Turunc has advised Lycian Capital Partners on its partnership with the Azimut Group. Karatas Yildiz Borovali reportedly advised the Azimut Group.
Lycian Capital is a private equity firm focused on the Turkish market.
The Azimut Group is a European independent asset manager with EUR 87 billion in assets.
Turunc’s team included Founding Partner Noyan Turunc, Managing Partner Kerem Turunc, Partners Esin Camlibel and Yasemin Erden, and Associate Naz Esen.
Dentons Turkish affiliate law firm Balcioglu Selcuk Ardiyok Keki Attorney Partnership has advised the Turkish Development Fund’s Technology and Innovation Fund on its investment in Mindsite. ASK Legal advised Mindsite.
The Turkish Development Fund contributes to national development through direct and indirect investments and sub-funds managed by experienced and specialized market professionals, according to its corporate website. The fund invests in new-generation ventures with the purpose of having a key role in the venture ecosystem.
Mindsite is an e-commerce fundamentals analytics platform.
BASEAK’s team was led by Partner Okan Arican and included Associates Dilruba Guldogan and Efe Ozen.
ASK Legal’s team included Partners Ihsan Can Asik and Ecem Gunduz.
Former Paksoy Counsels Okkes Sahan and Serdar Ildirar have been appointed as Partners with the firm.
According to Paksoy, Sahan’s practice “covers a broad range of equity and debt capital markets transactions.” Prior to joining the firm, he spent 14 years with the Capital Markets Board of Turkey as a Legal Counsel.
Ildirar specializes in mergers and acquisitions, corporate and commercial law, as well as capital markets work. Ildirar initially spent two and a half years with Paksoy as an Associate, between 2006 and 2008, before moving to Akkok Holding where he spent over two years as a Legal Counsel. He rejoined Paksoy in 2011 as a Counsel and has been with the firm since.
In its judgment dated June 28, 2022 and numbered 2018/6161, published in the Official Gazette dated December 20, 2022 and numbered 32049, the Constitutional Court ruled against the GSM operator that had rejected to provide phone line records upon the GSM owner’s request, on the grounds that as a result of such rejection, the right to effective remedy in connection with the right to request the protection of personal data within the framework of the right to respect for private life was violated.
The Court emphasized that the right to effective remedy was violated as the courts’ opinions on the dispute prevented the examination of the merits of the applicant’s request to access his personal data.
Background of the Decision
The applicant had requested his personal data from the communication company of which he was a customer, including internet data, log records, the IMEI of his phone and the date of his use of Hot Spot. The GSM operator refused the applicant’s request, arguing that such information was kept on record for five years and would only be shared if the court requests.
In the lawsuit filed by the applicant before the consumer court, the first instance court dismissed the case on the grounds that the subject matter of the declaratory action did not arise, and therefore there was no legal interest; in addition, since there was no damage, the conditions for non-pecuniary damages were not met. Subsequently, the applicant’s appeal application was rejected by the Regional Court of Appeal on the grounds that the information requested was not within the scope of the information that the company was obliged to share under the legislation.
Thereupon, the applicant claimed that he could not exercise his right to access his personal data, to learn whether these data were correct or not, and to correct the errors in the data, and claimed that his right to protection of personal data, right to respect for private life, right to legal remedy and property right were violated.
Court’s Decision
In its examination of the application, the Constitutional Court reminded that the State has a positive obligation to protect the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the protection of private life, to prevent ongoing interventions and to compensate for the damage incurred, and emphasized the need to provide effective administrative and judicial remedies to those who claim that their constitutional right has been violated, especially in terms of compensation for the damage.
In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasized the principle of transparency of data processing by stating that the right to request the protection of personal data pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Constitution includes the right to be informed about personal data concerning oneself, to access the data and to request the correction and deletion of such data, and to be informed about the purposes for which it is used, and that data subjects should be given the opportunity to access their personal data. In this respect, the Constitutional Court stated that the positive obligations of the State include not only establishing legislation for the protection of this right but also ensuring the effective functioning of the legal remedies provided for in the legislation.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court highlighted that the courts had made an evaluation that prevented the examination of the applicant’s request for access to his personal data on the merits during the trial process carried out within the scope of the current case, and also pointed out that the rejection of the applicant’s request for access to his personal data was not justified in accordance with the requirements of the right to request the protection of personal data stipulated in Article 20 of the Constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court concluded that it was not examined whether there was an obligation imposed on the communication company in accordance with the legislation to provide access to the requested data and ruled that the applicant’s right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life and the related right to effective remedy were violated on the grounds that the evaluations made by the relevant courts caused the existing and effective remedy to be ineffective.
Finally, it was decided to reject the applicant’s compensation claims and to send the file back to the court of the first instance for retrial, stating that a retrial would provide a sufficient remedy to eliminate the violation and its consequences.
By Nihat Ozbek, Partner, Guleryuz & Partners
Cetinkaya Law Firm Founding Partner Kaan Cetinkaya has joined Merzigo in Turkey as its Chief Legal Counsel.
Cetinkaya set up his eponymous law firm in October 2020. Before that, he was a Lawyer with SEOR Law Firm between 2019 and 2020. Earlier still, he was an Associate with GSI Goksu Safi Isik Attorney Partnership in 2018. He will continue to practice within Cetinkaya Law Firm in parallel to his new role.
“With my expertise in media and entertainment laws, social media platforms, filming regulations, and related licensing and regulatory requirements, I am happy to work with Merzigo as a Chief Legal Counsel which is the leading Digital Media and Content Distribution Company in global scale,” commented Cetinkaya.
Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.
Former Stryker Regional Legal Counsel Cankat Simsek has joined Oncel, Aydin & Uygun Attorney Partnership as a Partner.
Simsek had been with Stryker since February 2020. Before that, he was a Senior Counsel with Vertiv. Earlier still, he worked for Emerson Network Power, first joining the company in 2013 as a Contract Administrator & ITC Manager and becoming a Counsel & ITC Manager in 2015.
Before moving in-house, Simsek was an Associate with ELIG between 2012 and 2013 and with Cigdemtekin Dora Aranci Law Office between 2009 and 2012.
“I wanted to challenge myself in private practice on a wider range of clients after 10+ years of in-house experience and I am keen to provide results-oriented legal solutions in different sectors and industries,” Simsek commented.
Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.
The Communiqué on Increasing the Monetary Limits in Article 68 of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 and Article 6 of the Regulation on Consumer Arbitration Committees (“Communiqué”) was published in the Official Gazette dated 16.12.2022 and numbered 32045.
16.12.2022 tarihli Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanan tebliğ ile parasal sınır % 122,93 oranında artırılarak 01.01.2023 tarihinden itibaren 66.000,00 TL (altmış altı bin Türk Lirası) olarak belirlenmiştir.
By the communiqué published in the Official Gazette dated 16.12.2022, the monetary limit has been increased by %122.93 and determined as 66,000.00 TL (sixty-six thousand Turkish Lira) as of 01.01.2023.
In the same Official Gazette, the Communiqué on Administrative Fines to be Applied in 2023 According to Article 77 of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 has been published, and the amounts of administrative fines to be applied within the scope of the law in 2023 have been determined by increasing by %122.93.
Both Communiqués will come into force on 01.01.2023 and you can access all of the texts from the links below;
Communiqué on Increasing the Monetary Limits in the Consumer Protection Law and the Regulation on Consumer Arbitration Committees
By Gokturk Sahin, Senior Associate, and Ebrar Turan, Associate, Moral, Kinikoglu, Pamukkale, Kokenek
Aksan has advised APY Ventures on its investment in Roketfy.
APY Ventures is a venture capital firm focused on early-stage technology startups.
Roketfy is a data-driven smart tools and services platform designed for brands, small businesses, and entrepreneurs who want to increase their sales in e-commerce marketplaces.
Aksan’s team included Partner Alper Onar, Managing Attorney Emre Subasi, and Associate Lawyer Betul Colak.
Aksan did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.
Pursuant to the Regulation on Unlicensed Electricity Production in Electricity Markets [“Regulation”] [available in Turkish only], it is possible to generate electricity without being obliged to obtain a license / pre-license from the Energy Market Regulatory Authority [“EMRA”] or incorporate a company. Accordingly, the consumers can meet their electricity needs from their own generation facilities that are in the vicinity of the consumption points and sell the surplus electricity limited to the previous year’s consumption.
These regulations aim to utilize small-scale generation facilities to ensure the security of national economy and supply and thus reduce the amount of loss in the electricity grid by ensuring the efficient use of small-scale generation resources by enabling consumers to meet their electricity needs from their own generation facilities closest to the consumption point.
In particular, the installed power limit of a generation facility, which was initially 1 megawatt, was increased to 5 megawatts in 2019 in order to encourage renewable energy generation. As such, 1.9% of the electricity supply in 2020 was met from unlicensed generation facilities and 92% of such was generated via solar energy.
On the other hand, the Regulation was recently amended in 11.08.2022 through the Regulation Amending the Unlicensed Electricity Production in Electricity Markets [“Amendment Regulation”] [available in Turkish only], and accordingly, the surplus energy generation exceeding the previous year’s consumption will now be transferred to the Renewable Energy Resources Support Mechanism [the “YEKDEM”] free of charge. In this article we will explain the unlicensed electricity generation in Turkey, together with the latest amendments to the Regulation.
How Is Unlicensed Electricity Generation Carried Out?
Unlike licensed electricity generation, a real person or legal entity who wants to generate unlicensed electricity must be an electricity consumer, i.e., must have at least one electricity subscription. This is due to the purpose of unlicensed electricity generation being that consumers are to meet their own electricity needs from their own generation facilities.
Generation facilities that can be established without having to comply with the obligation to obtain a license and incorporate a company are generation facilities based on renewable energy resources with an installed capacity of up to 5 megawatts as per the Presidential Decree published in the Official Gazette dated 10.05.2019 numbered 30770 [available in Turkish only], and other facilities specified in Article 5 of the Regulation.
In order to connect said-generation facilities to the distribution system, a connection application must be submitted to the grid operator with the information and documents required for the connection. The application is then reviewed based on the submitted documents by the commission within the first 20 days of the following month and the results are published on the website of the grid operator the following day. Applications that are complete are examined technical-wise within the first 20 days of the following month. After technical examination, the applications are finalized according to a priority assessment. For applications subject to connection restriction, the facility carrying out generation of renewable energy is a top priority. The results of the technical examination are also published on the website of the grid operator.
For a wind-based generation facility, the application is additionally forwarded to the General Directorate of Renewable Energy [the “GDRE”]. The GDRE completes the technical examination within 30 days.
Upon the application of the relevant person within one month after the technical examination, a call letter to the connection agreement is notified to the applicant. If an application is not made within this period, the applicant’s positive examination results automatically become invalid.
A period of 180 days is given to those who are sent a call letter to the connection agreement. Also, an application to the administration must be made within 90 days if the projects require an Environmental Impact Assessment [“EIA”] report. If the applicant submits all relevant documents to the grid operator within 180 days, a connection agreement is signed with the grid operator within 30 days. Applicants who fail to obtain the relevant documents within the 180-day period shall be granted an additional 180-day period by the grid operator if they certify that they have made the necessary applications on time. If no application is made within the period, the applicant loses the right to sign a connection agreement.
Subsequently, the person establishing the generation facility notifies the grid operator that the generation facility to be connected to the grid complies with the conditions in the Regulation and the connection agreement. The grid operator verifies this with a signed report within 15 days and an application for acceptance is carried out by submitting such report to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. The acceptance process must be completed within one year from the date of signature of the connection agreement if the grid operator’s distribution transformer is used.
Accepted generation facilities must sign the system usage contract within one month following the start of commercial operation of the facility. After this stage, the system can be powered on as of the date specified in the system usage contract by the generation facilities.
What Does the Amendment Regulation Bring?
The most important and controversial amendment introduced by the Amending Regulation is that the persons who are entitled to receive a call letter for a connection agreement as a result of the applications made after 12.05.2019 will be able to sell their surplus electricity limited to the total consumption amount of the associated consumption facility. The surplus energy generated above this amount is transferred to YEKDEM as a free contribution. There was no such limitation before, and facilities were able to sell all surplus electricity.
In other words, real persons or legal entities will now be able to sell only the corresponding amount of their surplus electricity to the total electricity consumption of the associated consumption facility in the previous accounting year. In the absence of consumption data for the previous year, the average of the current monthly consumption will be taken as a basis. The amendment will not apply to generation facilities associated with consumption facilities in residential subscriber groups with an installed capacity of 50 kilowatts or less.
The EMRA states that the aim of the latest amendments is for consumers to obtain the energy they consume from solar energy, therefore such an amendment was necessary because the legislation has been abused. The EMRA further argues that all consumers will benefit from this situation, as the fee paid to the distribution company and the fee paid when surplus energy is fed into the grid will now not be paid, and surplus production exceeding the consumption will be taken as a free contribution.
By Yasemin Keskin, Senior Associate, and M.R. Cafer Koc, Legal Intern, Guleryuz & Partners
Former Baker McKenzie Partner Mine Guner Sunay has joined Kenaroglu IP as a Partner, to start on January 1, 2023.
According to the firm, Sunay specializes in IP and is well-versed in IP-related disputes and IP-driven M&A deals. Prior to joining Kenaroglu, Sunay was a Partner and the Head of the IP practice with the Esin Attorney Partnership, Baker McKenzie’s affiliate law firm in Istanbul, where she spent 11 years. Before Esin, Sunay spent over a year as an Attorney with Semiz Attorneys at Law. She began her career with the Kahveci Law Office in 2010.
“Mine is broadly recognized as an exceptional IP lawyer,” Kenaroglu stated. “We truly believe that having Mine in our team will add great value to our dedication to providing top-notch legal services to our clients.”