; it could be concluded that all workers employed by the subcontractor in the health, tourism and private security sectors may be employed at night for more than seven and a half hours. However, it is clear that such an interpretation would be incompatible with the exception regulated in the Labour&nbsp;Law. The provision of the regulation should be interpreted in a manner to cover subcontractor workers who are employed in the sectors referred to in the Labour Law, specifically in cases where subcontracted work is carried out with respect to these sectors. It has been concluded that the recent changes in the field of night work constitute a reversal in terms of workers’ rights. It is clear that the continuity of the services without disruption can be also maintained by increasing the number of shifts. Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the regulations regarding night work are quite disorganized. In this regard, it may be suggested that all the rules regarding night work should fall into a single regulation. As a result, it may be stated that there is a need for the review of the regulations on night work in our legislation.

Night Work and The Evaluation of the Amendments Regarding the Limit of Night Work Period

This article deals with multi-tier dispute resolution clauses incorporating both mediation and arbitration together under Turkish Law. I use the terminology of “med-arb” not only for the situation where the mediator acts as an arbitrator, but rather in a general meaning covering all instances where the arbitration is commenced following an unsuccessful mediation. The purpose of this article is to discuss the validity of the med-arb agreements, the consequences of starting arbitration before the mediation fails, the effects of the mediation proceedings and of the mediator acting as an arbitrator on the arbitration that follows the mediation as well as the admissibility of the documents and factual evidence exchanged at the mediation. For the purpose of this article, the comparative laws, international ethics rules, international guidelines on the conflict of interest and admissibility of evidence are reviewed along with Turkish law. Turkish Code on Mediation in Civil Law Disputes stipulates some provisions related to the med-arb. These provisions shall apply equally to both domestic and international arbitrations where the place of arbitration is Turkey. Following the jurisprudence of the Turkish Supreme Court, a med-arb agreement is valid only if it reflects, without doubt, both parties’ consents to the arbitration following the failure of the mediation proceedings. Therefore, a multi-tier dispute resolution clause subject to Turkish law needs to be drawn carefully. In this respect IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses are of assistance. In cases where one of the parties commences arbitration without a recourse to mediation first, the arbitral tribunal should make a decision on the admissibility of the claim. There is no direct provision related to the question of admissibility under Turkish law. Under Turkish law, in parallel with the practice of international arbitration, the tribunal has to interpret the med-arb agreement to make a decision on the question of whether the recourse to mediation is a pre-condition of the arbitration. If the mediation is a pre-condition, then the tribunal should suspend the arbitral&nbsp;proceedings and direct the parties to the mediation. However, in the case that the mediation fails, the tribunal may resume the arbitral proceedings. There is nothing under Turkish law suggesting that a precondition of arbitration is a jurisdictional issue rather than an admissibility issue. The advantages of the med-arb are subject to heated debates among people holding different perspectives. Such advantages are controversial since when a dispute arises and the arbitration starts without a recourse to mediation, the respondent may object to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or to the admissibility of the claim relying on the fact that the pre-condition to try mediation first is not met. Such an objection may cause arbitration to be delayed and/or the costs of arbitration to increase. Therefore, before opting for a med-arb agreement the parties should evaluate the possibility of settling their dispute at the Med-arb. The parties who are able to consider their commercial interests do not need a med-arb agreement as they are able to settle the disputes without the assistance of a mediator. They first try to settle the dispute, in some cases for years, and to avoid adjudication by an arbitral tribunal. They only start arbitration when there is no possibility of settlement of their dispute and of saving their commercial alliance. In such cases, med-arb agreements become a tool to delay the proceedings and increase the costs for the claimant to force him or her to give up his or her claim. Having said that, for the parties who are unable to consider their commercial interest and unable to avoid adjudication, med-arb agreement may be the right dispute resolution clause. In a med-arb agreement, the parties may wish the mediator to act as their arbitrator if the mediation fails. Neither the Turkish Code of Mediation in Civil Disputes nor the Turkish International Arbitration Code prevents a mediator to act as an arbitrator. Turkish Ethics Rules for Mediators stipulate that a mediator may act as an arbitrator only if the parties have agreement in writing. Therefore, any mediator to act as arbitrator needs to have the parties’ written consent. In international mediation and arbitration practices, the scholars and practitioners widely accept that having an arbitrator who previously acted as a mediator generates a number of serious risks and concerns. First of all, the mediator-arbitrator may not protect his or her impartiality in the arbitration because of the facts that she or he became aware of during the mediation. Secondly, the mediator-arbitrator may rely on the confidential information exchanged in caucus while making the award. Thirdly, the mediator may be too willing to act as an arbitrator and as a result the mediation may prematurely fail. Finally, the mediator may abuse his or her powers and force the parties to settle their disputes as the mediator suggests. The parties may feel that if they are not able to settle their dispute and proceed to the arbitration, the mediator-arbitrator would make an arbitral award in parallel of the recommendations at the mediation phase. Considering the severity of the consequences, if the parties agree to have an arbitrator&nbsp;who previously acted as their mediator, they need to be aware of such consequences and they need to make an informed decision accordingly . The Turkish Code of Mediation in Civil Law Disputes restrains the ability of the mediator-arbitrator to rely on the documents produced during the mediation for the purpose of settlement and defines which documents are in this category. In the case where the mediator-arbitrator relies on these documents while making the award, depending on the extent the document or information has a bearing on the award, the arbitral award may be cancelled, or its enforcement may be refused. In November 2019, Istanbul Arbitration Center (ISTAC) introduced its Medarb Rules. ISTAC Med-arb Rules are the first published institutional Med-arb rules. ISTAC Med-arb Rules reflect the best practices in international mediation – arbitration. I believe that ISTAC Med-arb Rules will be welcomed in the field of international dispute resolution.

Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses Incorporating Both Mediation and Arbitration Together Under Turkish Law

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Istanbul Law Review is a publication of Istanbul University, Faculty of Law.  

Istanbul Law Review is a quarterly, academic, peer reviewed journal which publishes articles in Turkish and English. Istanbul Law Review publishes articles, judicial reviews, legislation analysis’, publication criticism, translations which involves in law and law related subjects, and are based on genuine theoretical and practical academic research and suitable for national and international scale.

Istanbul Law Review involves in publications which are (i) capable of expanding theory and enhancing theoretical basis, (ii) analyzing either academic or judicial methodology, (iii) scrutinizing legal theory, practice, process, symbols etc. effecting society on private or public levels, (iv) exploring the subject in legal, sociological, political, psychological, philosophical, ethical, geographical and historical manner.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Fethi

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Istanbul Law Review

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Editorial Assistant

Language Editor

Editor

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Istanbul Law Review is a quarterly, academic, peer reviewed journal which publishes articles in Turkish and English. Istanbul Law Review publishes articles, judicial reviews, legislation analysis’, publication criticism, translations which involves in law and law related subjects, and are based on genuine theoretical and practical academic research and suitable for national and international scale.Istanbul Law Review involves in publications which are (i) capable of expanding theory and enhancing theoretical basis, (ii) analyzing either academic or judicial methodology, (iii) scrutinizing legal theory, practice, process, symbols etc. effecting society on private or public levels, (iv) exploring the subject in legal, sociological, political, psychological, philosophical, ethical, geographical and historical manner.In this frame, primary fields of interest are listed as follows:• Human rights law,• Criminal law,• Financial and fiscal law,• Civil law,• Commercial law,• Obligations law,• Execution and bankruptcy law

Aim and Scope

Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM TR Index EBSCO Central &amp; Eastern European Academic SourceEBSCO Legal SourceDOAJERIH PLUSSOBİAD

Indexing and Abstracting

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. Plagiarism Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 15 or 20%. Double Blind Peer-Review After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Policies

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" target="_blank">BOAI</a> definition of open access.The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) license.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</a> ) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Editor should consider publishing correction if minor errors that do not effect the results, interpretations and conclusions of the published paper are detected. Editor should consider retraction if major errors and/or misconduction that invalidate results and conclusions are detected.Editor should consider issuing an expression of concern if there is evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; there is evidence that the findings are not reliable and institutions of the authors do not investigate the case or the possible investigation seems to be unfair or nonconclusive. The guidelines of <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> and <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> are taken into consideration regarding correction, retractions or expression of concern.

To guarantee that all papers published in the journal are maintained and permanently accessible, articles are stored in Dergipark which serves as a  national archival web site and at the same time permits LOCKSS to  collect, preserve, and serve the content.Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their articles in open electronic archives with  that conform to standards of Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>). Authors should provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of IUPress journal website.

Istanbul Law Review is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a>All parties involved in the publishing process (Editors, Reviewers, Authors and Publishers) are expected to agree on the following ethical principles.All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Each manuscript is reviewed by one of the editors and at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors.All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing.

Ethics

<div>The journal adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.- Principles of integrity, quality and transparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.- The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.- The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.- Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.- Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.- The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.- In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.- If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.- In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.</div>

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form.</a> The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section.All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment.When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for double-blind peer review evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Peer Review

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international external referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by Editor-in-Chief upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.- Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?- Is the problem significant and concisely stated?- Are the methods described comprehensively?- Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?- Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?- Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

1. Istanbul Law Review is a peer reviewed Journal that is published four times a year (in March, June, September and December) and indexed by ESCI and ULAKBİM.2. The articles sent to be published in our journal should not be published elsewhere, not be submitted to other journals simultaneously even with the purpose of evaluation. In this purpose, the authors shall also be reguired to sign a letter of undertaking. 3. Articles that are considered as unsuitable with the publication principles by the Editorial Board are sent back to the author without review. It is sufficient for the article to be rejected by the Editorial Board if the spelling errors are extraordinary, the domestic and foreign resources required for the subject being examined are not utilized, the scientific criteria academic ethical principles are not complied with, the article subject does not have an up-to-date significance in terms of theory and-or practice. 4. Before the article is sent to the referees, it is subjected to plagiarism examination withthe help of special computer programs. If the digital similarity rate is above 20%, it is sufficient for the rejection of the article within the scope of the editorial review of the related software report. 5. The article to be published in the journal must be written following the highest academic standards. In this context, intellectual background and effort at the level of doctoral or associate professorship thesis are expected from the authors. 6. Papers that are approved by the Editorial Board are submitted to reviewers in line with blind peer review principle. Authors are not informed about the identity of the referees. According to the assessments of the referees, the paper may be approved for publication, required to resubmission with amendments or rejected on the basis of inadequate quality. The referee phase does not have a minimum or maximum duration. The follow-up of this issue is a duty and authority exclusively belonging to the Editorial Board. 7. As a result of the referee reports, the final discretion and responsibility regarding whether the article will be finally published and if it will be published, in which issue of the Journal, the editorial board is responsible. The existence of a single rejectionnegative referee report is sufficient to prevent the article from being published. 8. The completion of the referee stage does not give authors the authority to request a private or official document indicating that the article will be published. The authors, with the awareness and responsibility of this issue, apply for their articles to be published in Istanbul Law Review and to be subjected to peer review. 9. Authors, must provide their titles, institutions, correspondence address, phone number and e-mail address. 10. The Review accepts and publishes articles written in Turkish and English. The articles must include Turkish and English abstracts consisting of at least 250 and at most 300 words and at least five and at most fifteen keywords must be added to the paper in Turkish and English languages. Following the abstracts, there must also be an extended summary of 600-800 words for all the articles both in English and Turkish. The article subject to the publication application must contain a maximum of 20,000 words, including footnotes. There is no minimum word limit. 11. The main text and footnotes must be written in Times New Roman. Font size for the main text should be 12 with 1,5 line spacing while footnotes are written in font size 10 with 1 line spacing. Footnotes are to be shown at the bottom of the page. Citations must be made based on the OSCOLA citation system. Otherwise, the article is sent back to the author to make corrections without a referee assignment. Abbreviations and other issues in Turkish articles must be made following the announced spelling rules. The mentioned citation rules can be accessed at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ihm. 12. Author’s name must be written bottom right of the Turkish and English title of the paper and should end with a star symbol. Star footnote should consists of title and institution of the author and correspondence address, phone number and e- mail address. 13. The article must consist of a bibliography at the end and references need to be arranged in alphabetical order.14. To be limited with the copies published by the Faculty; financial rights regarding reproduction, distribution, public performance, derivative works and translation of the papers which are approved for publication are to be transferred to the faculty to be used on the print, auditory, digital etc. media, nationwide and worldwide. Authors accept not to receive any royalty payment.15. Besides articles, also translations may be published in the accepted languages. These papers might be approved or rejected by the Editorial Board. Original text of the translation and consent of the rightful owner are also should be enclosed with the translation. Translations are also subject to the assessment of reviewers.16. Papers should be sent to iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr in Microsoft Word (*.doc, *.docx) file type.17. Only one article of an applicant in the same publication year (4 issues) could be subject to peer review.18. The Editorial Board determines the articles to be included in one issue of the journal by considering criteria such as the purpose of maintaining the balance of Private LawPublic Law, the date of submission of the article to the Journal, the date of completion of the referee stage, the timeliness of the article subject, and the proportional balance on whether the authors are members of Istanbul University.19. The Editorial Board makes the utmost effort to publish all issues with the same number of articles as possible. An article that has completed all the necessary steps for publication, including the layout stage, as of the date of publication of an issue, could not be published in the relevant issue in terms of the number of articles, however, after a certain period after the relevant issue, within the framework of the system called Online-First it is published digitally before the issue is released.

Author Guidelines

Before beginning the online submission process please read the Information for Authors and make sure you have the followings available:Article submissions should be submitted directly to the e-mail address <a href="mailto:iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr" target="_blank">iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr</a>Cover letter to the editor<ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The category of the manuscript</li> <li>Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.</li> <li>Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.</li> <li>Confirming that the statistical design of the research article is reviewed.</li> <li>Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.</li> <li>Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.</li> <li>Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with OSCOLA.</li> </ul> </ul><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/6444C75BA6B344EBB1496510B0BAF8A3" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The category of the manuscript</li> <li>The title of the manuscript both in the languge of the manuscript and in English</li> <li>All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addresses</li> <li>Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax number</li> <li>ORCIDs of all authors.</li> </ul> </ul>Main Manuscript Document<ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of manuscript and in English</li> <li>Abstracts: 250-30 words</li> <li>Key words: 5-15 words </li> <li>Extended Abstract (600-1000 words) in English (for the articles which are not in English)</li> <li>Main article sections</li> <li>Grant Support (if exists)</li> <li>Conflict of Interest (if exists)</li> <li>Acknowledgement (if exits)</li> <li>References</li> <li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li> </ul> </ul>

Although references to review articles can be an efficient way to guide readers to a body of literature, review articles do not always reflect original work accurately. Readers should therefore be provided with direct references to original research sources whenever possible. On the other hand, extensive lists of references to original work on a topic can use excessive space on the printed page. Small numbers of references to key original papers often serve as well as more exhaustive lists, particularly since references can now be added to the electronic version of published papers, and since electronic literature searching allows readers to retrieve published literature efficiently. Papers accepted but not yet included in the issue are published online in the Early View section and they should be cited as “advance online publication”. Citing a “personal communication” should be avoided unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication must be obtained.Reference Style and FormatIstanbul Law Review offers referencing style OSCOLA. OSCOLA (Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities) is published by the University of Oxford and detail and examples about the style can be found at https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/publications/oscolaOSCOLA Reference ExamplesPrimary SourcesDo not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.CasesGive the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884.R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410.Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL).When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint after the court.Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45].Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37].R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31.If citing a particular judge:Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ).Statutes and statutory instrumentsAct of Supremacy 1558.Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b).Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166.EU legislation and casesConsolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13.Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5.Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48.European Court of Human RightsOmojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10.Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124.Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004).Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188.Secondary SourcesBooksGive the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets.Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268.Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet &amp; Maxwell 2009).K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998).Contributions to edited booksFrancis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds),Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006).EncyclopediasHalsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53.Journal articlesPaul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440.When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint.JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’(2001) 117 LQR 42, 64.Online journalsGraham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010)1(1) EJLT &lt; http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 &gt; accessed 27 July 2010.Command papers and Law Commission reportsDepartment for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5.Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17.Websites and blogsSarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009)&lt;www.nakedlaw.com/2009/05/index.html&gt; accessed 19 November 2009.Newspaper articlesJane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3.

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/2BB9074E09174E55BE3CA4941309A672" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F6FB8940C9B54CC08CDC740CCFC6B8F3" target="_blank">Title Page</a></div>

<div>Ensure that the following items are present:● Cover letter to the editor<ul><li>The category of the manuscript</li><li>Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.</li><li>Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.</li><li>Confirming that the statistical design of the research article is reviewed.</li><li>Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.</li><li>Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.</li><li>Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with OSCOLA</li></ul>● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>● Permission of previously published copyrighted material if used in the present manuscript● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/D4FC914AF17F43D6A40E18412A5E6731" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul><li>The category of the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript</li><li>All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addresses</li><li>Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax number</li><li>ORCIDs of all authors.</li></ul>● Main Manuscript Document<ul><li>The title of the manuscript</li><li>Abstract: 250-300 words</li><li>Extended Summary (600-1000 words) in English for the articles which are not in English </li><li>Key words: 5-15 words</li><li>Main article sections</li><li>Grant support (if exists)</li><li>Conflict of interest (if exists)</li><li>Acknowledgement (if exists)</li><li>References</li><li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li></ul>​</div>

Issue Type	Regular
Editor(s)	Ömer Ekmekçi, Ali Paslı
Cover (PDF)
Full Text (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)