Startup Law Guide: Company Formation, Partnership, Investment and Intellectual Property Rights

Summary

Startup law is the combined assessment of the rules that apply to an innovative venture from the idea stage through incorporation, receiving investment, building employee and customer relationships, growth and, finally, exit from the partnership. In Türkiye there is no separate company type called a “startup”; the label does not by itself provide a tax exemption, an operating permit or limited liability. A sound start requires clarity on who owns the shares, who can bind the company, who holds the intellectual property rights in the product, and through which legal transaction the investment money is transferred. This guide addresses the basic distinctions in Turkish law, the 2026 legislation, and what two decisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) mean for ventures. [1, 2, 12]

What is startup law, and why does it matter for a venture?

In everyday usage, a startup is a venture that aims to scale by developing an innovative product, service or business model. Just as not every new business needs to receive investment or produce technology, a venture presenting itself as a startup does not prove that a special legal status exists. Commercial labeling, company type, eligibility for a support program and a permit issued by a regulator are separate matters. The legal assessment starts not from the definition in a pitch deck but from the work actually performed, the roles of the parties and the contracts used. [1, 12]

A software venture may face company law, contract law, intellectual property rights and personal data protection at the same time. If the product is offered to consumers, consumer law applies; if employees are hired, labor and social security law apply; if payment services are provided, special financial regulations also enter the assessment. Turkish law has no single code that regulates all of these: for trademarks, patents and designs, Industrial Property Law No. 6769 applies, and for copyright, Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works applies. [6, 7, 14, 16, 18, 23]

The purpose of legal preparation is not to slow the venture down with paperwork. It is to determine in advance which right will be exercised, and how, when a founder leaves, an investment is delayed, software is not delivered, data is transferred abroad or a customer complaint arises. The value of a venture should be sought not only in its product but also in the authority to use that product legally, to develop it and to transfer it to an investor.

A legal roadmap from the idea stage to growth

Legal work is not a one-off group of transactions that begins after the company is formed. The table below shows a working sequence that can be adapted to the characteristics of a venture’s activity. This sequence is not a statutory timetable; it is a preventive method of preparing the file.

The first task is to map the venture’s contracts and assets. If the domain name is held by one founder, the trademark by another, the software by an outside service provider, and the customer contracts were drawn up in the name of a company that has not yet been formed, a gap arises between the structure presented to the investor and the legal reality. That gap may later require a transfer, a permit, a registration or a new contract. The product development timeline and the legal remediation timeline should run together. [1, 2, 6, 7]

What should the founders decide before the company is formed?

Contributions of labor, money and ideas should be recorded separately

Founders’ contributions of money, working time, customer connections, existing software or inventions are not of the same nature. A statement such as “I came up with the idea, you built the software; we are partners 50/50” does not by itself explain which rights have arisen or what will be transferred to the company to be formed. Depending on the circumstances, some collaborations may bring into play the provisions on simple partnership (adi ortaklık) under Article 620 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). However, not every joint effort automatically creates a commercial company partnership with equal share ratios. [2]

A pre-incorporation document should specify the scope of the work, the nature and delivery time of the contributions, who will pay the expenses, the decision-making method, confidentiality, the status of intellectual property rights, and the liquidation to be carried out if the company is not formed. In lease, consulting or software contracts signed in advance on behalf of the venture, the identity of the obligor should be stated separately. Using the name of a company that does not yet have legal personality does not by itself remove the signatory’s liability; the assumption of pre-incorporation transactions by the company is subject to statutory conditions. [1, 2]

A commitment to work does not turn into a capital share on its own

In joint-stock and limited liability companies, there are statutory limitations on contributing services, personal labor and commercial reputation as capital. By contrast, certain intellectual property rights that are transferable and can be valued in cash may be contributed as capital in kind, subject to valuation and the other conditions. Time to be worked in the future and a software right transferred to the company today are not the same transaction. [1: Art. 342, 343, 581]

If shares are to be granted in return for labor, the transfer of an existing share, an undertaking to acquire shares in the future, or a suitable founder/employee vesting model must be structured separately. Writing only a share percentage is not enough unless the form of transfer, the price, the tax consequences, the vesting conditions and the consequences of departure are clear. The founder’s earlier relationship with a previous employer or a university should also be reviewed; it should not be assumed that the code or invention brought into the venture can be freely disposed of. [1, 2, 6, 7]

Should a startup choose a joint-stock company or a limited liability company?

Company type, investment plan and liability are assessed together

A single person’s business activity, and the formation of a joint-stock or limited liability company, have different consequences. A natural-person business, commonly called a “sole proprietorship (şahıs şirketi)”, has no separate legal personality. Limited liability and joint-stock companies acquire legal personality by registration in the trade registry. That they can be formed with a single shareholder does not mean that the founder’s assets and the company’s assets are the same. [1]

The minimum amounts are based on the rules in force since January 1, 2024. The formation budget does not consist of the minimum capital alone; registry, accounting, permit, personnel and contract costs are planned separately. Capital is a value that can be used in the company’s operations; it should not be thought of as a fee. The time of payment and the binding force of the undertaking are also different matters. That cash capital in a limited liability company may be paid within 24 months following formation does not eliminate the obligation to contribute capital. [1, 3, 28]

A joint-stock company may be preferred in structures where multiple investment rounds, share groups and the entry of institutional investors are planned. Even so, it cannot be said that a joint-stock company is mandatory, or the lowest-cost option, for every venture. Whether the business is regulated, the investor’s conditions, the number of shareholders, the management needs and the future transfer plan should be assessed together. Although changing the company type later may be possible, that transaction entails additional resolutions, documents and costs. [1]

In what order are the formation steps carried out?

First, the company type, field of activity, trade name, registered office, capital, share distribution and representation arrangement are determined. The formation application prepared through MERSİS and the company agreement are completed through the process of the relevant trade registry directorate. The shareholders’ identity and representation documents, the necessary signature steps, the attestation and translation of any foreign documents, and any special permits required for the activity are checked. Filling in a standard formation text alone does not regulate the investment and intellectual property relations among the founders. [1, 30]

In the stage following registration, the tax and accounting arrangements, bank and payment accounts, statutory books, electronic notification and, if any, employer records are set up. That some of the relevant transactions are carried out through electronic systems does not remove the venture’s need to check that the records are complete. The formation file should hold together the final version of the company agreement, registry records, representation authority and capital payment documents. [1, 19, 30]

Limited liability does not mean personal liability will never arise

The position of a limited liability company shareholder regarding private-law debts is not the same as their liability for public receivables. Article 35 of Law No. 6183 regulates, within its conditions, the shareholder’s liability in proportion to their capital share for public receivables that cannot be collected from the company or are found to be uncollectible. The periodic effects of a share transfer are also examined. Liabilities that may arise from serving as a manager, a member of the board of directors and a statutory representative are assessed separately. [5]

In a joint-stock company as well, a founder giving a personal surety, acting without authority on behalf of the company, or violating statutory obligations as a manager may give rise to different risks. The choice of company type should therefore not be made by giving a one-word answer to the question “will I be liable for the debts?” [1, 2, 5]

Compliance with the minimum capital in existing companies should be checked separately

Under Provisional Article 15 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), the compliance obligation of joint-stock and limited liability companies whose capital is below the new minimum amounts matters separately. As of October 15, 2026, the statutory date taken as the basis is December 31, 2026. Because the law attaches the consequence of dissolution (infisah) to failure to comply on time for the companies it specifies, the necessary company resolution and registration should not be postponed. Other consequences specific to the company type and the Ministry’s power to extend the period should also be taken into account. Acquiring an old company with insufficient capital does not make this review unnecessary. Before the transaction, it should be examined not only whether the capital was merely committed but also whether it was actually paid and how it appears in the registry. [1, 4]

Why is a founders’ agreement not the same as a company agreement?

The articles of association of a company, or the company agreement of a limited liability company, contain the formation, bodies, capital, shares and other institutional arrangements the law permits. A shareholders’ agreement, by contrast, establishes contractual obligations among founders and investors on matters such as financing, voting, information sharing, share transfer and exit. The legal effect of these two texts, and the remedies available in case of breach, are different. [1, 2, 10]

Not every provision written into a shareholders’ agreement automatically invalidates a company body’s resolution. Whether the company is a party to the agreement, whether the provision can lawfully be carried into the company agreement, and the mandatory rules must be examined separately. Breach of an undertaking that creates an obligation only between the parties may, depending on its conditions, be the subject of a claim for performance or damages; to annul a general assembly resolution, the grounds and time limits under company law are separately required. [1, 2, 10]

Equal partnership does not prevent management deadlock

A 50–50 share distribution may provide economic equality, but it can create a stalemate in management and representation. Which decisions will be taken within day-to-day management and which with founder or investor approval should be regulated separately for matters such as the budget, borrowing, key employees, new investment and transfer of intellectual property rights. Authority texts should be consistent with bank and registry records. [1]

In a deadlock, negotiation first, then an independent assessment or a suitable share buy-sell mechanism may be provided for. However, provisions that enable the economically stronger shareholder to push the other out at a low price should be assessed separately. Merely saying “if we cannot agree, the shares will be sold” does not solve the problem without explaining the pricing method, the payment security and the resolution of disputes. Suggestions in this area concern contract design to be built according to the characteristics of the company and the parties; there is no single mandatory model. [1, 2]

Vesting, the departing founder and non-competition should be regulated together

A vesting model may make a founder’s or employee’s acquisition of shares subject to a certain period of time or performance conditions. The initial waiting period (cliff), regular vesting, acceleration upon investment or sale, and the consequences of departure should be written separately. Departure for just cause and departure because of a serious breach of contract should not be tied to the same economic sanction; which event falls into which group should be determined.

These models do not set aside the provisions of Turkish company law on form, the authority of bodies, the protection of capital and a company’s acquisition of its own shares. For a non-competition covenant tied to the employment relationship, the written-form, protectable-interest and proportionality requirements of TBK Articles 444–447 additionally apply. A clause such as “may not work anywhere in the world, in any field, indefinitely” does not become indisputably enforceable merely because it was signed. [1, 2]

Court of Cassation decision: why was the claim that “our shares were always to remain equal” not found sufficient?

The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 5, 2024, E.2023/1084, K.2024/4695, concerns the claim that there was an agreement on equal shareholding in a limited liability company. After the other shareholder took over shares from a third party, obtained the majority and changed the management, it was asserted that the general assembly resolutions were invalid. [10]

It was taken into account that no written shareholders’ agreement could be presented in the case file and that the context asserted was absent from the company agreement. The regional court of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) addressed the existence of the alleged agreement and its effect on the company separately; the action was dismissed. The Court of Cassation affirmed this result. The decision does not say that all shareholders’ agreements are invalid; it shows the difference between proving an agreement, its parties and its institutional effect. [10]

The takeaway for ventures is clear: an expectation of equality or of remaining in management should be tied to a concrete provision, a suitable company agreement and the necessary body resolutions. In a dispute over a company resolution, the claim of breach of contract and the request to annul the resolution should not be confused. It is not asserted that the parties to this case were characterized as startups; the decision’s approach to partnership law also guides ventures.

Which contracts and calculations should be reviewed when receiving investment?

A preliminary understanding and the completion of the investment are different stages

A term sheet that sets the main terms of the investment may show the valuation, the investment amount, the share ratio, management, conditions precedent and exit expectations. However, its binding force is not determined by the name of the document alone. While confidentiality, exclusivity, expenses and dispute resolution may be made binding, the obligation to invest may be made subject to certain conditions precedent. It should be written clearly which provision is binding. [2]

Signing and closing need not take place on the same day. Completion of legal review, permits, company resolutions, capital commitments, payment and share records may constitute the closing conditions. A conditional investment commitment should not be presented as if the money had actually entered the company. The investor, too, should ask on what legal relationship a payment made to a founder’s personal account is based. [1, 2]

An equity investment and the purchase of an existing share should be distinguished

In an investment through a capital increase, the purpose is to provide resources to the company in return for new shares. When an existing shareholder’s share is sold, the price as a rule goes to the person selling the share. Both methods can be used together in the same transaction package, but the amount that will enter the company’s treasury and the price the founder will collect must be clearly separated. The share sale price cannot be presented as the company’s working capital. [1, 2]

Hypothetical calculation: If the pre-investment company value is assumed to be TL 8 million and the investor brings TL 2 million as an equity investment, then, assuming no other adjustment, the post-investment value is TL 10 million and the investor’s share is 20 percent. This is only a simplified example. When existing debts, convertible instruments, the employee share pool and new privileges are taken into account, the result may change. The economic valuation of an investment is not the same as the company’s capital recorded in the registry.

The cap table should show economic rights and future dilution

A cap table is the share table showing the shareholders and the distribution of shares. A current table should show separately not only the existing shares but also options and convertible contracts that may give rise to shares if they materialize. A fully diluted calculation shows the effect of these potential shares; it does not present a share that has not yet arisen as a legally issued share.

A decrease in a share percentage in a new investment and the acquisition of an existing share without consideration are different events. How pre-emptive rights, participation rights and anti-dilution provisions will operate, whether they require additional payment and at which valuation they will be triggered should be examined. Whether the economic protection the investor wants will make later investment rounds more difficult is also a matter for negotiation. [1, 2]

Investor protections should not stop the company from functioning

Approval rights over significant transactions, information rights, the right to nominate a board member, the right to join a sale (tag-along) and the right to force a joint sale (drag-along) address different needs. Simply listing foreign terms without stating the price, notice, time, payment, liability and form conditions does not create an enforceable contract. An authority of a body that the law does not permit cannot be transferred by contract without limit. [1, 2]

Priority payment out of liquidation or sale proceeds (liquidation preference) may affect the economic sharing between the investor and the other shareholders. This provision does not by itself remove the statutory priority of the company’s creditors. Models such as single-layer preference, participating preference or participation by converting into shares each give a different result at the same sale price. Founders should look not only at the percentage they will hold but also at the net amount they will receive at different exit prices.

What did the 2026 legislation change for SAFE and convertible debt?

SAFE is a term used for financing agreements aimed at acquiring shares in the future. A convertible debt agreement (a debt agreement convertible into shares), by contrast, regulates the conversion of a debt into shares under certain conditions. Not every SAFE is a debt agreement, and not every debt converts into shares on its own. Interest, maturity, refund right, conversion event, valuation cap, discount and liquidation provisions affect the true legal nature of the document. [1, 2]

Paragraph fifteen, added to Article 3 of Law No. 5746 by Law No. 7582, introduced a special rule for conditional capital increases that companies holding the technology venture badge (teknogirişim rozeti) and not publicly held will make on the basis of convertible debt agreements. It provides that the TTK provisions on conditional capital increases will not apply to increases within this scope, and that the procedures and principles will be determined by the Ministry of Industry and Technology after obtaining the opinion of the Ministry of Trade. [12]

This provision does not mean that every startup can use every foreign SAFE text verbatim. The badge, the nature of the company, whether the contract is really a convertible debt agreement and the procedure applicable to the specific transaction should be examined together. For structures outside the special rule, the general company law conditions cannot be ignored. In a transaction for which the implementing regulation has not been verified, no promise should be made that the conversion will be completed automatically and smoothly. [1, 2, 12]

The contract should also address the possibility that the investment never takes place or that a round of sufficient size is not completed. The share class on the conversion date, the rights of earlier investors, exchange rate differences, the calculation if there is interest, the consequence of the capital transaction not being completed and dispute resolution should be clear. Tax, accounting, foreign exchange and, where necessary, capital markets assessments cannot be skipped merely on the ground that the contract is widely used abroad.

How are ideas, trademarks, patents and designs protected?

A business idea is not the same as a protectable intellectual property right

An abstract business idea does not by itself grant a monopoly right that prohibits all its applications. Protection varies according to the nature of the concrete work, the technical invention, the distinctive sign, the design or the trade secret. A confidentiality agreement may restrict the use of disclosed information, but it does not create a patent or copyright against everyone. [6, 7, 9]

What will be disclosed before a product presentation should be planned. Sharing confidential technical information in unnecessary detail may affect its trade-secret character or, in some countries, the assessment of novelty. In investor review, staged access, access logs and the removal of unnecessary personal data are useful. That said, not signing a confidentiality agreement in every investor’s first meeting does not oblige the venture to disclose all its technical details.

Trademark search, registration and opposition are separate steps

A trademark application is made to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu) — TÜRKPATENT. First, the sign’s distinctiveness, its relationship to earlier rights and the correct goods/services classes should be assessed. Registering a trade name, acquiring a domain name or opening a social media account does not replace trademark registration. A registered trademark is protected for ten years from the filing date and can be renewed in ten-year periods. [7, 8]

The opposition period against publication of a trademark application and the invalidation or cancellation routes after registration are different. For opposition to the publication of an application, the general period is two months from the date of publication. Objection to the Office’s decision and an action against the final decision are also subject to their own conditions. No general period such as “the trademark becomes final two to three months after the application” can be given; the examination, deficiency and opposition stages affect the length of the process. [7, 8]

A patent and a utility model are separate routes of protection

For a patent, novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability are assessed together. The conditions and excluded subject matter of a utility model are different; it should not be treated merely as another name for a patent. From the filing date, the protection period is twenty years for a patent and ten years for a utility model; the statutory steps and annual fees for maintaining protection are also tracked. [7]

A computer program “as such” should be distinguished from an invention that provides a technical solution to a technical problem. That an application is digital does not show that all its elements are patentable. Design protection likewise requires a different examination relating to the appearance of the product. It should not be assumed that protection obtained in Türkiye is automatically valid worldwide; the target countries and the filing strategy should be determined separately. [7]

How is ownership of rights in software and content secured?

Paying a fee does not by itself acquire all the economic rights

The author status of the person who developed the software, the authority to exercise economic rights, the license given to the customer and the delivery of the source code are different concepts. A venture’s financing a product or paying a software invoice does not in every case mean that it has taken over all of the author’s rights. Under Article 52 of Law No. 5846 (FSEK), contracts and dispositions concerning economic rights must be in writing and the rights concerned must be indicated individually. [6, 9]

In the contract, the necessary economic rights such as adaptation, reproduction, distribution and communication to the public should be assessed together with the concrete modes of use. The duration, geographical scope and exclusivity of the assignment or license, the authority to let third parties use and to sublicense, and the right to develop and modify should be made explicit. Whether the sentence “all rights belong to the customer” is sufficient for the specific contract and rights must be checked separately; no one should rely on a single general sentence. For works not yet created, the distinction between an assignment and an undertaking to assign in the future should be preserved. [6]

The positions of the employee, the founder and the outside service provider differ

FSEK Article 18/2 contains a special rule on the exercise of rights in works that employees create while performing their jobs. This provision is not suited to treating every software developer who provides services from outside as an employee, or to treating moral rights as having been transferred to the company. The transfer to the company of code the founder wrote before the company existed should also be documented separately. [6]

If ready-made libraries, open source components, stock images, datasets or third-party software are used, the license obligations should be recorded. Open source does not mean “unlimited and unconditional use.” The license used, the form of distribution and the modifications made may affect obligations such as sharing the source code, attribution or distribution under the same license. This review should be made not on an abstract compliance statement but on the list of components actually used.

Technical delivery should be planned together with legal assignment

Delivery criteria should be written for the source code repository, version history, build instructions, administrator accounts, domain name, cloud service, app store account, API keys, data export and backups. Giving a working link does not always show that the venture can manage the product independently. Conversely, delivery of the code does not by itself determine the scope of the economic rights. Technical and legal delivery should be tied to the same acceptance process through separate lists. [2, 6, 11]

The promises a venture makes to its customers should also be consistent with its own rights. Promising a customer an unlimited assignment over a component for which only a limited license was obtained from a third party creates contractual risk. By separating pre-existing code, project-specific development and third-party components, both the company’s ability to reuse its product and the customer’s legitimate need for use can be regulated.

Court of Cassation decision: what review did the use of software for another customer require?

The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) dated January 14, 2026, E.2025/1871, K.2026/166, concerns a claim of intellectual property infringement raised because software developed for a university was used in a project for another university. The economic-rights provision in the contract, the software’s character as a work, source code and module comparisons, and the defense of pre-existing software were assessed together. [11]

The first-instance court’s decision, which partly accepted the pecuniary claim and rejected the non-pecuniary damages claim as regards authorship, was upheld on appeal (istinaf); the Court of Cassation also issued an affirmation decision. That the decision accepted the economic-rights provision in the specific contract does not mean that all general assignment sentences are sufficient in every case. Likewise, the existence of two software products that perform a similar function does not by itself prove infringement. [11]

The practical lesson for ventures is to separate in the contract the infrastructure to be reused, the project-specific code, the economic rights assigned and the authorities reserved. In a claim of infringement, reliance should be placed not on screen similarity alone but on concrete use that can be shown through accessible technical records and expert review. The decision is treated not as the case of a particular startup but as an example applicable to rights management in software ventures.

What provisions should customer, supplier and platform contracts contain?

What matters is not the length of the contract but that it describes the work to be done correctly. Product sale, project development, subscription, license and consulting do not involve the same performance. SaaS refers to the provision of software as a service; the product’s usage model and the rights given to the customer are determined separately. A “service contract” of unclear scope may expose the parties’ differing expectations in a dispute over delivery and payment. The review of general terms and conditions and the mandatory provisions concerning consumers must also be observed. [2, 16]

When liability limits are assessed, gross negligence, expert services carried out under a permit, personality rights and mandatory rules should be taken into account. Accepting unlimited liability for every loss is as risky as writing that no liability will be accepted in any circumstances. A balanced arrangement should be built by separating the degradation of service levels, delay, data loss and third-party claims of right from one another. [2]

In the electronic acceptance process, the records of which version of the contract was shown to the customer, the time of acceptance, the information given and the order should be retained. A website text that has changed afterwards does not by itself prove which terms an earlier customer accepted. The legal effect of a secure electronic signature and that of ticking an ordinary checkbox or confirming by e-mail should not be regarded as the same; the form that the transaction requires should be examined separately. [2, 25]

Consumer, withdrawal and commercial message rules for e-commerce ventures

Consumer law applies to goods and services offered to an individual customer for non-commercial or non-professional purposes. That the sale is made over the internet does not permit the consumer’s statutory rights to be removed by contract. The identity of the seller or provider, the total price, additional costs, the basic characteristics and the avenues of recourse must be explained comprehensibly before the contract. The platform operator, too, may bear separate obligations according to its legal role. [16]

In distance contracts the general right of withdrawal period is fourteen days; its starting point differs for the delivery of goods and for service contracts. Exceptions such as services performed instantly in an electronic environment, intangible goods delivered instantly, or services whose performance begins with the consumer’s approval are assessed under their own conditions. Automatically writing “no refunds” for every digital product is not correct. The effect of failure to give information on the period, and rights arising from defective performance, should be examined separately from withdrawal. [16]

The ETBİS obligation is determined according to the venture’s role in electronic commerce and its operating model. For sending commercial electronic messages, Law No. 6563, the relevant regulation and the İYS system apply separately. KVKK explicit consent, consent to marketing messages and acceptance of the contract should not be combined into a single, unclear consent. Exceptions, the right to refuse and record-keeping obligations should also be taken into account. [14, 17]

How should KVKK compliance be built in startups?

Explicit consent is not required for every item of personal data

Personal data may be processed on grounds other than explicit consent: cases provided for by law, a necessity directly related to the conclusion or performance of a contract, a legal obligation and other statutory processing conditions. The appropriate basis must be determined separately for each processing purpose. An approach of “we will obtain explicit consent for all data” does not remove the review of purpose, necessity and free will. The obligation to inform and explicit consent are likewise separate transactions. [14]

Customer, employee, candidate, user and visitor data should not be tied to the same retention period or access rule. Special conditions apply to health data, biometric data and other special categories of personal data. Whether the venture is a data controller or a data processor should be assessed not by the label written in the contract but by who determines the purposes and means. Being a small business or a startup does not provide a general KVKK exemption. The VERBİS registration obligation and any exception to it are also separate from the other obligations. [14]

Cloud and artificial intelligence services abroad may give rise to a data transfer

Transferring personal data to a foreign cloud, customer management or artificial intelligence service requires a review of the provisions on transfers abroad. Remote access, sub-processors and data flows matter as much as the location of the server. Under KVKK Article 9, an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards and exceptional transfer situations are addressed under their own conditions; managing a continuously operating transfer as an exceptional situation in every case is not correct. [14, 15]

In the standard contract method, the official text appropriate to the parties’ roles must be chosen, and the content of the contract and the signing authority must be checked. According to the Authority’s statement, the signed standard contract must be notified within five business days from the completion of the signatures. Accepting a foreign provider’s own data processing text does not mean that the standard contract and notification conditions in Türkiye are automatically satisfied. [15]

A compliance file should be a workable operating system, not a text

The data inventory, privacy notices, access authorizations, retention and destruction, request management, supplier review and incident response should be built together. What matters is whether the written rules are actually applied. Collecting more data than needed, opening access to the whole team or moving real customer data into the test environment without control each create separate risks. [14]

In AI-supported products, the right to use the dataset, the transfer of user inputs to the provider, the verification of outputs and the results that the product promises the customer should additionally be examined. In fields such as health, finance or legal assessment, the statement “we use artificial intelligence” does not by itself remove human oversight or sector-specific obligations. No general conclusion should be drawn either that all rights in wholly AI-generated output indisputably belong to the venture. [6, 14, 23]

How are the relationships with employees, consultants and share options regulated?

Calling a person a consultant or freelancer does not automatically take a relationship in which they actually work in a dependent capacity outside labor law. The way the work is carried out, supervision, pay, time and place within the organization are examined together. Obligations on pay, social security, working time, leave and termination do not disappear automatically because the venture is not yet profitable. [18]

The employment or service contract should regulate duties, delivery, confidentiality, equipment, remote access, intellectual property rights and the transfer of accounts at the time of departure. For a post-employment non-competition covenant, the special conditions in the TBK are observed; as a rule, the two-year limit and the exception for special circumstances are assessed together with proportionality as to place and activity. [2, 18]

Actual shares, options and phantom shares are different rights

Granting an employee shares directly may create existing shareholding; an option gives the right to acquire shares in the future under certain conditions. A phantom share (sanal pay) is mostly a monetary-claim model tied to company value or performance; it does not by itself give voting rights or the right to attend the general assembly. In every model, the vesting, departure, sale, tax, payment and dispute resolution conditions should be made explicit. [1, 2, 13]

Through Law No. 7582, the limit of the share certificate exemption in Article 17 of the Income Tax Law (GVK) for employees of technology venture companies was raised to twice the annual gross salary, and the holding periods were changed. This rule does not exempt from tax every company’s entire share or option plan. The statutory company status, the form in which the share is granted, the valuation, the exemption calculation and the tax that may be reclaimed because of early disposal should be examined separately. A promise of an option and the actual grant of a share certificate subject to the exemption should not be regarded as the same taxable event. [12, 13]

Which distinctions matter in taxes, incentives and support?

The general corporate tax rate for joint-stock and limited liability companies for 2026 is 25 percent. Special rates, reductions and exemptions are subject to separate conditions; this rate does not mean that 25 percent of all of a venture’s receipts will directly be paid as tax. The tax base, expenses, the period, other tax obligations and special rules are assessed together. Corporate tax, VAT, withholding on wages, profit distribution and the taxation of share sales are different subjects. [19]

Being in a technopark, carrying out R&D activity, obtaining the technology venture badge and being accepted into a support program are not the same status. The advantages that can be used under Laws No. 4691 and No. 5746 are determined according to the activity, the project, the personnel and other conditions. Having applied for support does not mean that all expenses are considered eligible or that payment is final. [12, 20, 21]

The exemption from chamber fees and dues in the digital company rule introduced by Law No. 7582 is tied to eligible incubation entrepreneurship and to the digital company conditions the Ministry will determine. The advantage of chamber fees and dues for up to three years is not an exemption from all taxes. The separate regimes introduced for international service centers or for natural persons newly settling in Türkiye are likewise not applied merely because a startup has been formed; the right holder and the nature of the income should be examined separately. [12]

KOSGEB support and TÜBİTAK support are not the same financing

KOSGEB’s announcement dated October 12, 2026 states that the Entrepreneur Support Program has been renewed and that applications for the third period of the 2026 Business Development Support are accepted between October 12 and 31, 2026. This date relates only to the call indicated; it is not a common final date for all supports. The type of support, repayment, eligible expenses, sector and application conditions should be checked from the call documents. [20]

TÜBİTAK’s BiGG Investment model, in turn, may involve investment in return for shares. The 2026 second call announcement stated an investment of TL 1,350,000 in return for a 3 percent share for ventures that meet the conditions. The same announcement stated that second-stage applications for this call ended on September 30, 2026. That the program continues does not mean that applications to this call are still open. The obligations of a grant, repayable support and share-based investment on the entrepreneur should be read separately. [21]

How should regulated sectors and foreign investment be reviewed?

Forming a company is not a permit to start operations

For payment services and electronic money, Law No. 6493 and the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) regulations matter; for investment services, crowdfunding and crypto-asset services, the relevant capital markets regime matters. A venture being merely a software provider is not the same as its holding customer funds or offering a regulated service in its own name. The business model should be classified on the basis of the actual flow of money and services. [22, 23]

Crowdfunding based on shares or debt does not mean that collecting investment from everyone on social media is free. The platform, the issuance and the investor conditions are assessed within the relevant Capital Markets Board (SPK) regulations. A donation or reward model is not wholly exempt from consumer, tax and other rules merely because it can fall outside the scope of this communiqué. [16, 22]

In health, tourism, transport, food and other sectors, the required permits must be determined according to the nature of the product or service. An activity that legally requires a permit cannot be taken outside the permit requirement by calling it a “trial product,” a “pilot” or a “marketplace.” This guide is not a permit catalog listing the license conditions of every sector one by one; it sets out the basic distinction that requires the competent authority and the scope of the permit to be determined before the activity begins.

Foreign investment, work permits and an overseas company are separate matters

Under the framework in Law No. 4875, foreign investors may form companies and acquire shares in Türkiye; private-sector limitations and other relevant provisions are reserved. A foreign person’s being a shareholder does not by itself satisfy the permit or exemption conditions required for actually working in Türkiye. Company partnership, residence and work status should be assessed separately. [27]

Forming a parent company abroad and tying the venture in Türkiye to that structure may be referred to as a flip-up. This transaction does not consist merely of forming a foreign company online. The shares in the Turkish company, software and trademark rights, customer contracts, data, taxes and the investors’ existing rights should be reviewed. The choice of foreign law likewise does not remove the mandatory company law provisions applicable to the Turkish company. [1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 27]

For a venture targeting the European Union market, relevant foreign data and product regulations, including the GDPR, are separately assessed according to the targeting and the conditions of activity. Translating the contract used in Türkiye does not mean that all the legal requirements of the target country are met. No promise should be made, without a country-by-country review, that the same terms of use and consumer terms will apply smoothly worldwide. [29]

Which records should be kept during investment review and the growth period?

Legal due diligence is not an investor’s merely finding out whether the company has any lawsuits. It covers the joint assessment of shareholding, payment of capital, authority of representation, contracts, intellectual property rights, personnel, data protection, tax and permits. A finding from the review may turn into a condition precedent to the investment, a price adjustment, a specific undertaking or a special indemnity obligation.

A venture’s working file should contain at least the following groups: formation and amendment documents; the current cap table and share transfers; management and general assembly resolutions; investment/debt contracts; the inventory of intellectual property rights and licenses; important customer and supplier contracts; employee documents; data and security records; permits; financial statements and existing disputes. The absence of a document from the file does not by itself prove that the right never existed; however, for transaction security the gap should be explained and, if possible, filled. [1, 2, 6, 14, 18, 19]

Profit distribution, audit and manager liability should not be neglected

Receiving investment does not mean that shareholders may freely use company money for personal needs. In profit distribution, the distributable resources, the statutory reserves, the company agreement and the resolution of the competent body are assessed together. A shareholder’s giving money to the company may be a loan, capital or another payment; the records must show the true nature of the transaction. [1, 2, 28]

The independent audit obligation is determined not merely by looking at whether a company is joint-stock or limited liability; the relevant scope, thresholds and special regulations are examined. The obligations relating to the general assembly, books, financial reporting and loss of capital cannot be wholly disregarded on the ground that the company is small. Where a review of loss of capital or over-indebtedness is required under TTK Article 376, holding new investment talks does not automatically postpone the managers’ existing duties. [1]

A capital increase and a capital reduction are also different transactions. In an increase, the source of financing, the new shares and the rights of existing shareholders are examined; in a reduction, the protection of capital, the position of creditors and the relevant registration procedures. A capital reduction is not a simple method of withdrawing money that can be used under every condition to pay a departing founder. A request for dissolution of the company for just cause is likewise different from an ordinary exit agreement; in a joint-stock company TTK Article 531, in a limited liability company Article 636, and the circumstances of the specific case are assessed. [1]

During growth, the veto or management rights the investor will obtain should not be regarded as outside competition-law review merely because the share ratio is low. Change of control, the parties to the transaction and the current turnover thresholds are assessed. In the merger and acquisition regime updated by the Competition Authority in 2026, the special conditions concerning technology undertakings should also be taken into account; no reliance should be placed on the old thresholds or on the generalization that all technology transactions will be notifiable without thresholds. [24]

How are exit from the partnership, disputes and liquidation managed?

A share sale, departure and the closing of the company are different transactions

A founder’s ceasing to work does not mean that their shares disappear on their own. Share transfer, withdrawal from or removal from the partnership, and the termination of the company are subject to different conditions. In a limited liability company, the written form of the share transfer, the notarization of the signatures and, as a rule, general assembly approval matter. In a joint-stock company, by contrast, registered or bearer shares, embodiment in a certificate, payment of the price and transfer restrictions are examined separately. [1]

The exit document should regulate the price, payment security, debts and collateral, earlier undertakings, intellectual property rights, data, handover of accounts and the scope of the release (ibra). A shareholder’s transferring their share does not mean that the personal security they gave to the bank is also removed. A debt taken in the company’s name and a loan the shareholder gave to the company should not be confused in the closing account. [1, 2]

A company’s actually ceasing activity does not mean its deletion from the registry. Termination, liquidation, the position of creditors, tax and social security procedures, and deregistration from the registry each have their own procedures. A failed venture is not legally liquidated merely by closing its domain name or subscriptions. [1, 5, 19]

The right action, the right claim and the time limit must be determined

Annulment of a general assembly resolution, share transfer, breach of contract, intellectual property infringement, employment receivables and consumer disputes are not heard in the same court or with the same preconditions. Mediation as a condition for bringing an action may arise for specific monetary claims and compensation claims of a commercial nature; for labor and consumer disputes, their own special rules may apply. The existence of an arbitration clause and the arbitrability of the dispute are examined separately. [1, 16, 18, 25, 26]

For example, in an action to annul a general assembly resolution under TTK Article 445, the three-month period from the date of the resolution matters; for a limited liability company, the cross-reference in Article 622 is observed. Nullity (yokluk), voidness (butlan) and annulment should not be treated as the same ground and time-limit regime. That negotiations are continuing between the parties does not mean that the time limit for bringing the action stops on its own. [1, 10]

In preparing evidence, all versions of the contract, acceptance records, bank transactions, body resolutions, the share ledger, registry records and technical documents should be preserved. Under HMK Article 400 et seq., preservation of evidence or, if the conditions are met, interim legal protection may be considered. Instead of obtaining records by entering other people’s accounts without permission, lawful methods of obtaining them and of obtaining documents through the court should be used. [25]

Track critical time limits in a single calendar, but on separate legal bases

The table does not determine the last day of every dispute. Notification, the date of the transaction, special laws, holidays, suspension or interruption of the limitation period, and the distinction of the preclusive period (hak düşürücü süre) should be examined separately. An e-mail sent to a founder, an application to the administration or a mediation meeting does not stop all the different time limits at once. [1, 8, 15, 16, 26]

A checklist that can be applied in a venture’s first ninety days

The plan below is not a statutory period; it is a preparation proposal that can be brought forward or run in parallel depending on the business model. Where there is an operating permit, a data transfer or an imminent limitation period, the end of the ninety days should not be awaited.

First thirty days: The founders’ contributions, existing rights, company type, activity and permit needs, a preliminary trademark search and the basic contracts are determined. The owner and the access authority of all the accounts the venture will use are recorded. It is clarified which assets and debts the company to be formed will assume.

Days thirty to sixty: Employee and outside service provider contracts, intellectual property documents, customer contracts, the payment/delivery arrangement and the data flow are completed. How the product will be accepted, which version is delivered and how it will be used when support ends are tested. The eligibility and call calendars of support programs are tracked separately.

Days sixty to ninety: The cap table and investment scenarios are updated; the legal review file is prepared. For the scenarios of a founder’s departure, a customer’s termination, a system outage and a data breach, it is determined which person will carry out which transaction. For every outstanding task, a document, a responsible person and an end date are shown; a general “we are compliant” statement alone is not enough.

Conclusion

In startup law, a safe start is not accumulating many ready-made contracts; it is correctly establishing the links among partnership, money, representation, product, data and liability. The company’s having been formed does not by itself show that the intellectual property rights have been taken over; the signing of an investment agreement does not show that the money has entered the company; and the ticking of a consent box does not show that all data processing is lawful.

Founders’ expectations should rest on workable contracts and company resolutions, the economic model of the investment on a clear share and payment calculation, and authority over the product on verifiable rights and delivery documents. As the Court of Cassation decisions reviewed also show, when a dispute arises, what is decisive is not the foreign terms used but a provable agreement, a legally valid transaction and a concrete document. Reviewing this structure as a whole before a new investment or growth allows risks that are hard to remedy later to be noticed early. [10, 11]

Related articles: Limited Liability Company Share Transfer: Notary, General Assembly Approval, Registration and Liability and Joint-Stock Company Share Transfer: Registered and Bearer Shares, Share Ledger and MKK Notification address share transfers and exit from the partnership; Non-Competition Obligations of Company Shareholders and Managers addresses founder and manager obligations; and Income Tax Exemption for Young Entrepreneurs separately addresses the tax exemption for entrepreneurs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a special company type for forming a startup?

No. Startup is a name for a business model. A joint-stock, limited liability or other structure is chosen; the activity and support status are assessed separately. For details, see the section on choosing a company type. [1]

Can one person form a startup?

A single-shareholder joint-stock or limited liability company can be formed. Even so, the company’s capital, body, accounting and operating obligations continue. The single shareholder’s assets and the company’s assets are not the same. [1]

Is 25 percent of the capital paid in at the start for a limited liability company?

This pre-formation requirement does not apply to limited liability companies. The cash capital debt does not disappear; the statutory framework and payment schedule are followed. The general rule for a joint-stock company is different. [1, 28]

Does having my idea recorded at a notary provide a patent?

No. Proving the date and content of a document is different from the arising of patent, trademark or copyright protection. The nature of the element to be protected and the conditions of the relevant law must be determined. [6, 7, 9]

Is acquiring a domain name enough to protect a trademark?

No. A domain name registration does not replace trademark registration. Earlier rights, the nature of the sign and the goods/services classes are examined separately. [7, 8]

Is it sufficient to agree orally on a 50 percent partnership?

Not in every case. The proof of the agreement, the company type, the form of share acquisition and its effect on the company are assessed separately. The 2024 Court of Cassation decision shows the importance of this distinction. [1, 2, 10]

If a founder leaves the job, do they automatically lose their shares?

No. The end of the employment or service relationship is different from the end of shareholding. The validity and conditions of application of a vesting or buy-back arrangement are examined separately. [1, 2]

Is the investment amount alone sufficient to give an investor a 20 percent share?

No. The company valuation, the choice between a capital increase and a share sale, the share pool, convertible instruments and institutional transactions are determined together. A simple valuation calculation does not replace a legal share transfer. [1, 2]

Have SAFE agreements automatically become applicable to every company in 2026?

No. The special rule in Article 3, paragraph 15 of Law No. 5746 is for certain badge-holding companies that are not publicly held and for convertible debt relationships. The nature of the SAFE and the conversion procedure to be applied must be examined separately. [12]

I paid for the software; did all the rights pass to my company?

Not in every case. Delivery of the source code, a license, assignment of economic rights and authorship are different. The scope of the rights in the contract and the form rules of FSEK are assessed. [6, 9, 11]

Is software produced by an employee assessed the same as software produced by a freelance developer?

No. FSEK Article 18/2 matters for works created in the course of performing the job; the rights of an outside service provider are examined under the specific contract and the assignment/license arrangement. [6]

Can open source code be used in a commercial product?

Depending on its license, yes. Attribution, distribution, source sharing and other conditions should be checked according to the component used and the mode of use. “Open source” does not mean an unconditional transfer of rights.

Is it mandatory to obtain KVKK explicit consent from all users?

No. The appropriate statutory processing condition is determined for each transaction. Explicit consent, the privacy notice and consent to marketing messages should be assessed separately. [14, 17]

Is a foreign cloud provider’s contract sufficient for a KVKK transfer?

It cannot be assumed to be sufficient on its own. The transfer-abroad mechanism, the roles of the parties, appropriate safeguards and, where necessary, the standard contract notification are assessed separately. [14, 15]

Are shares granted to a startup employee entirely exempt from tax?

No. The company, share, value and other conditions in GVK Article 17, together with the 2026 amendments, apply. Actual shares, options and phantom shares should not be treated with the same tax consequence. [12, 13]

Do startups pay no corporate tax at all?

There is no general exemption. In 2026 the general rate is 25 percent; reductions and exemptions are subject to their conditions. KOSGEB support or the technology venture badge does not remove all taxes. [12, 19, 20]

Is BiGG support a non-repayable grant?

In the BiGG Investment model, investment in return for shares may be involved. The call type, the share ratio, and the investment and monitoring obligations should be read from the current documents. A grant should not be assumed from the name of the program. [21]

Can a foreign shareholder work in Türkiye without a work permit?

Company shareholding alone does not produce this result. Actual work, the person’s status, the work permit and any exemption conditions are assessed separately. [27]

Is every investment transaction notified to the Competition Authority?

No. Change of control, the thresholds in force and special provisions are examined. A low share ratio does not by itself prove that notification is not required either. [24]

Can an action be brought directly in a partnership dispute?

It depends on the type of claim. The competent court, mediation, arbitration and time limit conditions are determined separately. Annulment of a general assembly resolution and a contractual damages claim are not subject to the same procedure. [1, 25, 26]

Is closing the company’s website enough for liquidation?

No. The termination of the company, its debts, and tax and registry procedures must be completed under their own procedures. The cessation of digital activity does not by itself end the legal entity. [1, 5, 19]

Do all documents need to be ready for a legal review?

No. The existing formation documents, the cap table, important contracts, the venture’s rights records and known time limits can be used for a start. Missing documents are put on a separate list; if there is an imminent time limit or an operating permit issue, the complete file should not be awaited.

Sources

1. Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu); in particular Articles 4–5/A, 124, 128, 329–345, 355, 359, 369, 375–376, 379, 437, 445–447, 461, 490–494, 519, 531, 573, 580–585, 588, 595, 608, 614, 622–623, 636 and Provisional Article 15. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
2. Republic of Türkiye, Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu); in particular Articles 12, 19–27, 112, 115–116, 146–149, 444–447, 470 et seq., 620 et seq. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
3. Ministry of Trade, Minimum Capital Amounts for Joint-Stock and Limited Liability Companies Have Been Increased; Presidential Decision No. 7887 and the amounts applicable from January 1, 2024. Ministry announcement.
4. Ministry of Trade, Companies — Frequently Asked Questions, May 12, 2026; the explanation on compliance with minimum capital and TTK Provisional Article 15. Relevant Ministry page.
5. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables (Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun), in particular Article 35 and repeated Article 35. Revenue Administration legislation record.
6. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu); in particular Articles 1/B, 2, 8, 18, 21–25, 48, 50, 52, 66–70. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
7. Republic of Türkiye, Industrial Property Law No. 6769 (Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu); in particular Articles 4–7, 18–23, 25–26, 55 et seq., 82–84, 101, 113 et seq., 142 and 148. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
8. Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu), Trademark Application Guide; the sections on application, opposition to publication, protection and renewal. Office guide.
9. Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Copyright, General Questions; authorship, computer programs and the distinction from ideas. Official explanations.
10. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2023/1084, K.2024/4695, June 5, 2024; general assembly of a limited liability company, the alleged equal-share agreement and the effect of a shareholders’ agreement; affirmed. Full decision record — De Jure.
11. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2025/1871, K.2026/166, January 14, 2026; economic rights in software, the contract and use in another project; affirmed. Full decision record — De Jure.
12. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 7582 Amending Certain Laws (Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), adopted May 21, 2026, Official Gazette June 4, 2026/33270; in particular Articles 3, 4, 6, 11 and 14. TBMM text of the law. Also Law No. 5746, Article 3/15–16.
13. Republic of Türkiye, Income Tax Law No. 193 (Gelir Vergisi Kanunu), Article 17 and the amendments by Law No. 7582; Revenue Administration, amendment record of Income Tax General Communiqué (Series No: 326), July 4, 2026. GVK · Communiqué record.
14. Republic of Türkiye, Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), in particular Articles 4–6, 9–13 and 16. Authority’s publication of the law (official English version; in legal practice the Turkish text is authoritative).
15. Personal Data Protection Authority (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu), Public Announcement on Points to Be Considered in Standard Contracts to Be Used in Transfers of Personal Data Abroad, February 5, 2025. Official announcement.
16. Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), in particular Articles 3, 5, 48, 73 and 73/A; Regulation on Distance Contracts (Mesafeli Sözleşmeler Yönetmeliği). Ministry of Trade, Information on Distance Contracts, August 17, 2026. Current Ministry guide.
17. Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce (Elektronik Ticaretin Düzenlenmesi Hakkında Kanun) and related secondary legislation; Ministry of Trade, Electronic Commerce Information System (ETBİS). ETBİS and access to legislation.
18. Republic of Türkiye, Labor Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu) and Labor Courts Law No. 7036 (İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu). Labor Law · Labor Courts Law.
19. Revenue Administration, Corporate Tax Rates, 2026 column; Corporate Tax Law No. 5520 (Kurumlar Vergisi Kanunu), in particular Article 32. Official rate table.
20. KOSGEB, Entrepreneur Support Program Renewed: A New Support Model for Entrepreneurs, October 12, 2026; the scope of the program and the 2026 third-period calendar. Official announcement.
21. TÜBİTAK, The 2026-2 Call of the BiGG Investment Program Has Opened, September 11, 2026; investment model, eligibility and application calendar. Official call announcement.
22. Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Crowdfunding Communiqué (III-35/A.2) and related capital markets regulations. Text of the communiqué · SPK legislation system.
23. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası), Payment Services; Law No. 6493 and related regulations. Official regulatory framework.
24. Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu), Merger and Acquisition Legislation Updated, 2026; current thresholds and the rule concerning technology undertakings. Official announcement.
25. Republic of Türkiye, Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu); in particular Articles 17–18, 190, 199, 219–220, 266, 389 et seq., 400 et seq., 407–408. Legislation text.
26. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu); in particular Articles 16 and 18/A; Law No. 6102, Article 5/A and the related special conditions for bringing an action. Legislation text.
27. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 4875 on Foreign Direct Investment (Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu) and Law No. 6735 on International Labor Force (Uluslararası İşgücü Kanunu); the distinction between investment and work permit. Law No. 4875 · Law No. 6735.
28. Hakan Bilgeç, “The Effects on the Voting and Dividend Rights of Shareholders of the Amendment Made by Law No. 7099 on the Payment of the Cash Capital Share in a Limited Liability Company”, TBB Dergisi (Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations), 2019, issue 143, pp. 235–256; in particular pp. 239 and 249–251. A historical academic study; the old minimum capital amount has not been used as the current amount. Full article.
29. European Union, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation 2016/679; in particular Article 3, territorial scope. EUR-Lex official text.
30. Ministry of Trade, MERSİS; electronic preparation of company formation and registry transactions. Official system.