Category: Turkiye

  • Cankat Simsek Joins Stryker as Regional Legal Counsel

    Cankat Simsek Joins Stryker as Regional Legal Counsel

    Turkish lawyer Cankat Simsek, the former Senior Counsel at Vertiv, has joined Stryker as Regional Counsel covering CEE and Turkey.

    Stryker is a Fortune 500 medical technologies firm. The company’s products include implants used in joint replacement and trauma surgeries; surgical equipment and surgical navigation systems; endoscopic and communications systems; patient handling and emergency medical equipment; neurosurgical, and neurovascular and spinal devices.

    Simsek is a 2007 graduate of Ankara University. Before joining Stryker he spent over a year in-house with Gocay Insaat, two and a half years with Cigdemtekin Dora Aranci, over a year with ELIG, three and a half years in-house with Emerson, and three and a half years with Vertiv.

    Simsek reports that he joined Stryker as “a new challenge in a totally different sector and … a very important experience for me to grow.

  • Serra Haviyo and Yasemin Koyuncu Promoted to Partner at Gur Law Firm

    Serra Haviyo and Yasemin Koyuncu Promoted to Partner at Gur Law Firm

    Serra Haviyo and Yasemin Koyuncu have been promoted to Partner at the Gur Law Firm.

    Haviyo, who has been with the Gur  Law Firm since 2014, specializes in corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, real estate and construction transactions, tenancy law, law of contracts, business, and labor law. According to the Gur Law Firm, “she has advised and assisted both local and foreign companies to establish joint ventures, drafted and negotiated share purchase agreements, shareholders agreements, subscription agreements, joint venture, and partnership agreements conducted legal due diligence processes and prepared numerous commercial agreements. She also has broad experience in advising different companies of multinational brands in the process of their implementation in Turkey and incorporating any type of company, branch and liaison offices.” Haviyo graduated from the University of Koc in 2009, and prior to joining Gur, she practiced law for over two years with the Postacioglu Law Office and almost two and a half years with the Borbay Law Office.

    Koyuncu, who been with the firm since 2017, specializes in IP matters including copyrights, unfair competition, and other related areas of practice such as mass media, consumer protection, advertising, and competition law, as well as advising on both contentious and non-contentious matters including implementing IP protection and enforcement strategies and representing clients before the Ankara IP courts. She also works in IP enforcement where she supervises and drafts oppositions and appeals on trademark and design applications before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. According to the Gur Law Firm, “with almost 9-years of experience on IP, Yasemin has been involved in numerous anti-counterfeiting campaigns and she represents foreign, multinational, and Turkish clients from various business sectors including food and beverage, fashion, cosmetics, textile, electronics, hotel and tourism, pharmaceuticals, stationary on all aspects of Intellectual Property and regulatory matters.” She graduated from the Marmara University School of Law and holds LL.M.s from both the Istanbul Bilgi University and the University of Maastricht. Before she joined Gur, she practiced law for four years with Deris Intellectual Property Attorneys and almost a year with Moroglu Arseven.

  • Bezen & Partners Successful for Turkish Football Player Omer Kerim Ali Rıza in Dispute With Turkish Football Federation

    Bezen & Partners Successful for Turkish Football Player Omer Kerim Ali Rıza in Dispute With Turkish Football Federation

    Bezen & Partners has successfully represented Turkish football player Omer Kerim Ali Riza in a dispute with the Turkish Football Federation before The European Court of Human Rights.

    According to Bezen & Partners, the ECHR decided that the Turkish Football Federation had violated Article 6/1 (Right to a Fair Hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights in its decision rendered in respect of Ali Riza, a former Turkish professional football player.

    In its reasoning, the ECHR found that the TFF’s Board of Directors, which had always largely consisted of members or executives of football clubs, had too strong an influence over the organization and functioning of the Arbitration Committee. The ECHR also ruled that the governing legislation of the TFF did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect members of the Arbitration Committee from outside influence.

    The Bezen & Partners team consisted of Managing Partner Serdar Bezen and Senior Associate Zekican Samli.

  • The Rise of the Flexible Workplace

    The Rise of the Flexible Workplace

    The footprint of flexible workplaces (i.e., co-working spaces) continues to expand as more and more global businesses embrace the modern workforce and the increasing options for work arrangements. Turkey has joined the flexible workplace trend.

    Both global businesses and remote workers such as freelancers and start-up entrepreneurs find flexible workplaces attractive, as these spaces provide cost-efficiency, wider networking opportunities, and increased productivity.

    Flexible workplaces afford global businesses the flexibility they need in the current dynamic economic climate. We are witnessing technological advancements moving at an unprecedented pace and transforming how and where work is done. 

    Nature of Flexible Workplace Agreements

    As a co-working operation is a combination of lease, services, and even hospitality, there is no standard description for the agreements executed with the operators of such workplaces. In Turkey, operators refrain from defining these agreements as leases to avoid the mandatory lease provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, which have a pro-tenant approach. Instead, operators usually attempt to classify their flexible workplace agreements as “membership contracts” or “service contracts,” and to describe the users/occupiers of a co-working site as “members” or “customers.”

    However, users and occupiers can range from a single self-employed freelancer needing just a desk to an international company that requires a dedicated room or office space for a medium-to-longer term across multiple jurisdictions. 

    For example, for longer-term arrangements of dedicated spaces, users/occupiers seek membership/services contracts that (i) provide them with greater control of the space, and (ii) protect their usage rights. Such contracts usually evolve into traditional lease agreements.

    Application of the Lease Provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations to Flexible Workplace Agreements

    The Turkish Code of Obligations defines a lease agreement as an agreement whereby the lessor allows the lessee to use a specific property for a specific period and the lessee undertakes to pay a fee or rent in return. The flexible workplace concept is quite new in the Turkish market and is not regulated by any specific legislation.

    As explained above, flexible workplace agreements have the nature of a mixed contract. The expectation and intention of both the operator and the user in entering into a flexible workplace agreement is different than a traditional lease agreement, since traditional lease agreements limit the parties’ flexibility.

    Users without a dedicated space – such as individual self-employed freelancers – usually pay for access to the flexible workplace to benefit from the services provided by the operator (such as Internet, printer, kitchen facilities, meeting room, reception, etc.), while utilizing a free space (desk, chair, etc.) to work. As this type of arrangement does not meet the conditions described under the Turkish Code of Obligations, we believe that the users may not be protected by it. Instead, this arrangement is similar to “members club” or “gym” memberships.

    However, where the operator allows the user/occupier to use a specific property for a specific period in return for a fee, as described under the Turkish Code of Obligations, it can be argued that flexible workplace arrangements offering a dedicated space may be deemed a lease agreement.

    Considering these facts and the complexity of flexible workplace agreements, it is difficult to come to a decisive conclusion as to whether or not the flexible workplace agreements are subject to the lease provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations. 

    The number of co-working spaces are increasing in Turkey, and global businesses prefer flexible workplaces over offices. As the application of the Turkish Code of Obligations is currently uncertain, the number of potential disputes arising from flexible workplace agreements may increase in the future. In the absence of specific regulations focused on co-working space arrangements, court precedent and scholars’ opinions will provide guidance on the interpretation of these agreements. Thus, time will show how users/occupiers’ usage rights, confidential information, trade secrets, data privacy, brands, and talent will be protected while operating in these shared environments.

    By Birturk Aydin, Partner, and Kerem Kuscu, Senior Associate, Esin Attorney Partnership

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Paksoy and Winston & Strawn Advise Danfoss on Global Acquisition of Eaton’s Hydraulics Business

    Paksoy and Winston & Strawn Advise Danfoss on Global Acquisition of Eaton’s Hydraulics Business

    Paksoy has worked alongside global counsel Winston & Strawn in advising Danfoss A/S, a Danish manufacturer of heat transfer solutions, on its USD 3.3 billion acquisition of Eaton Corporation’s hydraulics business. Gibson & Dunn reportedly advised Eaton on the transaction, which remains subject to regulatory approval and is expected to close by the end of 2020.

    The Paksoy team included Partner Elvan Aziz and Senior Associate Hazal Korkmaz.

    The Winston & Strawn team included Partners Neely Agin, Uri Doron, Robert Heller, Eleni Kouimelis, Scott Landau, Jared Manes, Christopher Monahan, Conor Reidy, Becky Troutman, and Douglas Yeager and Counsel Francesca Guerrero.

    Editor’s note: On August 9, 2021, Buzescu Ca informed CEE Legal Matters that it had acted as Romanian advisor to Danfoss. The global deal closed on August 2, 2021. The firm’s team included Partners Adrian Tomescu and Peter Buzescu.

  • Sinem Mermer Joins Boden as Head of Technology and Innovation

    Sinem Mermer Joins Boden as Head of Technology and Innovation

    Sinem Mermer has joined Turkey’s Boden Law Firm as Partner and Head of the firm’s new Technology and Innovation Practice.

    According to the firm, Boden’s Technology and Innovation Practice will aim “to provide extensive and technical legal services whilst our clients are taking steps towards adapting their businesses to the ever-changing economic landscape.”

    According to Boden, Mermer “has focused her practice on international matters – be it contracts or dispute settlement.  She advises corporate clients from various sectors such as automotive, healthcare, hospitality, energy, construction, infrastructure, logistics, banking and finance, media and entertainment, manufacturing and distribution on fintech, data and automation, AI, biotech and other emerging technologies. She assists clients in forming strategic alliances, handling compliance matters, international growth, and drafting, negotiating and managing contracts. Further, she actively manages complex international legal projects and consults clients on merger and acquisition matters involving venture capital firms. Understanding the value of big data and new trends of regulating data protection, Sinem provides legal advice to corporations on data collection, processing and sharing, and on issues in connection with multi-jurisdictional cybersecurity matters.”

    Mermer holds an LL.B. from Istanbul Bilgi University and an LL.M. from Fribourg University in Switzerland. Prior to joining Boden she spent two years with Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, a year with Schellenberg Wittmer, and four years as a solo practitioner.

  • Necati Karabayir Joins SOCAR as Compliance Director in Turkey

    Necati Karabayir Joins SOCAR as Compliance Director in Turkey

    Necati Karabayir as has joined SOCAR Turkey as its new Group Compliance Director.

    Karabayir joins SOCAR (The State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic), which has been operating in Turkey since 2008, from the Vaillant Group, where he has worked for over six years as the Head of Legal & Compliance / Country General Counsel. Prior to that, he was a Senior Legal Counsel for Siemens between 2007 and 2013. Earlier still, he worked for Guner Law Firm as a Legal Counsel between 2006 and 2007.

    Karabayir is a graduate of the Marmara University and holds an LLM from the Istanbul University.

    The announcement of Karabayir’s hiring follows shortly after the news that Begum Yilmaz had also joined SOCAR Turkey as Senior Compliance Specialist (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 17, 2020).

  • Access to Wikipedia Reinstated in Turkey

    ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law, acting as outside counsel for Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (“Wikimedia”), has secured an affirmative decision from the Turkish Constitutional Court in the matter of an universal access ban on the Wikipedia website (www.wikipedia.org) in Turkey.

    The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the claims of violation of freedom of expression due to the access ban on the entire Wikipedia website was issued on December 26, 2019, and published in the Official Gazette on January 15, 2020. The Constitutional Court concluded, by a majority vote, that the access ban of the entire Wikipedia website was unconstitutional.

    Background of the Case

    The Turkish Information Technologies and Communications Authority (“ICTA”) access banned the entirety of Wikipedia on April 29, 2017, based on the contents of certain articles on state-sponsored terrorism and foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil war, which had been published at two different Wikipedia URL addresses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Turkey and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Turkey), and which were deemed to be of a threatening nature to Turkey’s internal and external national security and accused of disturbing the public order. 

    The objection filed against the access ban decision was rejected on the grounds that the contents constituted an unjust and groundless attack on the reputation and dignity of the Republic of Turkey on international platforms and within the country, by creating the impression that Turkey was one of the initiators of the civil war in Syria and by implying that Turkey was a country that supported and provided financial assistance and weapons to terrorist organizations.

    After the access ban decision became final and binding, Wikimedia, represented by ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law, filed an individual application before the Turkish Constitutional Court on May 9, 2017. The Constitutional Court remained silent on the issue for more than two years. During this period, Wikimedia also filed an individual application before the European Court of Human Rights.

    The Constitutional Court Decision

    In the session held on December 26, 2019, the Constitutional Court’s General Chamber first evaluated whether there had been interference with the right of freedom of expression, and whether such interference constituted a violation, by assessing the case in terms of legality, legitimacy and necessity, i.e., by evaluating whether the grounds of the interference decision had legal basis, legitimate aims or could be deemed necessary in a democratic society.

    In terms of the access ban’s legality, the Constitutional Court stated that the legal basis of the interference was only indicated as “Article 8/A of the Law No. 5651” in the ICTA’s decision, without further elaboration. The Constitutional Court also noted that Article 8/A(1) did not include protecting “the dignity of the government” among the potential grounds that would allow an access ban, and accordingly, found such interference to be arbitrary.

    As for the legitimacy question, the Constitutional Court pointed out that an interference could be deemed to have a legitimate aim if its purpose was the protection of values and interests under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution; however, in the matter at hand, the aim of the decision was hardly discernable, and furthermore, as with the prior discussion of legality, it was not unproblematic. The Constitutional Court further discussed the legitimate aim within the scope of the necessity of a democratic society, and, referring to one of its recent decisions, stated that the ICTA should interfere with contents on the Internet only when it is necessary to protect the public interest by taking prompt action. The Constitutional Court also stated that interfering with the freedom of expression without proper justification and without consideration of the criteria determined by the Constitutional Court, would be considered to constitute a violation of Article 26 of the Constitution, and further declared that none of these criteria (nor the existence of a non-delayable condition) had been duly presented or fulfilled in the subject access ban decision at hand.

    The Constitutional Court provided additional analysis on the contents of the Wikipedia articles that had resulted in the access ban decision, and clarified that all of the claims in these articles were based on international news articles, which, again, were all accessible through the Internet. The Constitutional Court noted that the contents included the public statements of well-known politicians, and emphasized that some of the claims had referenced no sources and even those that had been cited were questionable.

    The Constitutional Court also observed that Wikimedia writers and editors had made significant changes in the relevant contents and removed the majority of the information that was not verified or corroborated. It further pointed out that the access ban decision not only violated Wikimedia’s rights, but also the rights of the Wikipedia users in Turkey.

    Consequently, the Constitutional Court determined that (i) the interference of the ICTA had been disproportionate, (ii) Article 26 of the Constitution had been violated, and (iii) the case should be sent to the first-instance court for a retrial, in order to remove the results of the violation of the right of freedom of expression and resolve the case by following the Constitutional Court’s decision.

    On the other hand, six out of the sixteen judges on the Constitutional Court disagreed with the majority decision, and issued a dissenting opinion which stated that certain things that are published on the Internet might violate personal rights, or cause or abet cyber-bullying, prostitution, child exploitation, fraud, racism and terrorism, and therefore, an access ban on some online content might be considered necessary and appropriate. In their dissenting opinion, the judges argued that since the content in the relevant Wikipedia articles indicated that Turkey was one of the countries which had initiated the civil war in Syria, and suggested that it had helped terrorist organizations and conducted petroleum trade with them, the access ban decision should be considered as necessary in a democratic society.

    Reinstating Access to Wikipedia in Turkey

    The ICTA lifted the access ban on Wikipedia on January 15, 2020, upon the order of the Ankara 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, per the Constitutional Court’s decision. After more than two and a half years, access to Wikipedia has finally been reinstated in Turkey.

    Wikimedia’s case before the European Court of Human Rights, which had been initiated in May 2019 regarding this universal access ban in the absence of a decision by the Turkish Constitutional Court at the time, is currently still pending before the Court.

    By Gonenc Gurkaynak, Partner, Ceren Yildiz, Partner, Noyan Utkan, Associate, and Ekin Ince, Associate, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

  • Quarterly Update on Trade Defense Cases in Turkey – 2019 – 4th Quarter

    The authority to initiate dumping or subsidy examinations, upon complaint or, where necessary, ex officio, has been given from the Ministry of Economy to the Ministry of Trade (“Ministry”). Within the scope of this authority, the Ministry announces its decisions with the communiqués published on the Official Gazette.

    During the last quarter of 2019, the Ministry has initiated a number of anti-circumvention and expiry review investigations.

    Below is a bullet-point summary of the status of the trade defense cases initiated, concluded or amended during the last quarter of 2019:

    – Communiqué No. 2019/28 dated October 24th, 2019 concerning imports of glass fiber reinforcement articles originating from Kingdom of Thailand: 

    Currently, anti-dumping duties are imposed on the imports of glass fiber reinforcement articles (except molds and cases of pipe and tube insulation; and glass fiber shaped as perforated discs used in grinding and cutting of discs) classified under the CN Codes 7019.11, 7019.12, 7019.19, 7019.31, 7019.90.00.10.00 and 7019.90.00.30.00 originating from People’s Republic of China as per the Communiqué No. 2016/48.  With the Communiqué No. 2019/28 dated October 24th, 2019, the Ministry initiated an anti-circumvention investigation regarding the imports of glass fiber reinforcement articles originating from Kingdom of Thailand.

    – Communiqué No. 2019/29 dated October 24th, 2019 concerning imports of certain products originating from the Republic of Korea and Republic of North Macedonia: 

    Currently, anti-dumping duties are imposed on the imports of products classified as “hinges (except those used in civil aircrafts; and in means of transport, classified under the CN Code 8302.10.00.00.12)” under the CN Code 8302.10, “fixed hangers, hat-pegs, brackets and similar fixtures” under the CN Code 8302.50.00.00.00 and “others,  for furniture (except those used in civil aircrafts and seat shock absorbers)” under the CN Code 8302.42.00.00.00 originating from People’s Republic of China as per the Communiqué No. 2004/3. After the completion of several investigations, the Ministry decided to include (i) Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan (see Communiqué No. 2008/29), (ii) Spain, Italy, Greece and Thailand (see Communiqué No. 2017/21) and (i) India (see Communiqué No. 2019/16) within the scope of the measures. With the Communiqué No. 2019/29 dated October 24th, 2019, the Ministry initiated an anti-circumvention investigation regarding imports of the foregoing products originating from Republic of Korea and Republic of North Macedonia.

    – Communiqué No. 2019/30 dated November 8th, 2019 concerning imports of strips manufactured from polyethylene and polypropylene or woven fabrics thereof (only woven tarpaulin) originating from the People’s Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

    The Ministry initiated an expiry review investigation in relation to the current dumping measures on imports of strips manufactured from polyethylene and polypropylene or woven fabrics thereof (only woven tarpaulin) classified under the CN Codes 3921.90.60.00.11, 3921.90.60.00.13, 3926.90.92.00.19 and 3926.90.97.90.18 originating from People’s Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    Communiqué No. 2019/32 dated November 9th, 2019 concerning the imports of certain products (containing dioctyl terephthalate)) originating from the Republic of Korea: 

    Currently, anti-dumping duties are imposed to the imports of products classified under the CN Code 2917.39.95.90.13 originating from the Republic of Korea. With the Communiqué No. 2019/32 dated November 9th, 2019, the Ministry announced its decision upon the completion of the anti-circumvention investigation regarding imports of the products classified as “others” (only those containing dioctyl terephthalate) under the CN Code 3812.20.90.00.00 due to its impairing effect on the anti-dumping duties imposed on the imports of products classified under the CN Code 2917.39.95.90.13. Accordingly, the Ministry decided to apply anti-dumping duties at the same rates as those imposed on products classified under the CN Code 2917.39.95.90.13 originating from Republic of Korea, at rates of 7.99% of the CIF cost for LG Chem Ltd and 12.57% of the CIF cost for other importers.

    – Communiqué No. 2019/31 dated November 16th, 2019 concerning imports of yarn and ropes out of vulcanized rubber originating from Malaysia: 

    The Ministry initiated an expiry review investigation in relation to the current dumping measures on imports of yarn and ropes out of vulcanized rubber classified under the CN Code 4007.00 originating from Malaysia.

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    By Gonenc Gurkaynak, Partner, Ceren Yildiz, Partner, Sinem Ugur, Associate, and Nazli Gurun, Associate, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

  • Erdem Atilla Becomes Head of Dispute Resolution at Pekin & Pekin

    Erdem Atilla Becomes Head of Dispute Resolution at Pekin & Pekin

    Senior Partner Erdem Atilla has been appointed Head of Dispute Resolution at Pekin & Pekin in Turkey.

    Atilla joined Pekin & Pekin immediately after graduating from the Galatasaray University in Istanbul in 2009. He was promoted to Partner in May 2018 and became Senior Partner in July 2019.

    Pekin & Pekin’s Dispute Resolution Department consists, Atilla reports, of two senior partners (including him), one partner, one senior associate, one associate, and two trainees.

    According to Atilla, “commercial lawsuits constitute a field where I can claim expertise. However, in Pekin & Pekin’s Dispute Resolution Department, we do not have sub-departments, meaning that I have been assisting clients in civil and criminal proceedings, mediation/settlement negotiations, intellectual property cases, employment cases, fraud & ethics investigations, administrative lawsuits, as well as arbitration proceedings. We also do advisory work by providing the clients with legal opinion and legal advice as per Turkish law.”

    Atilla quotes Pekin & Pekin Founding Partner Ahmed Pekin as saying, “I compare litigators to gladiators of Rome. There is an arena (courtroom) and there are gladiators fighting (attorneys). You either live or die (win or lose the case). However, if you die as a gladiator, you die once; but if you lose the case as a lawyer, you cannot escape that easily!” According to Atilla, “I have always believed in the accuracy of this metaphor from the very beginning of my career at Pekin & Pekin back in 2009, and I believe it now, after ten years of litigation experience when I became Head of the Dispute Resolution Team where I used to work as a trainee once.”

    “Apart from the legal issues, being a Team Leader is of course not only about your legal skills, Atilla told CEE Legal Matters. “What makes you a true leader, is in fact your soft skills. You must invest time in the role, influence your team to achieve its objectives, lead by example, reward the good and learn from the bad and, last but not least, communicate, communicate, communicate, etc.

    After all, leading a Dispute Resolution Team is often challenging, but also rewarding if you do it right. Heading up a team that’s working well and delivering results is undoubtedly a great feeling, so I’m ready to enjoy it!”