Category: Turkiye

The final and binding nature of arbitral awards provides legal predictability to the parties while also allowing for the possibility of material errors or omissions in the arbitral decisions.

In this context, ICC Arbitration Rules allow for the correction or completion of an award under certain conditions, ensuring the protection of parties’ rights. However, the high costs associated with correction processes resulting from the tribunal’s own errors raise questions about the compatibility of these costs with fundamental arbitration principles such as accessibility and party autonomy. This process, shaped by ICC Rules and Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration, has significant legal and financial implications for the parties in practice, making it essential to carefully assess post-award procedures.

ICC Arbitration Proceedings

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has become one of the most frequently chosen arbitration institutions by individuals and legal entities seeking dispute resolution. One of the main reasons for this is ICC’s long-standing tradition, dating back to 1919, which upholds the principles of “neutrality” and “independence.”

Cases in Which Correction and Additional Decision May Be Requested Under ICC Rules

According to the ICC Rules, error correction can be requested in two situations. The first occurs when a material error is present in the arbitral award due to the arbitrator. In such cases, the concerned parties may request the correction of this error. Applications for correction, aimed at rectifying clerical, computational, or other material mistakes in the award, must be submitted to the ICC Arbitration Secretariat within 30 days from the notification of the award.

Similarly, if the arbitral tribunal has failed to address one of the parties’ claims, the concerned party may request an additional decision to cover the omitted issues. This request must also be submitted to the Secretariat within 30 days from the notification of the award.

The arbitral tribunal, upon receiving the request, informs the opposing party and typically allows them a period not exceeding 30 days to submit their views. After this period, the tribunal must submit its draft decision to the ICC Court within a maximum of 30 days or within a timeframe determined by the Court. Correction or interpretation decisions are issued as an annex to the award, whereas additional decisions, if granted, are issued separately.

Pursuant to Article 36(1) of the ICC Rules, only clerical, computational, or similar material errors in the award are subject to correction or an additional decision. The tribunal does not have the authority to issue an additional decision or correction concerning the substantive aspects of the award. Rather, only elements affecting the comprehensibility and enforceability of the decision—such as a mathematical miscalculation or a missing conjunction—may be amended.¹

Remission of the Arbitral Award, Additional Costs, and Party Rights

If a court remands an arbitral award to the tribunal, the provisions of Articles 32, 34, 35, and 36 of the ICC Rules apply to the extent appropriate. Depending on the conditions set forth in the court’s remand decision, the arbitral tribunal may either rectify or complete the deficiencies in the award by issuing a new decision or amend the previous one. In this process, the ICC Court takes the necessary measures to ensure that the tribunal complies with the court’s instructions and may determine an advance payment covering the arbitrators’ additional fees, expenses, and ICC’s extra administrative costs. This mechanism aims to both preserve the efficiency of arbitration proceedings and protect the rights of the parties, thereby contributing to legal certainty in post-award procedures.

In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that parties retain the right to object to any resulting costs. Expecting parties to bear the financial burden of correcting an error or omission caused by the tribunal itself—especially when the associated costs are substantial—would contradict fundamental principles promised by the ICC before arbitration, particularly “Access to Justice” and “Party Autonomy”. Moreover, the ICC Secretariat evaluates such objections and has, in certain cases, reversed its initial demands for cost payments previously communicated to the parties.

Correction and Additional Decision Requests Under Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration

In addition to the ICC Rules, when the seat of arbitration is in Turkey and, consequently, lex arbitri is Turkish law, the relevant provisions of Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration (“IAL”) must also be considered. Article 14 of the IAL grants parties the opportunity to assess arbitral awards more thoroughly and to apply for corrections or additions where necessary.

According to Article 14 of the IAL, arbitral awards must include the identities of the parties, the legal grounds upon which the decision is based, the seat and date of arbitration, the signatures of the arbitrators, and any dissenting opinions. The award is communicated to the parties by the arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator of the tribunal. The parties may also request that the award be submitted to the civil court of first instance, provided they cover the associated costs.

For the correction of clerical, computational, or similar material errors in the award, either party may apply to the arbitral tribunal within 30 days from the notification of the award. This request must also be communicated to the opposing party. After receiving the opposing party’s views, if the tribunal deems the request justified, it must issue a correction or interpretation decision within a maximum of 30 days. The arbitrator or the tribunal may also correct such material errors on its own initiative within 30 days from the date of the award.

Additionally, if a party had raised a claim during the arbitration proceedings that was not addressed in the award, they may request a supplementary arbitral decision. This request must also be made within 30 days from the notification of the award, and if deemed justified, the tribunal must issue a supplementary decision within a maximum of 60 days. These corrections, interpretations, and supplementary decisions are communicated to the parties and are considered an integral part of the arbitral award.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite the finality of arbitral awards, the ICC Arbitration Rules and Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration provide exceptional mechanisms for correcting material errors and addressing omitted claims. However, the imposition of high costs on parties for corrections necessitated by the tribunal’s own errors has led to debates in practice. The ICC Secretariat’s occasional review of such costs helps ensure alignment with the principles of accessibility and party autonomy in arbitration proceedings.

Therefore, parties engaging in arbitration must carefully consider post-award procedures and potential additional costs. Correction and additional decision mechanisms should not be viewed merely as remedial tools but as integral components of the arbitration process, necessitating strategic planning accordingly.

1 Webster, Thomas H.; Bühler, Michael. Handbook of ICC Arbitration. London, 2021.

By Tarik Guleryuz, Partner, and Berre Nazli Celik, Legal Intern, Guleryuz & Partners

Turunc has advised Laboratoires Vivacy on a partnership with Burgeon Biotechnology. Allen Overy Shearman Sterling’s Turkish affiliate law firm of Gedik Eraksoy reportedly advised Burgeon.

Laboratoires Vivacy is a France-based company specializing in the development, manufacturing, and distribution of injectable medical devices for health professionals. It is a Bridgepoint portfolio company.

Burgeon Biotechnology is a medical aesthetics and rejuvenation solutions company and a Diffusion Capital Partners portfolio company.

The Turunc team included Founding Partner Noyan Turunc, Managing Partner Kerem Turunc, Partner Esin Camlibel, Managing Associates Beste Yildizili Ergul and Naz Esen, and Associates Canberk Taze, Ovgu Kopal, Elif Caglayan, Yagmur Aker, Baran Ezeli, and Batuhan Eraslan.

The Decision Amending the Decree No. 32 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency (the “Decision”), published in the Official Gazette on March 15, 2025, has introduced significant changes to the financial regulations in Turkey. In this context, let us examine the newly introduced regulations and the updated provisions together.

General Framework of the Amendments

The main regulations introduced under the Decision can be summarized as follows:

Increase in the Cash Limit Permitted to Be Taken Abroad [Article 3/(d)]: The cash limit that can be taken abroad, previously set at TRY 25,000, has been increased to TRY 185,000. Amounts exceeding this threshold may be taken abroad in accordance with the principles to be determined by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.

Derivative Transactions [Article 6/(7)-(8)]: The requirement for trading derivatives exclusively on organized exchanges has been removed.

Prior to the Decision, derivative transactions could only be conducted through intermediary institutions authorized by the Capital Markets Board (“CMB”). With the new regulation, the scope has been expanded to include banks authorized by the CMB among the institutions permitted to carry out derivative transactions. Accordingly, as a general rule, derivative transactions to be conducted abroad must be carried out through banks and intermediary institutions authorized by the CMB.

As an exception, derivative transactions conducted by Turkish residents on their own initiative with financial institutions located abroad are exempt from the obligation to use an intermediary institution or bank, provided that such foreign institutions do not engage in marketing or advertising activities in Turkey. However, the transfer of funds related to these transactions must still be executed through banks.

Leveraged Transactions and Derivative Transactions Subject to the Same Provisions as Leveraged Transactions [Article 6/(9)]: It has been explicitly prohibited for persons or entities other than those authorized by the CMB to intermediate leveraged transactions or derivative transactions deemed subject to the same provisions as leveraged transactions¹, and to transfer funds abroad in relation to such transactions.

Measures Against Unauthorized Intermediation Activities [Article 6/(9)]: Banks and payment/electronic money institutions have been assigned the obligation to take necessary measures to prevent unauthorized intermediation activities. In order to enable the implementation of such measures, the CMB, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), and the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey will share any relevant information they possess, within their respective areas of authority, upon request of the relevant institutions. Any violations of this provision shall be reported to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance of the Republic of Turkey.

Amendments Regarding Foreign Currency and Precious Metal Loans [Article 18/(4)]: With the new regulation, a significant flexibility has been introduced regarding foreign currency or precious metal-denominated loans obtained domestically by persons resident in Turkey.

Accordingly, it is now permitted to provide guarantees or sureties in foreign currency or precious metals to banks and financial institutions located in Turkey as collateral for such loans, by either:

• Group companies of the borrower that are resident in Turkey, or
• Individuals or legal entities that are direct shareholders of the

In order to benefit from this regulation, the following conditions must be met collectively:

1. Loan: Must be denominated in foreign currency or precious
2. Guarantor or Surety Provider: Must be either a group company of the borrower or a direct shareholder (individual or legal entity).
3. Recipient of the Guarantee/Surety: Must be a bank or financial institution resident in Turkey.
4. Form of Guarantee/Surety: Must be in foreign currency or precious

Unless these conditions are met, persons resident in Turkey are not permitted to provide guarantees or sureties in foreign currency or precious metals on behalf of another resident in Turkey. This regulation introduces an exception only under the specified conditions; otherwise, providing guarantees or sureties in foreign currency remains prohibited.

New Regulations on Precious Metal and Deposit Accounts [Article 19/(3)]: It has been explicitly regulated that trading transactions conducted in precious metal deposit accounts without physical delivery shall be considered as foreign exchange transactions.

Conclusion

The Decision allows group companies or direct shareholders to provide guarantees and sureties for foreign currency or precious metal loans obtained domestically by persons resident in Turkey. Authorization and transfer rules concerning derivative instruments and leveraged transactions have been further clarified, and mechanisms for preventing unauthorized intermediation have been strengthened. Additionally, the upper limit for the amount of Turkish lira that may be taken abroad has been increased to TRY 185,000. These amendments aim to enhance clarity in financial regulations while also introducing new obligations and limitations for market participants.

1 Pursuant to Article 25/A, paragraph 3 of the Communiqué on Investment Services No. III-37.1, over-the-counter (OTC) derivative instruments such as Contracts for Difference (CFDs) are subject to the provisions applicable to leveraged transactions.

By Murat Develioglu, Senior Counsel, and Nesli Turker, Lawyer, Guleryuz Partners

An exclusive evidentiary contract is a type of agreement in which the parties undertake to accept the assessment of a person or panel appointed to evaluate certain technical or expert matters related to a specific dispute. This agreement, particularly used in areas requiring technical expertise, functions as an evidentiary contract and carries binding consequences for the parties.

Legal Nature of Exclusive Evidentiary Contracts

Exclusive evidentiary contracts fall within the scope of exclusive evidence agreements. Through such contracts, the parties agree that the dispute will be resolved by the designated experts¹. Under Turkish law, evidentiary agreements are governed by Article 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”) and are based on the parties’ freedom to determine the applicable evidence. Reports issued under exclusive evidentiary contracts are considered exclusive evidence under Article 287/2 of the CCP and are binding on courts. In this context, in its decision dated 30.04.2001 and numbered 1654/3738, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly stated that the clause in an insurance policy referring to expert evaluation is not an arbitration clause but an exclusive evidentiary contract. It is widely acknowledged that evaluations which are not binding on the parties or the court should not be classified as exclusive evidentiary contracts, but rather as early neutral evaluations or parts of a settlement process. For example, in its decision dated 03.06.2014 and numbered 2014/8921, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation noted that although a clause requiring referral to an expert in the policy is not a litigation requirement, it may nonetheless be considered a valid evidentiary agreement.

Elements of Exclusive Evidentiary Contracts

For an exclusive evidentiary contract to be valid and enforceable, the following conditions must be met:

• The matter in dispute must require technical or expert evaluation;
• Both parties must expressly and voluntarily agree to the contract;
• The contract must clearly state that the resulting report will be binding on both the parties and the court.

This binding effect distinguishes exclusive evidentiary contracts from ordinary expert reports and requires the parties to definitively accept the evaluations of technical or financial experts whom they have freely chosen². These contracts are typically used in areas requiring technical or financial analysis. Examples include insurance indemnities, construction projects, and engineering calculations. Naturally, the parties must clearly state that they accept the expert’s determination regarding a specific issue. According to the case law of the Court of Cassation, exclusive evidentiary contracts are deemed valid when concluded freely and voluntarily by the parties and are binding both on the parties and the courts. For instance, in its decision dated 23.07.2008 and numbered 4896/5119, the 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that a report prepared under an exclusive evidentiary contract is binding on the court, but also noted that the report may be annulled if it is contrary to law or equity.

Selection and Authority of the Expert

The selection of the expert under an exclusive evidentiary contract depends on the will of the parties, and the agreement may contain provisions regarding the selection procedure. In practice, the parties may appoint the expert directly or may authorize an independent third party to carry out the selection. The expert’s authority is likewise determined by the parties and is limited to the matters specified in the contract. If the expert exceeds this authority and provides evaluations on matters not stipulated in the agreement, annulment of the report may be raised.

Conclusion and Evaluation

Exclusive evidentiary contracts provide a significant legal mechanism offering a fast and effective resolution in matters requiring technical or specialized assessment. Frequently used in commercial disputes, technical evaluations, and insurance-related matters, such contracts help reduce the courts’ workload and allow disputes to be resolved more swiftly

and by mutual agreement. However, certain points must be carefully considered regarding the validity and enforceability of such contracts. In particular, the parties must enter into the agreement voluntarily and the expert must act within the limits of their designated authority. Otherwise, the reports issued may be subject to annulment. In the future, expanding the scope of exclusive evidentiary contracts and introducing clearer regulations on their binding nature in practice may enable more effective use of this mechanism.

1 Şensöz, A. (2024). Types of Exclusive Evidentiary Contracts. Izmir Bar Association Journal, 89(2), 252–263.

2. Yeşilırmak, A. (2009). Arbitral Expertise as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Law Review, 11(2), 693–738.

By Tarik Guleryuz, Partner, and Aden Guler, Associate, Guleryuz & Partners

Erdem & Erdem has advised on the merger of Moka Odeme ve Elektronik Para Kurulus and Birlesik Odeme Hizmetleri ve Elektronik Para.

Moka is a payment service provider.

Birlesik is a licensed payment services and e-money company in Turkiye.

According to Erdem & Erdem, following receipt of all necessary approvals from the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkiye, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, and the Turkish Competition Authority, the merger was formally approved at the General Assembly meetings of both companies on March 24, 2025, and has now been officially registered. The merged entity will be jointly owned by Isbank Group and Oyak Group, each holding a 50% stake.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Erdem & Erdem informed CEE Legal Matters its team included Senior Partner Ercument Erdem, Partner Canan Doksat, Managing Associates Didem Adlig Sonmez and Ecem Susoy Uygun, and Associates Beyza Gunsel Surucu, Idil Yildirim Gunaydın, Sena Coskun, and Melis Uslu.

Aksan has advised Oxtech Ventures on its investment in Fazla.

According to Aksan, Fazla is dedicated to preventing waste generation at its source through technology-driven, holistic waste management solutions, and it seeks to integrate generated waste into the circular economy to deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits.

The Aksan team included Partner Sevki Ozgur Altindas, Senior Managing Attorney Oyku Okyay Unsal, and Associate Oguz Madran. 

Aksan did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

Keco Legal has advised Feraset on its USD 4.5 million investment round.

Feraset is an application development company based in Istanbul, focused on building AI-powered applications.

Keco Legal did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

Aksan has advised on the establishment of the PCP Capital Partners venture fund. 

PCP Capital Partners is a private equity firm focused on investments in Turkiye.

The Aksan team included Partner Sevki Ozgur Altindas and Senior Managing Attorney Oyku Okyay Unsal.

White & Case and its Turkish affiliate law firm GKC Partners have advised Morgan Stanley as the bookrunner on the Rule 144A/Reg S debut Eurobond issuance by GDZ Elektrik. Unsal advised GDZ Elektrik.

GDZ is Turkiye’s fourth-largest electricity distribution network and the exclusive operator in the Izmir and Manisa regions. Its principal shareholder, Aydem Holding, is an integrated energy group.

According to White & Case, the issuance, comprising an initial USD 400 million offering followed by a USD 119 million tap issuance consolidated into a single series, totals USD 519 million. The unsecured senior notes, due in 2029, are listed on Euronext Dublin.

In 2024, GKC Partners advised on Gdz Elektrik’s USD 400 million issuance (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 4, 2024).

The White & Case team in London included Partner Richard Pogrel and Associates Hashim Eltumi and Jack Adachi.

The GKC Partners team included Partner Ates Turnaoglu, Counsel Derin Altan, and Associate Muhammed Asula.

The Unsal team included Managing Partner Furkan Unsal, Partners Sait Baha Erol and Omer Faruk Senol, Senior Associate Ahmet Erturk, and Associate Zeynep Yurttutmus.

White & Case and its Turkish affiliate GKC Partners have advised Fingen on establishing a joint venture with Kalyon for the development of the Florentia Village designer outlet project. 

Fingen is an Italian investment firm that manages investments across private equity, real estate, and retail.

Kalyon is a Turkish conglomerate.

According to White & Case, the venture will focus on the design, construction, operation, and management of a luxury outlet shopping mall located within the Istanbul Airport development area.

The White & Case team included Partner Emre Ozsar and Associates Gokcen Durgut and Batuhan Akarsu.