Permanent harm to a baby during or after birth does not, by itself, show that the doctor was at fault. When liability for compensation is assessed, the medical standard of care that applied, the intervention or omission that took place, the harm and the causal link between them are examined together. Lapses in pregnancy monitoring, delay in a necessary intervention, the conduct of the delivery in unsuitable conditions, or failure to plan follow-up properly after discharge may all be the subject of this examination. [1; 10–13]
In a claim arising from a birth injury, the rights of the baby must be separated from the personal claims of the mother and father. The legal status of the hospital, the content of the records, the dates of the event and of discovery, the court to which the claim is addressed and the time limits to be followed all depend on these facts. This guide addresses bodily harm alleged to have arisen in the course of the process from pregnancy to the newborn period in Türkiye. The research date is 11 October 2026; the provisions in force on the date of the event in a specific file must be assessed separately.
In which circumstances may childbirth amount to medical malpractice?
A malpractice review is carried out on the basis of the findings available to the healthcare team at the moment it made its decisions, rather than by presuming fault backwards from the outcome of the birth. The bases of the physician's duty of care under private law include Articles 502 and 506 of the Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK). For liability in tort, Article 49 of the TBK and following provisions apply; in a public hospital, the administration's duty to provide health services properly is also important. [1; 5; 8]
Delays in pregnancy monitoring and in the decision to deliver
The assessment of findings that indicate a high-risk pregnancy, the ordering of necessary tests or consultation, the timing of delivery and referral to an appropriate centre are examined in light of the specific circumstances of the case. It may not be enough that a test was carried out in the file; the time at which the result was seen, how it was interpreted and what action was taken as a result should also be explained.
Choosing between vaginal delivery and caesarean section cannot in every case be regarded as legally right or wrong. The findings concerning the mother and the baby, the course of labour, the current risks, information given and the options for intervention are assessed together. A medical necessity identified for one family cannot be transferred word for word to another case. In the Council of State decision numbered 2025/4891, examined below, the failure to assess the non-stress test (NST) finding together with other examinations was significant for the facts of that case. [13]
Intervention during delivery and hospital organization
Disruptions in labour monitoring, the time taken for the summoned physician to arrive, anaesthesia and theatre preparation, the surgical technique used and access to neonatal support are separate questions. Liability review should not be confined to the physician who carried out the delivery. The duties of the midwife, nurse, paediatrician or other health professional, and the staffing, equipment and referral organization of the hospital, should be made concrete.
In a private hospital, the hospital's own obligation, the acts of its auxiliary persons and its organizational duties are assessed according to the scope of the contract. Working independently does not mean that the hospital is in every case not liable; it is examined which service was undertaken by whom. In a public hospital, delayed or incomplete service may constitute a fault in service for which the responsible administration is liable. [1, Art. 66, 112, 116; 8; 12–13]
Post-natal monitoring and discharge
Legal review does not end at the moment of birth. The assessment of the newborn, the necessary checks, the communication of results and the conditions for the family to return for review are also important. General statements in a discharge document do not always prove that information about the specific risk of the baby was actually given. It is examined what was said about the date of the follow-up check and the consequences of delay, and whether this was recorded in an understandable way. [2; 11–12]
In the Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber decision dated 24 June 2025, E. 2024/2538, K. 2025/3513, the dispute concerned monitoring of neonatal jaundice and permanent harm that followed. The court accepted that the hospital and the paediatrician had not been able to prove that they had given the necessary notice to bring the baby back for a check the following day. The treatment refusal document examined did not show adequate disclosure; the decision of the regional court of appeal awarding pecuniary compensation against the relevant defendants was upheld. The same result was not reached for the other defendants. [11]
This decision does not mean that every case of jaundice amounts to malpractice. The lesson to be drawn from the file is that responsibility for follow-up and information must be assessed through documents specific to the person and to the risk. The procedural assessment in that decision on the former indeterminate-claim regime cannot, however, be applied as it stands to actions brought after the 2026 amendments.
How is a complication distinguished from a birth error?
A complication is an undesired outcome that may occur even where due medical care has been given. However, failure to recognize a risk in time, or failure to manage it properly once it has arisen, may also constitute fault. For this reason, a report that merely states "complication" does not by itself show that all the service before and after was carried out correctly.
Cerebral palsy, nerve damage to the arm or another permanent health problem should not be equated with legal fault merely on the basis of the name of the condition. Whether the harm originated before birth, its connection with the event during delivery and the effect of subsequent care require expert assessment. The fact that a genetic or developmental condition was not detected during pregnancy does not in itself mean that the physician caused the condition. A claim concerning screening and information, and an injury caused by an intervention, are different legal problems.
In the Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber decision dated 21 May 2026, E. 2025/6019, K. 2026/3291, compensation was claimed for brachial plexus injury to the baby's arm. The Forensic Medicine Institution reports in the file assessed that the cause of the injury could not be determined with certainty and that a complication could arise despite the necessary care during manoeuvres at delivery. The Chamber upheld the dismissal of the claim on the basis that no fault had been established in the concrete file. [10]
That decision cannot be generalized to say that all birth injuries count as complications. The event alleged by the family, the hospital records and the explanatory value of the report are re-examined in every file. For the physician, a strong defence is not merely to say that the risk was known, but to show the measures taken and the follow-up carried out. For the patient, a strong claim is, in addition to stating the gravity of the outcome, to show which obligation was breached and at what stage.
Informed consent and the mother's right to decide
Under the Regulation on Patient Rights (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), the nature of the intervention, its significant risks, the alternatives and the consequences of refusing treatment must be explained in an understandable way. The consent of the mother, where she has the capacity to decide, to her own intervention is essential; a spouse's signature does not replace informing the mother. The existence of a consent form and adequate disclosure are separate matters. [2, Art. 15, 18, 24]
Consent is not advance permission for medical fault. The written mention of a complication risk on a form does not remove liability arising from a wrong or careless intervention. On the other hand, a risk explained to the family that materializes despite careful practice, and an intervention that was carried out without explanation, cannot be assessed in the same way. The legal connection between the claimed harm and the lack of disclosure must also be justified. [1; 2]
Where consent cannot be obtained in an emergency, the conditions in Article 24 of the Regulation come into play. The concrete findings showing urgency, the necessity and scope of the intervention must be recorded. The fact that every delivery carries time pressure is not a general exception that relieves the duty of disclosure for the whole process.
How are the rights of the baby and of the parents separated?
The baby's independent right to compensation and representation
Under Article 28 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK), a child acquires legal capacity from the moment it is conceived in the womb, on condition that it is born alive. A harmful act that occurs during pregnancy may therefore become the subject of the child's own claim for compensation after a live and complete birth. In doctrine, it is debated whether this claim should be examined on the basis of tort or of a contract with protective effect for a third party; the legal basis is determined according to the concrete relationship. [4; 14, pp. 743–745]
The child's claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation is separate from the parents' property. In the action, the child is a party in its own name, and legal representation appropriate to its age and legal position is provided. Who holds custody (velayet), whether it is exercised jointly and the representation documents are checked. The fact that parents bring claims in their own names does not by itself require a court-appointed representative; however, where there is a concrete conflict of interest, the appointment of a representative (kayyım) under Article 426 of the TMK is considered. In particular, the defence that the family's own conduct contributed to the harm and the sharing of any settlement amount should be examined from this perspective. [4, Art. 335–337, 342, 426]
The personal claims of the mother and father
If the mother herself suffered bodily harm during childbirth, she may claim her own treatment costs, loss of earning capacity and non-pecuniary damage. Claims for non-pecuniary compensation by close relatives because of the child's serious bodily harm are assessed under Article 56(2) of the TBK. Not every health problem automatically gives relatives a right to non-pecuniary compensation; the gravity of the harm and the closeness of the relationship are important. [1]
It must be clearly determined on whose behalf an expense incurred by the mother or father is claimed. The same care expense cannot be recovered twice, once for the child and once for the parent. Where the baby dies or there is a loss in the womb, the question of who holds the right, live birth and the conditions for loss of support are examined separately; the calculation for continuing care of a living child does not apply to these events without adjustment. [1, Art. 53–56; 4, Art. 28]
Which compensation may be claimed and how is it calculated?
The economic consequences of permanent harm may not be limited to the hospital expenses of the present. However, every claim must be explained in terms of medical necessity and its connection with the harmful event. A hypothetical profession or high income cannot be selected as the basis for calculating the future life of a child who has suffered harm; age, development, loss of function and economic data suited to the file are assessed in expert examination. [1, Art. 50, 54–55]
| Claim | Subject of examination | Required basis |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment and rehabilitation | Past expenses and foreseeable future needs | Report, treatment plan, invoices and payment records |
| Care and assistive devices | Type and duration of assistance, and needs beyond ordinary care | Care needs report, device and renewal information |
| Earning capacity and economic future | Economic effect of the permanent loss on life | Appropriate health assessment and calculation report |
| Non-pecuniary compensation | Personal harm to the child and, where the conditions are met, to close relatives | Gravity of the harm and the concrete features of the event |
Care being provided by family members does not in itself eliminate the need for care. Nevertheless, the ordinary care needs of a young child must be separated from the additional assistance required because of an injury. Explanation is needed of how many hours or for which period care is required, which criteria the report relies on, and whether re-assessment will be necessary in future. Social assistance, social security payments and insurance payments are not treated as a single deduction item either; the nature of the payment, whether it can be recovered and its purpose are examined. [1, Art. 55; 11; 13]
The Council of State 10th Chamber decision dated 28 October 2025, E. 2022/3627, K. 2025/4891, concerns permanent harm to a baby following a pregnancy check. The chamber did not find appropriate a direct reduction of the pecuniary compensation by the 4/8 rate showing the effect of the medical error on the outcome in the concrete case. The calculation of the carer's cost and the method of payment were also re-assessed. While the decision on non-pecuniary compensation was upheld, the parts concerning pecuniary compensation and interest were quashed. [13]
The practical importance of this decision is that it shows the medical effect ratio in a report and the share of legal liability are not the same thing. In addition, interest that was not requested in the claim petition was not treated as an element that could be added later merely by increasing the amount. The historical amounts in that decision are not a current compensation schedule, and the quashed items cannot be presented as a collected sum that has become final.
2026 amendments to the calculation of loss
Law No. 7589, which entered into force on 31 July 2026, added to Article 55 of the TBK provisions on the start of interest for certain heads of loss and on the offsetting of early payments. For loss of earning capacity and loss of support, a distinction has been made between the period in which the income is known and the period in which it cannot be known. The transitional provision ties this amendment to tortious acts or harmful events occurring after its entry into force. Accordingly, a calculation concerning an earlier birth event cannot be subjected to the new rule merely because the case is being heard today. [1, Art. 55; 15, transitional Art. 1/9]
How is a birth error proven?
The mother's and baby's files must be examined together
The records of the mother and of the baby are often held in separate files. Obtaining only the discharge summary may not be sufficient to show how the delivery progressed. Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Regulation on Patient Rights, the patient or authorized representative may examine the records, obtain copies and request that gaps be explained. It should not be assumed that the documents visible on e-Nabız constitute the complete file held by the hospital. [2]
| Record group | Documents that may be requested | Question it clarifies |
|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and delivery monitoring | Examination, ultrasound, NST and other monitoring records; partogram | When were the findings seen and how were they assessed? |
| Intervention and referral | Delivery and operation notes, anaesthesia record, call and referral documents | What happened between the decision, the preparation and the intervention? |
| Newborn and discharge | Examination, laboratory, intensive care, check and information documents | How was the baby's risk and the subsequent follow-up managed? |
| Permanent harm and expenses | Current expert reports, rehabilitation plan, invoices | What is the scope of the harm and the future needs? |
The sequence of events should be established by comparing the dates and times in the records. Whether conflicting times arise from a clerical error, from different device clocks or from another cause should be explained. The original electronic record and audit history are requested through the court where necessary; a gap in records is not in itself converted into an accusation of forgery. Where there is a risk that evidence will be lost or that later use will become more difficult, the preservation of evidence under Article 400 et seq. of the HMK is considered. [3]
Burden of proof and objection to the expert report
In a tort claim, the harm, the culpable conduct and the causal link must be established. In cases of breach of contract, the rule in Article 112 of the TBK on proof of absence of fault is also taken into account; that rule does not remove the patient's burden of proof on all the other elements. The records may be decisive for a physician's defence concerning disclosure and careful follow-up. The burden of proof cannot be placed in a single sentence solely on the patient or solely on the physician for every dispute. [1; 3, Art. 190]
The expertise of the expert panel must match the claim. Where birth management, neonatal follow-up and permanent neurological harm are being discussed together, the relevant specialties are requested to take part in the assessment. The records used by the report, the medical conditions on the date of the event, alternative causes and the effect of the delay on the outcome must be clear. A general result such as "appropriate" or "a complication" should not be left without reasons.
An objection to a report must identify the missing document and the unanswered question. For example, if the time between the test result and the intervention has not been examined, this should be pointed out; if there is a contradiction with an earlier report, an explanation of the contradiction is requested. Under Article 281 of the HMK, the two-week period for objection to a report and, where the conditions are met, the additional period of at most two weeks requested within that period are taken into account. The judge assesses the report together with the other evidence. [3, Art. 266, 281–282]
In the Council of State 10th Chamber decision dated 31 December 2025, E. 2022/5858, K. 2025/7164, neonatal jaundice, permanent harm and incomplete records were discussed together. The chamber found the report inadequate with regard to the timing of the first intervention, the effect of high bilirubin and inability to feed on the harm, and the consequences of the absence of any record of a call to a check. The pecuniary compensation part was quashed so that a new and comprehensive report could be obtained, and the non-pecuniary compensation part was upheld. [12]
The decision does not state that a missing record automatically leads, in every file, to acceptance of all pecuniary compensation. It shows that the concrete facts must be clarified. In addition, where the defence is that the family came late to the check, it must be investigated what information was given to the family; the effect of a parent's conduct on the child's right is separately assessed in law.
Against whom and in which court is the action brought?
Private hospital and independent physician
In disputes with private hospitals and physicians, where the service has the character of a consumer transaction, the provisions of consumer law are important. The jurisdiction of the Consumer Arbitration Committee is separately checked in light of the nature and value of the claim. In disputes to be heard in a consumer court, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation applies, subject to the exceptions in Article 73/A of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun). It should not be assumed that a claim against the private hospital and a claim against the insurer are subject to the same rule of jurisdiction. [6]
The contract, the hospital operator's trade registry information, the invoice and the relationship with the physician are examined together. Using only the hospital's name on the sign does not ensure that the correct defendant is identified. As regards jurisdiction, in addition to the general and special rules, the consumer's option of the place of residence is also considered. [3, Art. 6, 10, 16; 6, Art. 73]
State hospital and university hospital
For harm arising from the performance of a public service, an application to the competent administration and a full remedy action before the administrative court come into question. A direct action for compensation against a civil servant for fault in service is not the general route. It must be determined whether the hospital is attached to the Ministry of Health or to a university, and on whose behalf the service is provided. In foundation university, private company and shared-use models, the competent court cannot be chosen merely by the name of the hospital; legal personality and the service relationship are examined separately. [5; 8; 17]
Insurance and criminal complaint
The fact that a physician holds mandatory professional liability insurance does not mean that every claim will automatically be paid. The policy, the insured physician, the coverage period, notification conditions, limits and exclusions are examined. Under Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK), the injured person may apply directly to the insurer; the jurisdiction, procedural prerequisites and time limits relating to the insurer are determined separately. [7; 18]
Application to the public prosecutor where a criminal offence is suspected proceeds separately from the compensation route. For professional medical acts, the investigation permission and the exceptions to its scope under the supplementary Article 18 of Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu) are important. Compensation or administrative application time limits must not be allowed to lapse while waiting for the outcome of a criminal investigation. Because of TBK Article 74, the effect of a criminal decision on the civil action is also assessed according to the content of the decision; an acquittal does not in every case remove liability for compensation. [1; 9]
What to observe regarding application and limitation periods
The baby's young age does not mean that all time limits against the doctor and the hospital will wait until the child is eighteen. Article 153 of the TBK, on suspension during parental custody, concerns the claims of the child against its parents. That provision cannot be extended to all claims against a third-party physician or hospital. The assessment of time limits should be carried out at the earliest possible stage. [1]
| Legal route | Basic time-limit framework | Distinction to observe |
|---|---|---|
| Tort | Two years from discovery; ten years from the act | The longer criminal limitation condition in Article 72 of the TBK is reserved |
| Mandate relationship | As a rule, five years | The start date and legal basis are determined under Articles 147–149 of the TBK |
| Administrative action | One year from discovery; application to the administration within five years of the act | After refusal or 30 days without reply, as a rule a 60-day period for bringing the action |
The table is not a ready-made calculation of the last day to be applied to every event. The learning of the harm and of the responsible party, development-related consequences that only become apparent later, grounds for interruption or suspension, and the concurrence of several legal bases are examined separately. In administrative litigation, the date on which the administrative nature of the act and its link to the harm were learned is important; the five-year expression in the law must not be applied mechanically without examining the concrete discussion of when knowledge arose. [1; 5]
Requesting documents from the hospital, complaining to the patient rights unit or writing to CİMER does not in itself protect all limitation periods of action. In an application under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), the correct administration, the event, the persons entitled and the claim for compensation must be clear. In mandatory mediation as a condition precedent to litigation, the limitation period is suspended from the application to the mediation office until the final minutes, and the preclusive period does not run; this effect cannot be carried over to every complaint. [5; 16, Art. 18/A]
Does the fact that the harm cannot yet be fully determined prevent an action?
The full amount of the harm may not have been established while the child is still developing. This must not be used as a reason to suspend the application periods; the appropriate form of claim under the law should be chosen. For actions brought in the civil courts before 31 July 2026, there is a transitional provision that continues to apply Article 107 of the HMK. Later actions cannot be justified by reference to that provision, which has been repealed for them. [3; 15]
Under the current Article 109(4) of the HMK, where part of a claim has been brought, the claim may be increased once in the same action until the end of the inquiry; for the increased part, limitation is treated as interrupted from the date of the action. In administrative litigation, the separate rule on increasing the amount in Article 16(4) of the İYUK applies. The nature of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary claims, the claim for interest and the claim of each right holder must be framed carefully from the outset. [3; 5; 15]
How should the file be prepared before the application?
In the initial preparation, the current treatment needs of the mother and baby are pursued together with the legal review. The chronology of the alleged event, the healthcare institutions and the persons who took part in the treatment are identified. The records, medical assessments and expense documents are then tied to the same sequence of events. This preparation makes it possible to separate what has been verified by documents from what has not yet been investigated.
- The separate files of the mother and baby, together with applications made to other hospitals, are requested together.
- The dates of delivery, intervention, referral, discharge, diagnosis and discovery are recorded with supporting documents.
- The claims of the child and of the parents, legal representation and any possible conflict of interest are assessed separately.
- The competent administration or defendant, the application period, mediation and insurance notification are identified.
- Questions left unanswered in reports, the basis of expenses and future care needs are made concrete.
In any proposal for a settlement or insurance payment, it must be clarified which harm of which person the amount covers. Broad release or waiver wording affecting the child's future rights is examined for authority to represent and for conflict of interest. Litigation costs and expert fees are also taken into account; legal aid is assessed where the conditions are met. A definitive result on the period for bringing the action or the amount of compensation cannot be given without reviewing the file. [1; 3, Art. 334 et seq.; 4]
Interim payment and enforcement of the decision
During long proceedings, the continuing cost of care is a significant need. In civil proceedings, under Article 76 of the TBK, an interim payment may be requested from the judge where there is credible evidence showing the claim is well-founded and an economic necessity exists. The payment is not automatic; it is deducted from the final compensation and, if no compensation is awarded, the question of its return with statutory interest arises. A precautionary attachment against the risk of non-collection depends on the separate conditions and security assessment in Articles 257–259 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK). The purposes of evidence preservation, interim payment and precautionary attachment are different from one another. [1; 3; 19]
After the decision, the possibility of appeal or cassation is examined together with the nature of the decision, its amount, its service and the transitional provisions applicable. Finality and enforceability are not the same concept. In private law, enforcement on the basis of a judgment is the route; in administrative litigation, the enforcement and payment procedure under Article 28 of the İYUK is assessed. Supplementary steps, such as notifying the administration in writing of the calculation information for an administrative compensation decision, should also be followed. A decision being obtained does not by itself show that the money has been collected. [3; 5; 19]
Health data and foreign element
The health documents of the mother and child contain special categories of personal data. For the purposes of review, the necessary documents should be shared with authorized persons through appropriate secure channels; identity details, reports and images should not be attached to public comments or social media posts. Even in published examples of decisions, details that would make the parties recognizable again should be avoided. [20]
Although the birth took place in Türkiye, the fact that the family is foreign or lives abroad may require a separate examination of representation documents, translation, international jurisdiction and applicable law. Foreign citizenship alone does not remove the right to bring an action; in private law relationships with a foreign element, the relevant rules of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun) become concrete. The time limits in this guide must not be transferred directly to a birth event in a foreign country. [21]
Conclusion
In a claim of birth injury, what is decisive is how the process from pregnancy to discharge was managed, not merely the name of the permanent harm. Correct legal assessment rests on complete records, expert examination suited to the event, a reasoned assessment of causation and a separate claim for each right holder. Both the defence of complication and the claim for compensation must be tested against these concrete data.
For the family, the first steps are the preservation of records, the calculation of time limits and the correct structuring of the child's representation. For the physician and the hospital, documentation of follow-up, information, intervention and organization is important. The different outcomes of the decisions examined show that similar diagnoses do not lead to the same legal result. For the general framework of the action, the guide to bringing a malpractice action may be read alongside this one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a diagnosis of cerebral palsy in a baby prove a doctor's error?
Not by itself. The cause of the condition, the monitoring and intervention process, the medical standard of care and the causal link are assessed. How the distinction is made is explained in the section on complications and birth errors.
If I signed the consent form, do I lose my right to sue?
A signature on a consent form does not amount to waiving all claims arising from a faulty intervention. The content of the form, the explanation given and the intervention actually carried out are examined together. Details are in the section on informed consent.
Should I wait until my child turns eighteen?
No. A child's age does not suspend all time limits against third parties. An application may be made through a representative, and the distinctions in the section on time limits should be considered early.
Can an action not be brought if hospital records are incomplete?
A gap in the records does not by itself remove the right to sue. Obtaining the records, explaining the gap, other evidence and, where necessary, preservation of evidence are considered. A gap is also not an automatic acceptance of all compensation. See the section on proof.
Can the mother and father also claim non-pecuniary compensation?
Where the child has suffered serious bodily harm, a claim by close relatives for non-pecuniary compensation may be assessed under Article 56(2) of the TBK. The mother's own bodily harm is separately addressed. The section on rights holders explains the separation of the claims.
If we provide the care ourselves, can care costs be claimed?
The fact that the family provides care does not by itself remove the need. The scope and duration of needs beyond ordinary care are determined on medical and economic grounds. The necessary foundations are set out in the section on calculating compensation.
Should we wait for the criminal investigation to conclude?
The end of the investigation should not be awaited in order to preserve the compensation and administrative application time limits. The effect of the parallel proceedings is assessed in the file. This distinction is explained in the section on routes of application.
Is there a fixed compensation amount for a birth error?
There is no fixed amount. Harm, need for care, liability, the claim and the periodic law applicable are assessed together. Decision amounts in the compensation section cannot be used as a current tariff either.
Sources
- Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Arts. 49–56, 66, 72, 74, 76, 112, 116, 147–154, 502 and 506.
- Regulation on Patient Rights (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), in particular Arts. 15–18 and 24.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 6, 10, 16, 109, 190, 266, 281–282, 334–340 and 400–406.
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu), in particular Arts. 28, 335–337, 342 and 426.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2, 7, 13, 16/4, 28, 31 and 36.
- Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 3, 68, 73 and 73/A.
- Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Arts. 1478 and 1482.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), in particular Arts. 17, 125 and 129.
- Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), supplementary Art. 18.
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, 21 May 2026, E. 2025/6019, K. 2026/3291. Brachial plexus injury and assessment of complication; upholding of the dismissal.
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, 24 June 2025, E. 2024/2538, K. 2025/3513. Neonatal follow-up, disclosure and pecuniary compensation; upholding.
- Council of State 10th Chamber, 31 December 2025, E. 2022/5858, K. 2025/7164. Incomplete records and expert examination; partial upholding and partial quashing.
- Council of State 10th Chamber, 28 October 2025, E. 2022/3627, K. 2025/4891. Medical effect ratio, carer's cost and interest claim; partial upholding and partial quashing.
- Dilşad Keskin, Compensation for Harmful Acts Committed Before Birth: The Foetus's Claim for Compensation (Doğum Öncesi Gerçekleşen Zarar Verici Fiil Sebebiyle Tazminat: Ceninin Tazminat Talebi), Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. XVII, 2013, No. 1–2, pp. 743–774.
- Law No. 7589, Official Gazette 31 July 2026, No. 33326; in particular transitional Arts. 1/9–10 and Art. 26.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Art. 18/A.
- Law No. 657 on Civil Servants (Devlet Memurları Kanunu), Art. 13.
- Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Auxiliary Medical Professions (Tababet ve Şuabatı San'atlarının Tarzı İcrasına Dair Kanun), supplementary Art. 12.
- Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflâs Kanunu), in particular the provisions on enforcement on the basis of a judgment and Arts. 257–259.
- Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), in particular Arts. 4 and 6.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 1, 24, 26, 34, 40 and 48.