Settlement in a Civil Lawsuit: Settle or Continue the Case?

Whether a settlement offer in a civil lawsuit is appropriate is determined by examining together the amount offered, the evidentiary position of the file, the prospects of collection, the timing of payment and the rights to be given up. A promise of a high payment may fail to deliver the expected benefit if it depends on an uncertain due date and a debtor without security. A lower offer, on the other hand, should not be accepted merely because it is quick. The decision must be made after reading the entire agreement.

Settlement is an important option in the pursuit of one’s rights. A well-prepared agreement can reduce uncertainty and allow the dispute to end in a way that suits the parties’ needs. A poorly prepared text, however, can give rise to a new dispute at the payment, waiver, release or enforcement stage.

This guide focuses on private-law disputes in Turkish law over which the parties can freely dispose. It explains the differences between in-court settlement, an out-of-court protocol and a mediation agreement in light of current statutory provisions, relevant Court of Cassation decisions and academic works. Reconciliation in criminal proceedings and conciliation in tax law are subject to different rules.

What Should Be Evaluated Before Accepting a Settlement Offer?

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Case Should Be Seen Together

When preparing for a settlement meeting, the legal basis of the claim and the available evidence must first be identified. The effect on the file of the contract, the payment records, the correspondence, the expert report and the opposing party’s response is examined separately. A sound bargaining range cannot be formed without understanding by what calculation the full amount claimed is demanded and which part of it is disputed.

This review is not necessary only for the creditor. The defendant, too, must know which part of the claim is defensible, which documents may produce a result against it, and the burden it may bear at the end of the proceedings. A claim is not justified merely because a lawsuit was filed, and a debt does not disappear merely because it was objected to.

The stage of the file can change the assessment. If there is evidence not yet collected, an expert calculation open to objection, or a decision that will be reviewed through a legal remedy, the source of the uncertainty of the outcome must be stated clearly. Definite success percentages not based on documents are not a reliable basis for a decision to settle.

The Net Value of the Offer and the Likelihood of Collection Must Be Calculated

A settlement amount may not be the same as the net amount that will be received. Interest, taxes and deductions, litigation costs, attorneys’ fees and enforcement expenses are addressed separately. The debtor’s ability to pay continues to matter after the offer is accepted. Obtaining a document with the force of a judgment (ilam) does not mean that the debtor has assets from which payment can be made.

For example, purely for comparison, one may consider 800,000 Turkish lira (TL) payable today versus a total of 1,000,000 TL payable in ten installments. The nominal amount of the second offer is higher; but without knowing the due dates, the payment security, the likelihood of delay, the time value of money and the costs, it cannot be said which is more suitable. This example does not recommend a particular rate of reduction.

The Client’s Objective May Not Consist Only of the Amount in the Lawsuit

The continuation of a business relationship, the protection of trade secrets, the delivery of an immovable on a specific date, or an end to prolonged uncertainty may also carry value for the client. How these objectives will be reflected in the agreement, to the extent the legal order permits, should be discussed. Fatigue or the need for payment should not be underestimated; nor should they be used as a means of having a text signed whose terms have not been explained.

Andrew Goodman, in his work Preparing for Mediation (Arabuluculuğa Hazırlanmak), recommends that preparation not be limited to the legal claim, and that the person’s needs, priorities and the options before them if no agreement is reached be assessed. This approach is useful for not reading a settlement offer solely in terms of figures. The procedural examples in the work relating to foreign legal practice, on the other hand, are not rules directly applicable in Türkiye. [15]

Are Settlement, Waiver, Release and Withdrawal of the Action the Same Thing?

All of these acts can have important consequences in the file; however, the ways in which they are formed and their effects differ. That they are used within the same paragraph of a protocol does not mean they take each other’s place.

The main bases for these distinctions are Articles 123 and 307–315 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and Article 132 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). If bringing a new action after withdrawal of the action is contemplated, statutes of limitations, time limits for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) and other procedural requirements must be assessed separately. It cannot be assumed that all rights are preserved indefinitely because the first action was filed. [1] [2]

A Protocol Signed Outside the Court Does Not End the Lawsuit on Its Own

An out-of-court settlement is, as a rule, a substantive-law contract binding on the parties. Without prejudice to transactions subject to special form requirements, which are examined separately, an ordinary protocol does not acquire all the consequences of an in-court settlement on its own. The procedural act by which the pending file will be brought to an end must be determined separately.

In an in-court settlement, it is important that the agreement is properly reflected to the court, entered in the minutes, and that the declarations are read out and signed. Under HMK Arts. 154 and 315, if the parties request that a decision be rendered in accordance with the settlement, the court decides according to the contract; if there is no such request, it rules that there is no ground to render a decision. These outcomes do not consist merely of submitting a draft attached to an e-mail to the court. [1]

The Court of Cassation Looks at the True Intent Before the Title of the Document

The decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) dated May 30, 2024, E. 2024/2432, K. 2024/4015 shows the distinction between settlement and waiver. In the dispute, the earlier waiver statement was connected with an arrangement for the use of the immovable and the enjoyment of its income. At the earlier reversal stage of the file, it had been stated that this reciprocal arrangement should be assessed within the framework of a settlement; the judgment rendered after the reversal was affirmed by the 2024 decision. [8]

This decision does not mean that every waiver statement will be treated as a settlement. The point it shows is that the title of a text and the parties’ true common intent can diverge. Before signing, the legal transaction must be structured correctly; one should not rely on a mistaken statement being corrected later by the court.

Why Is It Risky to Waive the Claim Without Payment Having Been Made?

The Line Between Conditional Settlement and Unconditional Waiver

HMK Art. 313/4 expressly states “A settlement may also be made subject to a condition.” Article 309/4 of the same Code provides “Waiver and acknowledgment must be unreserved and unconditional.” These two complete statutory sentences show why the arrangement between payment and the ending of the file must be set up carefully. [1]

After a valid, unreserved and unconditional waiver statement has been given to the court, the other party’s failure to make the expected payment does not by itself eliminate the waiver. There may be separate rights to make claims arising from the protocol; but it should not be assumed that the old lawsuit will automatically continue from where it left off. Under HMK Art. 311, waiver produces effects as res judicata would; annulment on account of a defect of intent is a separate matter.

Writing in the protocol that a waiver will be made in the future is also different from making a waiver statement to the court. For which act instructions will be given and when, how payment will be verified, and in what order the parties’ obligations will be performed must be clear.

Payment and File Transactions Must Be Planned Together

Although it varies by file, the order of evaluation can be set up as follows:

1. The covered claims, the amount, the payment date and valid security are determined.
2. The document and account transaction by which payment will be verified is agreed.
3. The stage at which settlement, release, waiver or another file transaction will be made is explained.
4. Transactions concerning the enforcement file, attachment, pledge, mortgage and instruments are regulated separately.
5. Completed transactions and remaining obligations are documented.

This order does not mean that full payment first is the only possible method in every file. Agreements with installments or reciprocal performances can also be made. However, just as much as the creditor’s need for security, the paying debtor’s need not to face the same claim again and to get its security back must also be regulated.

Cenk Akil’s study on in-court settlement examines separately the problems of a settlement being made subject to a condition and of a court rendering a conditional judgment. The practical result of the discussion in legal scholarship is this: that a condition can be written into the contract does not show that the condition can be directly enforced through enforcement proceedings in every case. The clarity of the judgment and its suitability for enforcement must be addressed separately. [12]

Which Provisions Must Be Expressly Written in a Settlement Protocol?

Parties, Files and the Claims That Will End

The identity of the parties, the title of companies and the authority of representation must be determined correctly. If there are several debtors, guarantors, insurers or affiliated companies, it is shown which of them the agreement binds and to what extent. If it is alleged that a person who is not a party to the lawsuit has assumed a debt or provided security, the validity requirements of that transaction are examined separately.

Each lawsuit and enforcement file covered must be identified by its number; principal, accrued interest, compensation or other items of claim must be separated in an understandable way. If discussions concern only the receivable of a certain period, a waiver of all past and future rights through an imprecise expression may have significant consequences.

In a partial settlement, the claims included in the agreement and those whose adjudication will continue are clearly separated. Including matters outside the lawsuit in the settlement is also possible under HMK Art. 313/3; this possibility does not justify the automatic termination of other rights unknown to the client. [1]

Payment, Delivery and Enforceability

The amount, currency, due date, account details, installments, any deductions and the debt against which payments will be set off must be determined. In a debt in foreign currency, if there is to be a conversion from the payment currency, the exchange rate and date to be used are explained, also taking into account the limitations in the relevant legislation. In employee claims, the distinction between gross and net amounts and who will make the statutory deductions must not be left unclear.

If delivery of a document or goods, performance of a work, or a transaction relating to an immovable is agreed, the obligated person, the subject, the date and how completion will be documented are shown. Expressions such as “the necessary facilities will be provided” may not suffice to explain what can be demanded.

Other basic headings of the agreement are the consequences of delay, security, sharing of fees and costs, limits of confidentiality, the method of notification and file-closing transactions. Annexes and the main text must not contradict one another. If there is a blank field left or a payment plan to be added later, the scope of the signed text may become disputed.

Why Is a General Template Not Sufficient on Its Own?

A commercial receivable, an employee claim, a consumer transaction or an immovable dispute is not subject to the same legal rules. In particular, TBK Art. 420 contains special provisions for release agreements concerning employee claims regarding written form, time, the clarity of the claim and payment through a bank. These provisions and the assessment of a genuine agreement concluded at the end of properly conducted mediation must not be confused with each other. Placing the title “mediation” on a document does not prove that the process was actually conducted. [2] [10]

For this reason, a ready-made “settlement and release protocol template” does not take the place of examining the rights in the file and the special form requirements. The shortest text is not always the clearest; a text lengthened with unnecessary repetition cannot be considered safe either.

What Happens If Payment Is Not Made in an Installment Settlement?

Due Date, Default and Acceleration Are Regulated Separately

The due date concerns when payment can be demanded; default concerns when the legal consequences of delay begin; and an acceleration clause concerns on what condition installments not yet due can be claimed. Non-payment of one installment does not automatically accelerate all installments in every case.

The formal notice (ihtar) rule in TBK Art. 117 and its exceptions must be kept in mind. A definite payment day determined jointly by the parties differs from arrangements in which the date is left uncertain. If there is an additional period, the notification method, and the type and starting point of interest, they must be written clearly. A single interest rate or the same acceleration clause cannot be considered suitable for every dispute. [2]

A contractual penalty is not a guarantee of collection either. Whether it can be demanded together with the principal debt and the type of breach are assessed within the framework of TBK Arts. 179 and 182 and special provisions. In particular, consumer and commercial transactions may have different rules. The agreement cannot be applied so as to allow duplicate collection of the same receivable by more than one route.

What Does the 2025 Decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation Say?

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated May 21, 2025, E. 2024/499, K. 2025/329, a mediation agreement in four installments, with a reduction, had been concluded for employee claims. The text gave the creditor certain options if payment was not made on time and in full; among them was demanding the receivables, after deducting the payments made, without being limited to the reduced amount. The last installment had not been paid within its period. [9]

In view of this express provision of the agreement, the majority of the General Assembly did not find correct the dismissal on procedural grounds that had been rendered on the ground that “an agreement was reached in mediation, so a lawsuit can no longer be filed.” Payment of the last installment after the lawsuit was filed did not make this ground valid either. The insistence decision (direnme kararı) was reversed.

The decision does not mean that every delayed installment automatically revives the old receivable. The terms of the agreement, the payment records and the situation on the date of the lawsuit are decisive. The decision is also not a judgment that all the receivables asserted were earned and that their amounts have been finalized.

Çiğdem Yorulmaz’s 2026 case commentary addresses the scope of the ban on filing a lawsuit in conditional mediation agreements together with the parties’ intent and the fulfillment of the condition. The study is useful in that this decision should be read in a manner tied to the text of the contract; it should not be interpreted as an unlimited right to sue again for all agreements. [14]

The Validity of Security Matters as Much as Its Name

Suretyship, mortgage, pledge or a bank letter of guarantee may be considered; the scope, duration and validity requirements of each are different. In suretyship, the provisions of TBK Arts. 583–584, such as the maximum amount, the date, handwriting and spousal consent with its statutory exceptions, are examined separately. Not every signature obtained under the heading “guarantor” creates valid security. [2]

Issuing a new instrument does not mean that the old debt is automatically renewed and that all old security is preserved. Within the framework of TBK Arts. 131–133, the discharge of the debt, accessory rights and the intention to novate are assessed separately. When payment is completed, which instrument will be returned and which security will be released must be written.

When Can a Mediation Agreement Be Put Directly into Enforcement?

Applying to Mediation Does Not Mean Being Obliged to Sign an Agreement

In some disputes, applying to mediation before filing a lawsuit is a condition precedent to litigation. However, the parties are not obliged to accept a particular amount or the text of an agreement. That there are rules on attending the meeting and conducting the process properly does not create an obligation to settle. The cost consequences provided by law of failing to attend the first meeting without a valid excuse must be taken into account separately. [3]

The mediator is impartial and does not assume the same role as a party’s own attorney. While the client’s attorney evaluates the effect of the offer on the client’s rights, the mediator helps the parties communicate and develop solutions. Signing an unread or not understood document merely so that the meeting may end is not a suitable method of decision-making.

The Final Record and the Content of the Agreement Must Be Distinguished from Each Other

The final record shows how the mediation activity ended. Which claims, amounts and obligations the agreement covers must be clearly understandable from the agreement document or from a record containing the necessary scope. The mediator’s documenting the result of the process alone does not mean that the mediator has accepted on the parties’ behalf a payment obligation that they have not signed.

In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dated February 29, 2024, E. 2024/2065, K. 2024/3897, the informing of the parties and contradictions in the documents were significant. The Chamber found erroneous the dismissal of the lawsuit on procedural grounds on the basis that a valid agreement existed in the specific file despite negotiations that had not been properly conducted, and stated that the merits of the case must be examined. [10]

Emel Badur’s study also treats the mediation agreement document as a law-of-obligations contract that can produce effects in the procedural field. This characterization helps one understand that the document’s acquiring the force of a judgment does not eliminate validity problems such as capacity, lawfulness and sound intent. [13]

The Signature Arrangement and Exceptions Requiring Mandatory Annotation Must Be Checked

Under Article 18 of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes (HUAK), certain agreement documents are regarded as having the force of a judgment, because of their signature arrangement, without a separate enforceability annotation. However, the cases in which the law requires an annotation must be separated out first. [3]

Under the general annotation rule, in pre-action mediation the court concerned is the civil court of peace at the place where the mediator performs duties; during a pending lawsuit, it is the court hearing the case. In immovable matters and agreements within Art. 18/B, special provisions on subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction apply. For international settlement agreements within the scope of the Singapore Convention, the route through the commercial court of first instance in Art. 17/A is separately provided. Not every agreement abroad falls within this scope.

The annotation review concentrates on the agreement’s suitability for mediation and for compulsory enforcement; additional controls in the relevant special provisions are reserved. An annotation is not an unlimited assurance that every contractual sentence is enforceable in every circumstance. From whom a particular payment, delivery or conduct can be demanded must be sufficiently clear.

Notarial Certification and the Signatures of Attorneys Alone Do Not Produce the Same Result

Article 38 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) lists, in addition to settlements before the court, instruments drawn up ex officio by a notary that contain an acknowledgment of a monetary debt. For this reason, it cannot be said that every protocol merely with signatures certified by a notary has the force of a judgment. The manner in which the document was drawn up and its content must be examined. [4]

Article 35/A of the Attorneyship Law, on the other hand, provides a separate route of conciliation before a lawsuit is filed, or even if filed before the hearing begins, under the scope and record conditions in the Law. A record in accordance with this provision, signed jointly by the attorneys and the clients, has the force of a judgment. Not every private protocol prepared by attorneys is automatically regarded as an Art. 35/A record. [5]

What Happens to the Attorney’s Fee and Court Costs When a Settlement Is Reached?

The Criteria for Court Fees and the Attorney’s Fee Differ

Settlement does not mean that all costs are erased. Article 22 of the Law on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu) provides that one-third of the decision and judgment fee is collected if the settlement takes place at the first hearing session, and two-thirds if it takes place later. This does not mean that every payment item in the file will be refunded at the same rate. Refund of an unused advance on costs is a separate transaction under HMK Art. 333. [6] [1]

Article 6 of the 2025–2026 Minimum Attorney Fee Schedule (Avukatlık Asgari Ücret Tarifesi) provides that, in a dispute resolved until the preliminary examination record is signed, half of the scheduled fee is awarded, and thereafter the whole. The same provision also contains a distinction regarding contractual attorney fee agreements. “First hearing session” for court fees and “preliminary examination record” for the schedule are not the same criterion. The schedule and date applicable in the specific file must be checked separately. [7]

The Client’s Fee Agreement with Their Own Attorney Is Assessed Separately

The fee arising from the contract between the attorney and the client must be distinguished from the attorney fee award (vekâlet ücreti) imposed on the other party as a result of the proceedings. The parties’ telling one another “no one will claim costs from anyone” does not by itself end all of the attorney’s fee rights. Articles 164–165 of the Attorneyship Law must therefore be examined when preparing the agreement. [5]

The decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) dated October 5, 2018, E. 2017/6, K. 2018/9 determined that the contractual fee arising from the fee agreement between the opposing party’s attorney and his or her own client is not included in the scope of the joint and several liability in Art. 165. This limit does not mean that no attorney’s fee will arise because of the settlement. [11]

In the protocol, litigation costs, the parties’ own attorney’s fees, the opposing party’s attorney fee award, the mediation fee and enforcement expenses must be regulated separately. Sharing of costs between the parties does not eliminate court fees that are in the nature of public receivables. Payment being made outside the file also does not make the account and notification transactions in the enforcement file unnecessary.

Do Settlement Negotiations Suspend Litigation Time Limits and Attachments?

Holding Talks Alone Does Not Suspend Time Limits

A phone call, an exchange of offer letters or an exchange of drafts does not by itself suspend the time limits for the response, the submission of evidence, objecting to the expert report or applying to a legal remedy. While awaiting a reply to a settlement offer, the notifications in the file and approaching deadlines must be monitored.

HUAK Arts. 16 and 18/A specially regulate the effect of mediation on statutes of limitations and time limits for bringing an action. The starting points in voluntary mediation and in mediation as a condition precedent to litigation are not the same. This protection cannot be read as all procedural time limits being suspended together. For the postponement of a hearing because of mediation in a pending lawsuit, the conditions in Art. 15/5 must also be taken into account. [3]

Lifting Attachments and Security Must Also Be Regulated Separately

It should not be assumed that signing a settlement protocol automatically erases a bank freeze, a salary attachment or entries on an immovable. Who will apply, when, and in which file for which transaction must be specified. Releasing existing security before payment is complete creates a separate risk for the creditor; not releasing it after payment creates a separate risk for the debtor.

If protection is needed from the court, it should not be forgotten that an interim injunction and a precautionary attachment have different conditions. For example, with respect to a monetary claim, the conditions for precautionary attachment in Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are assessed separately. The continuation of settlement talks alone does not justify such a decision; nor does the discussion of an agreement automatically make an application for necessary protection unnecessary. [4]

Can What Is Said in Negotiations Later Be Used as Evidence?

HMK Art. 188/3 provides that admissions made during settlement negotiations do not bind the parties. However, this provision does not mean that every contract, bank receipt (dekont) or pre-existing correspondence mentioned in the negotiations ceases to be evidence. [1]

In mediation, HUAK Arts. 4–5 establish a more specific confidentiality and evidence regime. Protection exists for settlement offers, acceptance statements specific to the process, and documents prepared solely for mediation. By contrast, evidence that can be used by other means does not become unusable merely because it was submitted in mediation. There are also exceptions for disclosures required by law or necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the agreement. [3]

Because of these distinctions, the statement “confidential” does not yield the same result for every document. The scope of third parties’ data outside the agreement, trade secrets and the file samples to be shared must also be determined before the negotiations.

Can an Attorney Settle Without the Client’s Knowledge?

Under HMK Art. 74, express special authority is required for an attorney to carry out acts such as settlement, waiver, acknowledgment and release. The authority of a representative acting on behalf of a company or another legal entity must also be checked. A person’s having taken part in the negotiation does not show that he or she has authority to give up all rights. [1]

Having special authority and informing the client about the specific offer are not the same matters. Within the duty of professional care, the benefit of the offer, its uncertainties, the scope of giving up rights and the alternative course must be explained. Recording the client’s decision and instruction in an understandable manner reduces disputes that may arise later. [5]

The attorney’s duty is neither to merely steer the client toward settlement nor to continue the litigation in every case. It is to explain the options based on the file, to show by which means the rights can be protected, and to act in line with lawful instructions. The opposing party’s attorney must also not be regarded as one’s own independent adviser.

Can a Signed Settlement Agreement Later Be Annulled?

Regret Must Be Distinguished from a Legal Ground of Invalidity

Thinking that a better offer could be received later, or finding the settlement amount low, does not by itself constitute a ground for annulment. In an in-court settlement, HMK Art. 315/2 allows annulment on account of defect of intent and excessive exploitation (aşırı yararlanma). In out-of-court settlements and mediation agreements as well, a validity review appropriate to the nature of the contract is carried out. Violation of mandatory rules, and problems of capacity and representation, may also be examined separately. [1] [2]

In a claim of mistake, fraudulent misrepresentation or duress, statements made before the signature, correspondence, the conditions of the meeting and the date of learning are important. The one-year period in TBK Art. 39 is linked to the discovery of the mistake or fraud or to the ending of the effect of the duress. There is not a single, identical starting date for all grounds of invalidity in an agreement.

Excessive Exploitation Is Not Merely a Difference in Price

Under TBK Art. 28, in addition to an obvious disproportion between the performances, the exploitation of a person’s distress, thoughtlessness or inexperience is also assessed. The starting point of the one-year period in the Law is determined according to the relevant situation; in any case there is a five-year limit from the formation of the contract. A high rate of reduction alone does not prove that all conditions have been met. [2]

The type of application, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction, its relationship with an existing lawsuit or enforcement file, and the possible need for interim protection must be determined according to the legal nature of the document. Asserting invalidity also does not automatically stop enforcement in every case. For this reason, a single “petition for annulment” route applicable to everyone cannot be recommended without examining the text and the file together.

When Should Settlement Be Considered, and When Should Continuing the Lawsuit Be Considered?

An offer with a defined scope, economically feasible, and with payment or delivery security thought through is worthy of serious consideration. In files where the parties can agree only on some items, partial settlement can also narrow the dispute. In such an agreement, the remaining claims should be expressly preserved.

On the other hand, if the offer requires the loss of other rights that have not been reviewed; if payment rests on the word of an unauthorized person; if requests for security remain unanswered; or if the client is not given the opportunity to understand the text, the option of continuing the lawsuit should also be addressed with all its consequences. Postponing the signature, however, should not mean neglecting approaching legal time limits.

The nature of an agreement is assessed not only by whether the file is closed but by whether the obligations undertaken can be performed. A receivable that cannot be collected for one party, or an obligation that the other party thinks has ended but continues, weakens the purpose of the settlement.

Final Check Before Signing

• Has the draft been read together with all its annexes; is the version in the parties’ hands the same?
• Are the files to be closed, the receivables to end and the claims to be preserved defined?
• Are the payment or delivery date, the amount and the method of proof clear?
• Is it understandable what will happen in the event of delay and what amount can be demanded?
• Is the security valid; has it been determined when it will be released?
• Are the timing and scope of the waiver or release transaction clear?
• Have the force of a judgment, the necessary signatures and, if any, the mandatory annotation been checked?
• Have court fees, attorney’s fees, mediation and enforcement expenses been separated?
• Have the necessary steps been taken for approaching lawsuit and legal remedy time limits?
• Is it clear who is responsible for closing the file and delivering documents after payment?

Request an Assessment from Güneş & Güneş Law Firm

A settlement offer or an agreement draft can be submitted to Güneş & Güneş Law Firm for review. The assessment can be planned around the effect of the offer on the current stage of the file, the rights to be given up, the payment arrangement, security and cost headings. If an independent legal opinion is requested in a pending lawsuit, the scope of the review and the required documents are determined at the outset.

For the first meeting, all versions and annexes of the draft, the documents of the relevant lawsuit or enforcement file, payment records, notifications and, if any, fee agreements can be prepared. An application can be made through the meeting and appointment request; documents should be sent in line with the explanations on secure information and document sharing. Account passwords and one-time verification codes must not be shared. Submitting an application does not mean that the matter has been accepted and does not suspend legal time limits.

Conclusion

In a civil lawsuit, the decision to settle must be based on an assessment that sees together the party’s right, the true state of the file and the possibility of implementing the agreement. Even in a claim strong on proof, there may be difficulty in collection; and a quick-payment offer may contain a release broader than necessary or an early waiver provision. For this reason, it is not sufficient for the decision to be made on the offered figure alone.

A sound settlement text explains what is agreed today and what can be done tomorrow if the obligation is not performed. The order of payment and giving up rights, lawsuit and enforcement transactions, security and costs must be set up consistently with one another. The client must be able to understand which rights their signature ends.

A good settlement is not an agreement that hides uncertainties at the moment the signature is made, but one that enables the parties to see ahead when it is applied. Continuing the lawsuit and settling can both be a conscious choice. What is decisive is that this choice is made with complete information, free will and legally implementable terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Settling Mean Losing the Lawsuit?

No. A settlement is the parties’ ending of the dispute by agreement. Its appropriateness is determined by evaluating the evidentiary position, the scope of the offer, the cost and the feasibility together. However, which rights are being given up must definitely be understood.

Can a Settlement Be Made After the Lawsuit Is Filed or After a Decision Is Rendered?

Under HMK Art. 314, a settlement is possible until the judgment becomes final. After the judgment, a special procedure applies depending on the stage of the file. An agreement on payment or settling of the debt after a final decision is assessed separately from a settlement that ends a pending lawsuit.

Does Signing a Settlement Protocol Mean Waiving the Claim?

Not always. A settlement contract, an undertaking to waive and a declaration of waiver addressed to the court are different acts. The text as a whole and the procedural act performed must be examined. An out-of-court protocol does not automatically end the lawsuit.

Can a Settlement Be Made Subject to a Condition?

It can, under HMK Art. 313/4. A waiver, however, must be unreserved and unconditional. That a condition can be placed in the contract does not remove the problem of how the condition will be proven and applied at the enforcement stage.

Can a New Lawsuit Be Filed After a Mediation Agreement Has Been Signed?

As a rule, a new lawsuit cannot be filed on the matters agreed. Situations such as a claim of invalidity, the scope of the agreement, or non-fulfillment of an expressly agreed payment condition are examined separately. It cannot be said that every payment delay gives a right to sue again for the old receivable.

If an Installment Is Not Paid, Can the Whole Debt Be Demanded Immediately?

The acceleration provision in the agreement and the applicable special provisions are decisive. Without a valid provision, the delay of one installment alone does not make all future installments claimable in every case.

Is an Enforceability Annotation Required for Every Mediation Agreement?

No. HUAK Art. 18 provides for force of a judgment without an annotation under certain signature arrangements. However, the mandatory annotation cases within Arts. 17/A, 17/B and 18/B also apply separately. The type of dispute and the signatures must be checked together.

Can a Protocol with Signature Certification at a Notary Be Put Directly into Enforcement as a Judgment?

Signature certification alone is not sufficient. The instrument drawn up ex officio by a notary that contains an acknowledgment of a monetary debt, referred to in Article 38 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, must be distinguished from an ordinary protocol with certified signatures. If there is another statutory ground for force of a judgment, that is also examined.

Do the Attorney’s Fee and Attachments Disappear When a Settlement Is Reached?

They do not disappear automatically. The type of fee and the contract terms are assessed separately; the transactions required to lift the attachments and close the file are carried out. The settlement text should show who is responsible for these and when.

Can the Time Limit for an Appeal (istinaf) or Objection Be Held Off While Settlement Talks Continue?

Merely holding talks does not suspend the time limit. The effect of mediation on certain time limits depends on special statutory provisions. Every deadline in the file must be monitored separately.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, especially Arts. 74, 123, 154, 188, 307–315 and 333. Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi) — text of the law.

[2] Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, especially Arts. 19, 26–28, 39, 117, 131–133, 179, 182, 420 and 583–584. Legislation Information System — text of the law.

[3] Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, especially Arts. 1, 3–5, 15–18, 17/A, 17/B, 18/A and 18/B. Legislation Information System — text of the law.

[4] Law No. 2004, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, especially Arts. 38 and 257. Legislation Information System — text of the law.

[5] Law No. 1136, Attorneyship Law, especially Arts. 34, 35/A, 164 and 165. Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği) — text of the law.

[6] Law No. 492 on Fees, Arts. 22–23. Legislation Information System — text of the law.

[7] Union of Turkish Bar Associations, 2025–2026 Minimum Attorney Fee Schedule (Avukatlık Asgari Ücret Tarifesi), Art. 6; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), November 4, 2025. Text of the schedule.

[8] Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, May 30, 2024, E. 2024/2432, K. 2024/4015. Text of the decision — SonKarar.

[9] Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, May 21, 2025, E. 2024/499, K. 2025/329. Text of the decision — Hukuki Haber.

[10] Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, February 29, 2024, E. 2024/2065, K. 2024/3897. Text of the decision — Hukuki Haber.

[11] Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, October 5, 2018, E. 2017/6, K. 2018/9; Official Gazette, March 20, 2019, No. 30720. Official Gazette copy of the decision.

[12] Akil, Cenk. “Settlement under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Question of Whether a Conditional Judgment Can Be Rendered by Way of Settlement” (“Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda Sulh ve Sulh Yoluyla Şarta Bağlı Hüküm Verilip Verilemeyeceği Meselesi”). Gazi University Faculty of Law Journal (Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 16(4), 2012, pp. 1–18; especially pp. 11–15. Article.

[13] Badur, Emel. “Evaluation of the Mediation Agreement Document from the Perspective of the Law of Obligations” (“Arabuluculuk Anlaşma Belgesinin Borçlar Hukuku Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”). Journal of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi), no. 18, 2021, pp. 49–87; especially pp. 59–60 and 66–67. Article.

[14] Yorulmaz, Çiğdem. “The Conditionality of a Mediation Agreement Document and Its Effects: Reflections on a Civil General Assembly Decision Concerning an Employment Dispute” (“Arabuluculuk Anlaşma Belgesinin Şarta Bağlı Olması ve Etkileri: Bir İş Uyuşmazlığına İlişkin Hukuk Genel Kurulu Kararının Düşündürdükleri”). Civil Law Journal (Medeni Hukuk Dergisi), 3(2), 2026, pp. 258–282; especially p. 279. DOI: 10.59909/mhd.1924399. Article.

[15] Goodman, Andrew. Preparing for Mediation: A Guide for Those Who Will Benefit from Mediation (Arabuluculuğa Hazırlanmak: Arabuluculuktan Yararlanacaklar İçin Rehber), Turkish-language access copy, especially pp. 93–97 and 143. Ministry of Justice Mediation Department (Adalet Bakanlığı Arabuluculuk Daire Başkanlığı) — book.