Category: Turkiye

Akol Law has advised Paket Mutfak on its USD 3 million seed investment round from Nokta Yatirim, Kadri Samsunlu, and Ersan Ozturk, alongside existing investors. The Surmen Law Firm reportedly advised Nokta Yatirim.

Paket Mutfak is a food-tech start-up that develops delivery-focused food brands and operates ghost kitchens.

Nokta Yatirim is the venture investment arm of Nokta Yatirim Holding. According to Akol, this round “brings Paket Mutfak’s total raise to date to USD 4.3 million.”

Akol’s team included Partner Tugce Tatari and Lawyers Pinar Babaoglu and Dicle Yagmur Kilic.

Ilker & Colak has advised the Yildizlar Group on its collaboration with Enercon for the high-volume capacity extension project for the Gulpinar Wind Farm.

According to the firm, the project aims to increase Gulpinar Wind Farm’s capacity to 196.24 megawatts.

The Ankara-headquartered Yildizlar Group specializes in construction and contracting and also invests in energy projects.

Enercon is a German company that manufactures wind turbines, and also specializes in rotor blade design, control technology, and grid connection technology.

“The trust-based cooperation that has been growing between Enercon and the Yildizlar Group since recent years has found its continuation in this project again and the Yildizlar Group, which was the first investor of the E-138 EP3 platform in Turkey, continues to be a leader with its preference and first high-volume investment in the E-160 EP5 platform in Turkey,” Enercon announced.

Turkish lawyer Asli Yildiz has joined S4 Capital Group as its Head of Legal – Global Privacy in London.

Yildiz joins from DMA UK, where she served as the Head of Legal since joining in 2018 (reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 4, 2018).

Before that, she was a Data Privacy & Cyber Security Lawyer with Taylor Wessing between 2017 and 2018 and a Legal Counsel with Canon EMEA between 2010 and 2017. Earlier still, she worked for Kirkland & Ellis, Acacia International Lawyers, BT, and Nasic & Co.

“I am thrilled to join S4 Capital Group as their Global Head of Privacy,” commented Yildiz. “As using data & prioritizing privacy is the core of our services, I am looking forward to further growing our business in every service we deliver. S4 Capital with its 30+ companies is the coolest digital-first marketing and advertising services company. It connects content, data, and digital media and technology services and produces websites, games, films, social media content, digital advertising campaigns, data and measurement solutions, and more… Follow my/our journey as it is going to be an exciting one!”

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 [“TCC”] stipulates that the carrier shall be liable for the damages caused by the loss, damage or delay of delivery of commodity within the period from the takeover of commodity for carriage to delivery of it. The legal nature of the carrier’s liability in this context is strict liability. This means that even if the carrier has no fault in incurrence of damages, they should still be liable. However, this liability is not absolute. As a matter of fact, the carrier can be released from liability on the grounds set out in the law or by proving that they have taken the greatest care.

Release from Liability in General

The general reason for the carrier to be released from liability is that loss, damage or delay is caused by the reasons of which results can’t be prevented or avoided by carrier despite taking greatest care. At this point, the carrier is required to present evidence of release demonstrating that he took all necessary precautions and exercised the utmost care to prevent both the occurrence of the event that caused the damage and its consequences. As it can be understood from here, the party with the burden of proof is the carrier.

Specific Cases for Release from Liability

In some cases, the balance of interest is disrupted due to the increase in the ordinary risk undertaken by the carrier. Therefore, in order to re-establish the balance of interests in cases where such risks arise, special reasons that remove the carrier’s liability for loss, damage or delay in delivery are regulated under the TCC. These cases, which are also referred to as probable causes of nonliability, are: use of an open-top vehicle or loading on deck in accordance with contract or usage, insufficient packaging or labeling of commodity made by consignor, processing, loading and unloading of commodity by consignor or consignee, nature of commodity causing it to be easily damaged, livestock carriage and provisions of the Customs Code No. 4458 and those stipulated in other laws and regulations which justify the release of carrier from liability.

Here, the carrier’s burden of proof has been significantly alleviated. Except for the extraordinary loss or damage arising from the use of an open-top vehicle or loading on deck, in the cases in which it is possible to correlate between any loss and a reason provided in the law, that loss is deemed to have been caused by this reason. After the carrier presents prima facie evidence of the existence of a special ground, they are presumed to be non-liable, and it is on the consignor to prove otherwise. The consignor may rely on the exceptions set by the law, or they may demand partial compensation for the damage proving that the carrier is contributorily negligent.

The first exception that the consignor can rely on to hold the carrier liable is the breach of consignor’s particular instructions during carriage by open-top vehicle or loading onto the deck. Accordingly, the consignor can prevent the carrier from release of liability by proving that the specific instructions have not been followed.

Another exception arises when the carrier has a protection obligation. If the carrier is obliged to preserve the commodity against heat, cold, temperature changes, some environmental effects such as humidity and jolting, then they may eliminate their liability only if all required measures have been taken according to the nature of commodity, suitable equipment has been used and special instructions have been complied with. Otherwise, the carrier cannot be released from liability based on the delicate nature of commodity. The Court of Cassation is of the opinion that the transport bill should include a reservation stating the delicate nature of the commodity to avoid proof issues in this regard.

In addition, nonliability based on livestock carriage is only possible if the carrier takes all required measures and acts in accordance with special instructions. In case the consignor proves otherwise, the carrier can be held liable.

Finally, it should be emphasized that the carrier cannot be released from liability if loss, damage, or delay results from an incident of vehicle or from the fault of the leaser, its representatives, or employees.

Conclusion

It is crucial to avoid placing an undue burden on the carrier and hold them liable for events that cannot be objectively prevented in carriage activities that by their very nature contain a variety of risks. In line with this, these regulations guarantee the establishment and maintenance of a balance of interests between the parties to the carriage agreement.

By Nihat Ozbek, Partner, and Baris Ulker, Senior Associate, Guleryuz & Partners

Former Loomis Turkey Legal Affairs & Compliance Manager Nihat Ozbek has joined Guleryuz Partners as a Partner.

According to the firm, Ozbek specializes in transportation, employment, unions, litigation, and corporate legal matters.

Before joining Guleryuz Partners, Ozbek spent over four years with Loomis Turkey. Prior to that, he spent six months as the Legal Counsel of Tamek Holding and a year and a half as Head of Legal with Hitay Holding, between 2015 and 2016. Earlier, he spent almost six years as a Senior Lawyer with Tofas, after spending a year as a Lawyer with Akleasing, between 2008 and 2009.

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

Bezen & Partners has advised the EBRD on its EUR 75 million loan to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality for the construction of the Goztepe-Atasehir-Umraniye metro line in Istanbul.

“I am delighted to sign the first EBRD Green Cities project in Istanbul, supporting sustainable urban mobility, reducing journey times, traffic congestion, and air pollution, and improving the quality of life of its citizens,” EBRD Sustainable Infrastructure Group Managing Director Nandita Parshad commented. “This project also promotes gender and inclusion through a learning program for 400 young people at the Istanbul Metro Company and the development of an Equal Opportunities Action Plan. Istanbul is one of the largest cities in the EBRD Green Cities program of now over 50 cities and we look forward to working on many more projects to support the City’s ambition to make it an even greener and more liveable city.”

The B&P team was led by Partner Banu Bolukemini and included Associate Elvin Erbilgin.

The main obligation of the transport and logistics companies, i.e., carrier in contracts of carriage is to take the commodity from one place to another and deliver it to the consignee. The carrier is obliged to deliver the commodity in the form and condition in which it was received. Therefore, the carrier also undertakes the obligation to preserve the commodity under its control while performing the contract of carriage.

The liability of the carrier for the damage that occur in the commodity due to the failure of the carrier to fulfill its obligation to preserve is regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 [‘TCC’’]. Accordingly, the carrier will be liable for the loss, damage or delay in the delivery of the commodity during the period between the receipt of the commodity for carriage and its delivery.

Liability for Loss or Damage

Loss may occur in the form of a quantitative decrease or complete disappearance of the commodity. Loss may arise from actual situations or legal restrictions. The important point here is that non-delivery to the consignee should be permanent; the temporary non-delivery of the commodity is not considered as loss. Burning, stealing or seizing the commodity by the competent authorities are some examples of loss.

Damage, on the other hand, is defined by the Court of Cassation as “any kind of material deterioration that occurs in the transported commodity and causes the value of the commodity to decrease”. In case of loss, all or a part of the commodity become undeliverable to the consignee and the commodity loses its economic value entirely. In case of damage, there is a decrease in the economic value of the commodity. Breaking, rusting, freezing, getting wet of goods are several examples of damage.

The carrier’s liability for loss, damage or late delivery of the commodity commences when they receive the commodity and ends when they deliver the commodity. However, if the event that caused the loss or damage occurred during transportation, and if the loss or damage arises after delivery, the carrier will also be liable for such loss or damage.

The carrier’s liability for loss or damage to commodity is a strict liability. In order for the carrier to be liable for loss or damage, it is sufficient that there is a causal link between the act that breaches the obligation to preserve and the harm. That being said, the carrier may be released from liability on the grounds set out in the TCC or by proving that they have taken the greatest care.

Liability for Late Delivery

The carrier will also be liable for the damages arising from the late delivery of the goods. A distinction should be made here as to whether the delivery date is stipulated in the contract or not. If the parties have agreed on the delivery date in the contract, the delivery not made on such date will be considered as late delivery. If the delivery date is not agreed in the contract, first the delivery date will have to be determined. The TCC sets out that in cases where the delivery date is not agreed, the carrier is liable for delivering the goods within a reasonable time. Here, the reasonable time will be determined according to the specifics of each concrete case.

In order for the carrier to be liable for late delivery, a harm must have occurred due to late delivery and such harm must be proven. Unlike the cases of loss and damage, the harm due to late delivery does not occur on the commodity itself, but on the value ​​of the assets other than the commodity being transported. Failure of the consignor to fulfill their commitments due to late delivery, payment of extra storage fee, the passing of the time of sale of the commodity are some examples of harm caused by late delivery.

In case of late delivery, if no harm has occurred, no compensation obligation will arise. Yet, the transportation fee can be reduced in proportion to the delay time. The responsibility of the carrier is strict liability in case of late delivery similar to the case of damage and loss. In order for the carrier to be liable for compensation, it is sufficient that the harm has occurred and that there is a causal link between the harm and the late delivery. Having said that, as also noted above, such liability is not absolute, and the carrier may be released from liability in specific cases stipulated in the TCC.

Conclusion

Under Turkish law, the logistics and transport companies, i.e., the carrier will be liable for the harm that occur due to loss or damage during the transport of the commodity, or as a result of the late delivery of the commodity. This is mainly because the carrier has breached the obligation to preserve the commodity during the transportation. The legal nature of such liability of the carrier is strict liability. This means that even if the carrier has no fault in incurrence of harm, they should still be liable. However, this liability is not absolute, and the carrier can be released from liability on the grounds set out in the TCC or by proving that they have taken the greatest care.

By Nihat Ozbek, Partner, and Baris Ulker, Senior Associate, Guleryuz & Partners

Law No. 7418 on Amendment of Press Law and Certain Laws (“Amendment Law”) is published in Official Gazette of October 18, 2022 and introduced significant amendments on certain laws including the Press Law No. 5187, the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 and the Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Broadcasts via the Internet and the Prevention of Crimes Committed through Such Broadcast (“Law No. 5651”) and the Law No. 5809 Electronic Communications Law (“Law No. 5809”).

Amendments in the Press Law No. 5187

The Amendment Law includes news websites within the scope of the Press Law No. 5187 along with the printing and publication of printed works. Accordingly, news websites are defined as periodicals established and operated to provide written, visual or audio contents in the form of news or comments at regular intervals on the Internet.

Further, Article 6 of the Amendment Law regulates that the contents broadcasted in news websites should be kept for two (2) years to be submitted to public prosecutor’s office when necessary by preserving its accuracy and integrity and in case judicial authorities notify in writing to news websites that the relevant broadcast is subject to investigation and prosecution, it is mandatory to keep the broadcast records until it is notified that the processes are concluded.

The Amendment Law also introduces amendments to various laws such as Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy, State Bidding Law No. 2886 and Law No. 4734 on Public Procurement, accordingly announcements stipulated to be made on newspapers might also be made on news websites.

Amendments Introduced under the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 and Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedures

With Article 29 of the Amendment Law, a new article titled “Public Dissemination of Misleading Information” is introduced to Turkish Criminal Code, in this regard a person who publically disseminates unsubstantial information regarding the country’s domestic and foreign security, public order and general health in a way suitable for disturbing public peace, with the mere motive of creating concern, fear and panic among public, should be punished with imprisonment from one (1) year up to three (3) years. If the crime is committed by concealing the true identity of the perpetrator or within the scope of an organization’s activities, the punishment will be increased by half.

Further, the crime of “public dissemination of misleading information” is added to list of crimes regulated under Criminal Procedure Law, where the decisions of district court criminal chambers granted due to the specified crimes might be appealed even if the decisions are non-appealable.

Amendments Introduced under the Internet Law

The Amendment extends the scope of the catalogue crimes which are regulated under Article 8 of the Internet Law and includes the crimes regulated under Article 27/1-2 of the Law Government Intelligence Services and National Intelligence Authority. With this respect, an access ban request can be demanded regarding the contents constituting the relevant crimes. 

The Amendment Law also specifically regulates the activities of social network providers (“SNP”) by bringing full technical, administrative, legal and financial authority and responsibilities to the representatives of SNPs with certain qualifications. Before the enactment of the Amendment Law, real person representative of the SNP should only be a Turkish citizen. However, with the new amendment, the Turkish citizen representative must also reside in Turkey. In terms of the SNPs whose daily access is more than ten million, the Amendment Law requires the legal entity representatives of those SNPs to be established by the relevant SNP as a branch office incorporated in form of a stock Corporation.

Further, it obliges SNPs to act within the principle of accountability, to provide transparency in compliance with the law, to provide to the Information Communication and Technologies Authority (“Authority”) all the required information and documents regarding compliance with the law when asked by the Authority. SNPs are also obliged to draft and notify to the Authority a crisis plan with regards to public security, public health and extraordinary situations and SNPs should take necessary measures to provide separated services particular for children.  

With regards to reporting obligations, the Amendment Law stipulates the information which SNPs should include on title tags, algorithms regarding the contents that are put forward or that are reduced, advertisement and transparency policies in their reports. The Amendment Law also requires the SNPs to disclose the parameters which are used during the suggestions provided to the users on its website.

Furthermore, it extends the authorities of Access Providers Union (“APU”) and states that the objections with regards to the APU decisions should be submitted against the relevant criminal judgeship of peace’s decision. The Amendment Law also authorizes the Authority to request any information including but not limited to information systems, corporate structure, algorithms, data processing mechanisms and commercial approach for the compliance with the Internet Law, and SNPs should provide such information at the latest within three (3) months. It also entitles Authority to conduct on-site examinations regarding SNPs’ compliance with the Internet Law. According to the Amendment Law, representative of the SNPs should provide the information which is requested by the relevant Authorities.

In case the following requirements are not fulfilled, the President of Authority (“President”) may request gradual bandwidth throttling and may decide on advertisement ban decision. Besides, the Amendment Law also foresees sanctions for the Turkish taxpayers who do not comply with the advertisement ban decisions. In addition to the sanctions which are already in force, the Amendment Law provides an administrative fine sanction which will be calculated as 3% of the previous year’s global revenue, in case of failure to comply with obligations on data localization, separated services to children, user rights, notification of identity for dangerous contents to life and property, failure to share information requested by Authority regarding compliance with the Law No. 5651 and crisis plan.

Amendments Introduced under the Law No. 5809 Electronic Communications Law

Amendment Law defines over the top service (“OTT”) and OTT service providers. Accordingly, OTT service covers audio, written and visual electronic communication provided to the subscribers or users through publicly available software. The definition also separates OTT service from the Internet service and operators, by defining OTT service to be independent of the Internet service and operators. Additionally, OTT service provider is defined as the real person or legal entity providing services within the scope of the definition of OTT services.   

The Authority is authorized to make necessary regulations related to OTT service provision, take any measures including setting forth obligations for operators to ensure prevention of provision of OTT services without fulfillment of obligations foreseen in regulations or authorization. OTT service providers carry out their activities within the scope of the authorization given by the Authority through their fully authorized representatives having the status of a joint-stock company or a limited liability company established in Turkey.

Furthermore, the Amendment foresees an administrative fine at the amount ranging between one (1) million Turkish Liras and thirty (30) million Turkish Liras, for the OTT service providers who provide OTT services without required authorizations. OTT service providers who do not pay the administrative fine amount in due time and do not comply with the requirements within six (6) months upon the notification, might be subject to bandwidth throttling up to 95% or access ban of the relevant application or website.

Articles 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and Article 28 of the Amendment Law except for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) will enter into force on April 1, 2023, while its other articles enters into force at the date of publishing.

By Gonenc Gurkaynak, Partner, Ceren Yildiz, Partner, Noyan Utkan, Associate, and Bilgehan Korucuoglu, Legal Intern, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

The Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) conditionally approved the acquisition of sole control over Ferro Corporation (“Ferro”) by American Securities LLC (“American Securities”) through its solely controlled affiliate ASP Prince Holdings Inc. (“Prince”). The Board determined that the transaction would result in the significant impediment of effective competition in the market for glass coatings for home appliances in Turkey. That being said, the Board conditionally approved the transaction subject to the commitments submitted by the parties to the European Commission (“Commission”) on the grounds that the commitments removed the entire horizontal overlap between the parties in the horizontally affected markets in Turkey. 

Background

The Turkey-related activities of Ferro concerned the manufacture and sale of porcelain enamel coatings, glass enamel coatings and container glass coatings. On the other hand, American Securities was active in Turkey through its controlled portfolio companies in various fields such as specialty chemicals for consumer and industrial markets; spare parts, equipment and accessories for forestry and agriculture; roofing and building envelope systems; colorants, chemical and pigment dispersions; precision components for medical and industrial sectors; processing equipment for animal feed, oilseed processing, extraction and heat treatment; damage recovery and restoration services; kitchen utensils, personal care, health and beauty products. Prince was also a global manufacturer of mineral-based chemicals, minerals and industrial additives; and it was active in the development and marketing of specialty products for applications in various industries including construction, electronics, consumer products, agriculture, automotive, oil, gas and heavy machinery.

The Board identified that the activities of Ferro and American Securities (via Prince) horizontally overlapped in the markets for porcelain enamel coatings and glass enamel coatings, specifically in the glass coatings for home appliances sub-segment of the latter. The Board defined the geographic scope of the relevant markets for porcelain enamel coatings and glass coatings for home appliances as Turkey. There were no vertical relations between the Turkey-related activities of the parties.

The Board’s Competitive Assessment in terms of the Horizontally Affected Markets:

The Board indicated that the transaction would not give rise to any competitive concerns in the porcelain enamel coating market given that the transaction parties’ combined market share was below 20% and due to strong competitors, low entry barriers, low switching costs and spare capacities of competitors.

That being said, in terms of glass coatings for home appliances, the combined entity was to have significantly high market share as Prince and Ferro were two of the three largest undertakings that were active in this market, reaching a post-transaction combined market share above 50%. The Board conducted an HHI analysis and a CR4 test in order to assess the concentration level the transaction brought to the market. Accordingly, the Board determined that the transaction would increase the concentration level of the relevant product market, which was already concentrated prior to the transaction. In this respect, the Board underlined that the transaction would eliminate the market power of an important competitor and lead to an even more concentrated market where mainly four players would operate. Furthermore, assessment of the market shares in the market has shown that Prince and Ferro were increasing their market shares against other players, effectively reducing other three largest players’ ability to exert competitive pressure on the combined entity. The Board also remarked that Ferro was the largest player worldwide based on market shares both by value and volume.

Following its analysis based on the market shares, the Board indicated that competitors could utilize their spare capacities or increase their capacities in order to respond to a possible price increase; new players such as paint producers could easily enter the market in the absence of any tariffs or legal entry barriers; and production and shipment costs in the market were relatively low. However, the Board could not identify a presence of countervailing buyer power given that there would be only four large players in the market post-transaction. In this respect, the Board indicated that the transaction might result in the significant impediment of the effective competition.

The Board also took into consideration the global horizontal overlaps and vertical relationships between the parties to the transaction. To that end, the Board found that Prince would be gaining significant market shares post-transaction in the markets for porcelain enamel coatings and glass coatings. On the other hand, the Board did not identify any competitive concerns regarding the remaining global horizontal overlaps and vertical relationships.

The Board’s Evaluation of the Commitments Submitted before the Commission:

In order to eliminate the potential competition law concerns arising from the proposed transaction, the parties to the transaction submitted extensive commitments to the Commission and the Commission conditionally approved the transaction on January 25, 2022. The Parties also informed the Authority regarding these commitments along with their explanations in terms of the effects of these commitments in Turkey. The commitments included the divestment of Prince’s entire glass coating business and porcelain enamel coating business in Europe, effectively removing the entire horizontal overlap between Ferro and Prince in the EEA and in Turkey in the markets for porcelain enamel coating and glass coatings for home appliances. To that end, the commitments submitted before the Commission also eliminated potential competition law concerns in Turkey as well. As a result, the Board unanimously decided to conditionally approve the transaction as a result of its Phase I review on the basis of the commitments submitted before the Commission.

Conclusion

There are numerous decisions where the Board took into account the Turkey-specific effects of the commitments submitted before the Commission and approved the transactions in question either unconditionally or conditional upon compliance with such remedies. However, significant majority of the Board’s most recent decisions concerning transactions which involved commitments submitted before the Commission clearly demonstrates that the Board has been more inclined to conditionally approve such transactions subject to the relevant commitments submitted to the Commission. American Securities/Ferro decision reinforces the Board’s recent approach to grant conditional approval to transactions subject to the remedies submitted to the Commission and it hints that the Board would continue to consider the local effects of such commitments in terms of its substantive assessment. American Securities/Ferro decision also underlines that the Board can conditionally approve transactions subject to commitments during its Phase I review without further prolonging its review and initiating a Phase II review regarding the transactions.

By Gonenc Gurkaynak, Partner, Berfu Akgun, Counsel, Efe Oker, Associate, Beyza Adiguzel, Associate, and Simay Demir, Legal Intern, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law

The Law on the Amendment of Press Law numbered 7418 and Some Other Laws [“Amendment Law”] published in the Official Gazette No. 31987 dated October 18, 2022. While the amendments adopted mainly in the Press Law significantly expand the scope of this law, the Amendment Law also includes new regulations with regard to online news tools, the number of which are increasing day by day as opposed to printed media.

The Scope of the Press Law is Expanded

The majority of the amendments made in the Press Law concern online news sites and press cards. In this context, while the regulation of press card-related issues was included among the aims of the law, online news sites, journalists, media members and information officers requesting press cards are also included within the scope of the law.

Concordantly, online news sites were included to the definition of “periodical publications”, and specific obligations governing these sites’ operations were established. Therefore, employees who carry out press related activities for online news sites will now be regarded as “media member” within the scope of the law.

One of the obligations introduced in terms of the online news sites is to have a contact page that can be accessed easily from the home page and includes information such as the workplace address, trade name, e-mail address, phone number, and electronic notification address.

In addition, several rules are envisaged in order to control the content published on online news sites. From this point forward, every content on the news site must include the date of their first publication and the date of every other update, in a way that cannot be changed or corrupted. The published contents must be preserved for two years and delivered to the relevant judicial authorities when necessary. A hefty fine will be imposed on the responsible managers of online news sites who violate the delivery and preservation obligation.

In terms of online news sites, there is a separate regulation regarding cases in which the declaration made to the authorities for the publication of periodicals and its annexes do not contain the necessary or true information or the persons responsible for the publication do not comply with the legal requirements. In this instance, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office will first request that any deficiencies or false information be corrected within a two-week period. If this request is not complied with, the prosecutor’s office will apply to the criminal court of first instance in order to obtain a declaratory decision about the incapacity to meet the requirements for an online news site. If the application is accepted, the rights of employees with regard to press cards as well as official announcement and advertisement rights that can be provided to online news sites will be revoked.

Online news sites are also included in the scope of criminal and civil liability provisions in the Press Law, and it is regulated as a condition of procedure that criminal cases related to crimes committed through online news sites are to be filed within four months. The method and duration of publishing the corrections and responses to violations of personal rights on online news sites are also regulated in detail.

Online news sites that started operating before these amendments, on the other hand, are required to fulfill their obligations within three months from the effective date of the Amendment Law, i.e. until January 18, 2023.

New and Comprehensive Press Card Regulations

The press card application, its nature, requirements, types, and grounds for revocation are regulated in the Amendment Law. Accordingly, there are five different types of press cards: task-related, periodic, temporary, freelance, and permanent, all of which will be considered as official identification documents. The applications for press cards will be made to The Directorate of Communications.

There are certain requirements in terms of age, education, legal capacity, commercial activity, and criminal record in order to apply for the press cards, as they can be now applied for by a wider audience. The applications will be evaluated by the Press Cards Commission, which will be established in accordance with the new legislation. The following two situations may result in the revocation of press cards: [i.] if the card holder lacks the qualifications specified in the law or has later lost them; and [ii.] if the card holder acts against the principles of press ethics.

Press cards that were duly issued prior to the Amendment Law will remain valid, provided that they meet the necessary conditions.

Complementary Regulations and “Disinformation Crime”

With a new article added to the Turkish Penal Code No. 523, “publicly disseminating misleading information to the public” became a crime. Publicly disseminating false information about the national security, public order and general health, in a way that is disturbing the public peace, with the sole motive of creating anxiety, fear or panic among the public will result in prison sentence of one to three years. Committing this crime by hiding the real identity of the perpetrator or within the framework of the activities of an organization increases the penalty by half. In addition, the decisions regarding this new crime were added among the decisions that can be appealed as per the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.

The Access Providers Association [“Association“] now has a wider scope of duty under Law No. 5651 on the Regulation of Broadcasts Made on the Internet and Combating Crimes Committed Through These Broadcasts, including the rules in other laws regarding the implementation of access-block and content-removal decisions. The distinction between domestic and foreign access providers has been removed with the amendments so as to prevent issues caused by the difficulty in determining the location of the content or hosting provider. Also, the Association is now able to notify the content and hosting providers via e-mail regarding the received court decisions. Additionally, it is stipulated that an access-block or content-removal decision for a content will extend to other websites and platforms if the relevant person applies to the Association.

New Obligations on Social Media Platforms

The Amendment Law sets forth a number of obligations for social network providers. Accordingly, social network providers are required to treat all their users equally and impartially, to create an advertising library, to provide all information on content subject to certain crimes to the judicial authorities through their representative of Turkey, and to take the necessary measures for providing differentiated services specific to children.

Social network providers must meet the conditions regarding representatives based on the amount of daily access and they must regularly submit reports including information such as algorithms, the use of personal data, advertising and transparency policies to the Information and Communication Technologies Authority.

On the other hand, restrictions on internet traffic capacity or ban on advertising up to 6 months may result from failure to comply with the access-block and content-removal decisions. Additionally, those who violate the advertising ban will be fined up to 100,000 Turkish Liras.

Conclusion

The new rules stipulated by the Amendment Law strengthen the controllability of the information posted on social media and news sites, and aims to prevent activities that violate individual rights, which can be easily carried out through internet. However, regarding the crime of publicly disseminating misleading information to the public, discussions are emerging in the context of freedom of press and expression. The implications of these amendments will be seen more clearly with the jurisprudence that is going to be shaped within the upcoming years.

By M. Tarik Guleryuz, Partner, and I.Selin Nacar, Associate, Guleryuz & Partners