A wrong or delayed diagnosis may give rise to liability for compensation if it results from conduct contrary to the duty of medical care and has harmed the patient. A later diagnosis that differs from the first does not, by itself, prove that the initial physician was at fault. The assessment rests on the findings known at the first consultation, the investigation that should have been carried out, the evaluation of the results and the effect of the delay on the patient's condition. In private healthcare, the rules on contract and tort are important; in public healthcare, the liability of the administration and the rules on administrative applications apply. [1, 2, 5]
This article explains the rights that may arise from an alleged delayed cancer diagnosis, alleged errors in radiology and pathology reports, failure to communicate results and delay in the necessary review. Four real court decisions are discussed together with their outcomes and the limits of their application. A legal assessment does not replace ongoing medical care; the patient's current treatment and the protection of their rights should be pursued together.
Difference between wrong diagnosis and delayed diagnosis
In a wrong diagnosis, the patient's condition is explained by an incorrect diagnosis. Unnecessary treatment for a disease that does not exist, or mistaking the real illness for another condition, are different forms of this. In a delayed diagnosis, the correct diagnosis is eventually reached; the dispute concerns whether that diagnosis was made within the time medically required. A missed diagnosis may mean that one of several coexisting illnesses or one important finding was left outside the evaluation.
A change of diagnosis is sometimes explained by the progression of the illness, the uncertainty of early symptoms or the scientific limits of a test. What matters legally is whether the healthcare professional showed the care expected of them on the date of the event. Article 11 of the Patients' Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği) governs the right to a correct diagnosis, and Article 506 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) sets the standard of care for an agent. A physician's personal inexperience does not justify lowering the objective professional standard of the relevant field. [1, 2]
A false-negative test result and a faulty diagnosis are not the same thing. A test may fail to show the disease even when it was correctly performed. However, failing to take the limits of the test into account while symptoms persist, failing to carry out necessary confirmation, or failing to set up a follow-up plan are separately examined. For the same reason, in the case of a false-positive result, the choice of the test, its performance and interpretation, and the intervention carried out on the basis of that result are examined together.
Conduct in the diagnostic process that may give rise to liability
Examination, tests and referral decisions
Failure to adequately assess the patient's complaints and past illnesses, failure to carry out the necessary examination, persisting in a diagnosis that is inconsistent with the findings, or delaying a required specialist opinion may be subject to fault review. The standard is not that every patient must undergo every test. The necessary investigation is determined by the patient's age, previous illnesses, the findings at the time of presentation and the urgency of the situation.
The fact that a particular test cannot be performed at one institution does not end the review. In that case, the appropriate referral, the information given to the patient and the management of the waiting period are assessed. A long appointment date given by itself does not prove personal fault of the physician; however, disregarding an alternative examination or referral in the face of a known urgent risk is a different legal problem. The institution's service arrangements and the physician's decisions should be assessed separately. [1, 2, 5]
Assessment of radiology and pathology results
Overlooking a finding in a report, failing to compare it with earlier images, carrying out the review on a sample belonging to the wrong patient, or failing to investigate the inconsistency between the report and the clinical findings are different claims of error. The text of a radiology report and the image itself are not the same evidence. In a pathology assessment, sample identity, block and slide records alongside the report may also matter. These records should be preserved through the competent health unit and, where necessary, through the court.
In the Court of Cassation's 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) decision dated 1 July 2025, E.2025/192, K.2025/3719, the file concerned loss of vision after sinus surgery. The physician argued that the risky anatomical variation was not stated in the pre-operative computed tomography report. The Court of Cassation quashed the dismissal without examining whether that variation was visible on the images and whether it had been reported. It requested a reasoned review by a board including specialists in ear, nose and throat, eye and radiology. The decision shows that radiological review should be assessed together with the other treatment decisions; it does not mean that the physician or the hospital has been definitively ordered to pay compensation. [10]
Communicating test results to the patient
Recording a result in the laboratory system does not by itself show that the patient was meaningfully informed. When the report was prepared, which healthcare professional evaluated it, and to whom and how the follow-up recommendation was communicated are separate records. In particular, for pathology reports completed later, the allocation of responsibility for monitoring results should be examined even if the patient has been discharged.
The patient may also bear responsibility for learning the results and attending a follow-up appointment. However, the responsibility cannot be placed entirely on the patient without assessing what warning the hospital gave, whether the recommendation was understandable and how far the delay contributed to the harm. Information about uncertainty in the diagnosis and the need for further investigation or follow-up is assessed separately from a general consent form. [1, 2]
How the effect of the delay on the illness is determined
In a compensation review there are two separate questions: whether there was a lack of care in the diagnostic process, and whether that lack of care led to the loss claimed. For example, even if the necessary investigation was delayed, it cannot be assumed that all consequences of the illness arose from that delay. The effect of the delay on additional surgery, more severe treatment, loss of an organ, reduced capacity to work or death must be explained with specialist knowledge.
In the review of a file, one proceeds forward in time from the date of the first presentation. First, the findings that existed on that date are determined. Then it is assessed which diagnosis and treatment options were reasonably available. Finally, it is investigated how the patient's condition might have changed had that option been used in time. An assessment that assumes the physician in the past also knew for certain the diagnosis learned later is misleading.
Delayed cancer diagnosis and a decision rejecting compensation
In cancer files, the type of tumour, earlier images, the stage of the disease, the risk of recurrence, the treatment options and the course specific to the patient are examined together. A causal link cannot be established from general knowledge about early diagnosis in relation to a specific patient. A defence that no additional harm occurred must also be supported by concrete medical reasons.
In the Court of Cassation's 3rd Civil Chamber decision dated 2 October 2023, E.2023/747, K.2023/2446, a patient followed for cancer of the bile ducts claimed that a deficiency in the radiology report and a late diagnosis had caused harm. The consistent specialist reports in the file did not find that the deficiency in the report dated 12 March 2018 contributed to additional harm or to death; the court took into account that recurrence was diagnosed on the review of 22 March 2018. The Court of Cassation affirmed the dismissal of the claim. This outcome is not valid for all delayed cancer diagnoses; it shows that the connection between the deficiency in the report and the harm claimed must be separately demonstrated. The ten-day interval in the decision cannot be read as a safe waiting period for every illness. [11]
How loss of a chance of recovery should be treated
In some files, it cannot be said that timely treatment would certainly have produced a full recovery; however, it is claimed that the delay reduced the patient's chance of a better outcome. Yıldız Abik, in a study of loss of a chance of recovery, discusses this causation and proof problem through comparative law. The introduction of the study in particular shows how liability should be assessed when the natural course of the illness is uncertain. [14]
This academic debate should not be presented in Türkiye as meaning that every reduction in probability automatically translates into the same proportion of compensation. In a file, the treatment opportunity alleged to have been missed, the period in which it existed and its scientific basis must be explained. Multiplying a percentage taken from a statistic directly by the total harm is not sufficient without legal reasoning and a patient-specific medical assessment. The study does not replace a current statutory provision or an expert examination of the specific case.
Liability of the doctor, hospital and laboratory
In private healthcare, the party that concluded the contract with the patient, the physician who made the diagnosis, the unit that issued the report and the hospital operator must be identified. A hospital may be liable for its own organisation and, where the conditions are met, for the conduct of persons whose services it uses in performing the service. A claim directed at a person with whom the patient has no contractual relationship may raise the rules of tort. Where several persons are liable for the same harm, joint and several liability may be assessed; the same harm cannot be recovered more than once. [1]
The fact that a hospital works with an external laboratory does not mean that liability automatically passes solely to the laboratory. It is examined who undertook the service, for example its delivery, the transmission of the report and its transfer into the treatment decision. On the other hand, the presence of a physician in the same hospital does not mean that the physician is responsible for the entire diagnostic process. The scope of each person's duties and their link to the harm must be explained.
A compensation claim arising from medical treatment carried out by a public official in the course of providing healthcare is, as a rule, directed to the relevant administration. Articles 125 and 129/5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye and Article 13 of Civil Servants Law No. 657 (657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu) are the basic grounds for this distinction. The institution's signboard is not sufficient; the operating arrangement and the legal status of the service are examined. In models such as foundation universities, joint use and service procurement, the duty and the defendant must also be separately investigated. [5, 6, 16]
The physician's professional liability insurance may also be examined. Article 1478 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) gives the injured person a direct right of claim within the scope and limit of the insurance. The existence of the policy does not by itself prove fault or cover; a claim against the insurer is assessed separately from a claim against the healthcare institution, under its own conditions of duty, time limits and mediation. [7, 8]
How wrong diagnosis is proven
Patient file and chronological order
Article 16 of the Patients' Rights Regulation gives the patient the right to examine their records and obtain copies of their samples. The request should not be limited to the discharge summary. The first examination, earlier normal results, repeat presentations and the investigation that led to the correct diagnosis should all be in the same file. It should not be assumed that the e-Nabız printout contains all the detailed records held by the hospital. [2]
| Review stage | Record requested | Point to be clarified |
|---|---|---|
| First presentation | Examination, complaints, triage and past illness notes | The information the physician had at that date |
| Test | Request and result times, images, sample identity | Delay, interpretation error or sample mix-up |
| Notification and follow-up | Follow-up recommendation, referral, messages and call records | To whom, when and how the result was communicated |
| Subsequent diagnosis | New reports, disease stage and treatment plan | The difference between the first review and the later condition |
| Harm | Expense, income, care and work-incapacity documents | The nature and amount of the loss claimed |
The application should be made in writing and delivered in a way that can be documented. Records that are thought to be missing should be identified one by one; where the creation and modification data of electronic records are needed, a request should be made that they be preserved. A later correction of a report is not in itself proof of forgery. The earlier version, the reason for the correction and its timing are examined. The original document should not be altered; the patient's later explanation should be kept as a separate note.
Constitutional Court decision on a missing image
In the Constitutional Court's decision in the application of Kerim Kilit and others, Application No. 2020/26381, dated 7 February 2024, the importance of examining the images in a claim of delayed diagnosis of breast cancer is shown. The AYM found that it had not been established whether the breast ultrasound attached to the petition was the original or a copy, and whether it was suitable for examination, before reaching a conclusion as to the radiology specialist. While it considered the review sufficient as regards the general surgery specialist, it found a violation of the procedural dimension of the right to life in the proceedings concerning the radiology specialist. A retrial was requested in respect of that person; the compensation claim before the AYM was dismissed. [12]
The decision is not a compensation judgment that establishes the radiologist's fault. Nor can the general explanations about the hospital's duty to keep records be read as an automatic conviction in this case, where the hospital was not a party. The practical lesson is to follow whether the image submitted is in the file, what its nature is, and whether specialists actually examined it. [12, §§23–32]
Burden of proof and preservation of evidence
Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) sets the general rule on the burden of proof, and Article 50 of the TBK regulates the proof of harm and fault in tort. In breach of contract, Article 112 of the TBK, under which the debtor must prove that it was not at fault, is important. This does not mean that the patient need make no statement or offer no evidence about harm and causation. The documents showing that information was given and the proof of care in the diagnostic process should be kept separate from each other. [1, 3]
For records that risk being lost or becoming difficult to obtain later, preservation of evidence may be considered under Article 400 et seq. of the HMK. Preservation of evidence is not an acceptance of compensation in advance. In public-law disputes, the competent jurisdiction and Article 58 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) must also be taken into account. An independent expert opinion can make the review more concrete; an opinion obtained privately does not bind the court on its own. [3, 5]
Questions an expert report should answer
The report should not stop at listing the procedures performed on the patient. It should explain the investigation that was necessary on the date of the event, the reason for it and the effect of not carrying it out. In a dispute about the interpretation of images, the participation of the relevant radiology expertise is important; in a pathology claim, the participation of relevant pathology knowledge is important. The scope of the board is determined by the technical questions in the file.
- Which findings were recorded at the first presentation and which investigation was necessary?
- At which stage did reaching the correct diagnosis become medically possible?
- Was there an unexplained delay between the preparation, evaluation and communication of the result?
- Within which harm items could timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment have changed the outcome, and to what extent?
- What were the natural course of the illness, the patient's own conduct and the effect of subsequent interventions?
- Which missing records prevented a conclusion with reasonable certainty?
In the Court of Cassation's 3rd Civil Chamber decision dated 10 September 2025, E.2025/2437, K.2025/3962, in a file concerning claims of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of a newborn, it was found that the Council of Forensic Medicine report relied on in the judgment was identical to an earlier report and did not address the claimant's objections. The Chamber quashed the dismissal judgment so that a detailed review could be carried out by a board of experts from a university. The value of the decision is that the content of the report must be checked before the name of the institution. The reversal does not mean that the medical claims raised have been confirmed. [13]
Within the civil courts, the time limit for objecting to the expert report is two weeks from service under Article 281 of the HMK. Where a technical study is required, a single additional period of at most two weeks may be granted, provided the request is justified and made within the same period. An objection should show an unanswered question, an image that was not examined or an unexplained contradiction. The expert conducts the medical assessment; legal liability and the judgment belong to the court. [3]
How defences of the hospital and the doctor are assessed
A defence that the illness would have produced the same result in any case may be a strong objection on causation. For this reason, showing only the length of the delay is not enough; the treatment that could have been applied at that time and its expected effect are investigated. The existence of a pre-existing illness also does not justify attributing all the harm to the earlier condition. New or increased loss must be separated out.
Where the defence is that the patient did not attend a follow-up appointment, the timing and importance of the advice given about the check, the patient's opportunity to learn of it and the real contribution of the non-attendance to the harm are assessed. Under Article 52 of the TBK, the patient's conduct may affect compensation. A general follow-up recommendation is not the same as a clear warning about a specific suspicious result. [1, 2]
Complication and consent defences concern separate questions. The occurrence of a known risk does not show that the entire procedure was faulty; however, whether a problem that developed was recognised and managed in time is examined separately. A consent form does not create a general exemption from liability for a careless diagnosis or follow-up. Conversely, a correct technical procedure does not show that the duty to inform was fulfilled in every case.
Which pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages may be claimed
Compensation is determined by the harm that can legally be attributed to the diagnostic error. Expenses that the illness would have required in any case must be separated from expenses added by the delay or by an unnecessary intervention. The absence of a permanent disability does not mean that documented temporary loss of income or additional treatment costs cannot be claimed. [1, Articles 53–56]
| Claim | Harm to be examined | Important limit |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment and care costs | Unnecessary or aggravated treatment, medicines, care and transport | Medical necessity and a link to the error must be shown |
| Loss of earnings and earning capacity | Period not worked, permanent loss of function, economic future | Actual income and a person-specific calculation are required |
| Claims arising from death | Funeral expenses and loss of support | The support relationship is examined separately from inheritance rights |
| Non-pecuniary damages | Physical or mental effect and the seriousness of the event | There is no fixed tariff; separate conditions apply to relatives |
Relatives of the patient do not automatically acquire a right to non-pecuniary damages for every diagnostic error. Article 56/2 of the TBK provides for a separate assessment for relatives in cases of serious bodily harm or death. In a claim for loss of support, a family relationship alone is not enough; a factual or future-oriented support relationship is examined. Payments already made must be shown in the file, and which payments may be deducted is determined under Article 55 of the TBK. [1]
2026 amendment: The provisions added to Article 55 of the TBK by Law No. 7589 set different starting points for interest in respect of loss of earning capacity and loss of support, depending on whether the income was known or unknown in the relevant period, and regulate the offsetting of certain early payments. Under Provisional Article 1/9 of that Law, the amendment applies to harmful events occurring after its entry into force. The new interest rule should not be carried automatically into older events, and the same rule should not be generalised directly to other heads of claim such as treatment costs or non-pecuniary damages. [1, 15]
Which court and which time limits apply to a claim
Where private healthcare is a consumer transaction, consumer jurisdiction is assessed. The jurisdiction of the arbitration committee depends on the nature of the dispute and the current monetary limits; at the litigation stage, the mediation condition under Article 73/A of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK) and its exceptions are checked. For a medical act in public healthcare, as a rule, the route is a compensation application to the relevant administration under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), followed by a full remedy action before the administrative court. [4, 5]
| Legal basis | Main time limit | Start and follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Tort | Two years from learning; ten years from the act | Learning of the harm and of the liable person; longer criminal limitation conditions are examined separately |
| Mandate agreement | As a rule, five years | Due date and the nature of the specific relationship are examined; the same period is not extended to every hospital contract |
| Administrative act | One year from learning; prior application within five years of the act | Generally, a 60-day action period after service of the rejection or after the end of 30 days without reply |
This table is the basic framework of Articles 72, 147 and 149 of the TBK and Articles 7 and 13 of the İYUK. The date of learning and the point at which the link between the harm and the medical process could reasonably be understood require a file-specific assessment. A new diagnosis does not automatically restart all time limits. Waiting for a definitive expert report or for the outcome of a criminal case is also not a safe method of calculating time. Limitation and the period for bringing an administrative action are not the same legal institution. [1, 5]
In mediation as a condition of suit, the limitation period is suspended and the time limit for bringing an action does not run between the application to the mediation office and the final minutes. By contrast, applying to a patients' rights unit or to another complaints channel does not in itself produce the same effect. The content and legal nature of the application must be examined separately. [17]
If the amount of compensation cannot be determined at the outset
The amendment that entered into force on 31 July 2026 repealed Article 107 of the HMK. The new Article 109/4 provides that a claim partially brought may be increased once in the same action, until the end of the investigation phase, and that the limitation period for the increased part is deemed interrupted on the date the action was filed. However, for actions brought before entry into force, the application of former Article 107 continues under Provisional Article 1/10 of Law No. 7589. A former indeterminate-claim template should not be used as it is for a new action. The form of the claim for non-pecuniary damages and the increase of the amount in administrative proceedings must also be considered separately. [3, 5, 15]
Interim payment, enforcement and other routes of application
Where there is an urgent economic need while proceedings are ongoing, an interim payment may be requested under Article 76 of the TBK, if the evidence and conditions that make the claim credible are present. The court evaluates the request; the payment does not arise automatically, and if no compensation is ultimately awarded it may have to be returned with statutory interest. To secure a monetary claim, a precautionary attachment (ihtiyati haciz) may also be considered, which is assessed under Articles 257–259 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK), prima facie proof and security. [1, 18]
A compensation judgment and the actual receipt of money are different stages. In private law, enforcement based on a judgment is assessed; in public administration, the application and payment procedure under Article 28 of the İYUK is assessed. The route of appeal, the suspension of enforcement, interest and earlier payments should be followed according to the file. Where a settlement or an insurance payment is offered, it must be made clear which harm items and which future claims are included in the agreement. [3, 5, 18]
Criminal complaints and professional supervision serve different purposes. A criminal conviction is not a general precondition for compensation; Article 74 of the TBK is important in this respect. For authorisation to investigate medical acts of health professionals, Article 18 of Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (additional article) and the relevant status regulations must also be observed. Using the complaints route does not make monitoring the compensation time limit unnecessary. [1, 9]
Health records are also special-category personal data in the preparation of a claim. Necessary documents should be shared for the purpose of defending rights, limited to what is needed and in a secure manner; unnecessary information about third parties should be removed. Where the file concerns a foreign patient or treatment abroad, the applicable law, jurisdiction and use of documents are determined separately within the framework of the Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK). The fact that the patient is a foreign national does not by itself mean that Turkish law will not apply. [19, 20]
Conclusion
The assessment of compensation for wrong and delayed diagnosis should be made by explaining at which stage the required medical care was not shown and what additional harm it caused to the patient. For this reason, preserving the images, examining the real content of the reports, documenting the communication of results and involving the appropriate specialties in the assessment are all important. The route of application and the time limits should be determined at the same time as the records are gathered.
The decisions in this article reach different outcomes: an incomplete investigation may require a new review, whereas where no link to the harm can be established, the claim may be dismissed. A precedent decision should not be used only by its heading or compensation amount; the facts, reasoning and judgment should be read together. For the general framework, see our medical malpractice lawsuit guide. This text was prepared as of 11 October 2026 for general legal information; the medical and legal examination of a specific file is still required.
Frequently asked questions
Is a later different diagnosis enough to win a case
No. The question is whether the necessary care was shown on the basis of the findings at the first presentation, and the harm and causation must be assessed. The change of diagnosis may have different causes. Details: Difference between wrong diagnosis and delayed diagnosis.
Can all treatment costs be claimed for a delayed cancer diagnosis
It is not correct to attribute all expenses automatically to the diagnostic error. Expenses that the illness would have required in any case are separated from additional harm that can be linked to the culpable delay. Details: The effect of delay on the illness.
If the result appears on e-Nabız, is the hospital freed from liability
Not on its own. The evaluation of the result, the information given to the patient and the content of the follow-up recommendation are examined together. Details: Communicating test results to the patient.
Can a claim be brought if the hospital cannot provide the images
Yes. The effect of the missing records must be specified, and existing copies and other evidence should be examined. The obligation to keep and present records is also assessed. Details: How wrong diagnosis is proven.
Does the review end when the Council of Forensic Medicine finds no fault
No. The report must adequately evaluate the relevant documents, the fields of expertise and the objections. For specific deficiencies, a supplementary or new report may be requested within the time limit. Details: Questions an expert report should answer.
For a wrong diagnosis at a public hospital, is the claim brought directly against the doctor
A claim for a medical act performed by a public official within the scope of their service is, as a rule, directed to the relevant administration. The institution and the legal status of the service must be determined. Details: Liability of the doctor, hospital and laboratory.
Does learning the correct diagnosis later restart the time limit
Not in every case. Earlier information, the knowledge of the link to the harm and the legal basis are assessed together. While waiting for a new report, the existing application time limits must not be allowed to lapse. Details: Time limits for bringing a claim.
Can relatives also claim non-pecuniary damages
Yes, in cases of serious bodily harm or death, within the conditions of Article 56/2 of the TBK. Not every diagnostic dispute gives the same right to all relatives. Details: Which pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages may be claimed.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Articles 49–56, 61, 72, 74, 76, 112, 116, 147, 149, 502 and 506.
- Patients' Rights Regulation (Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği), Articles 9, 11, 15–18 and 24.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Articles 107, 109, 190, 266, 281–282, 293 and 400–405; current consolidated text.
- Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Articles 3, 68, 73 and 73/A.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 2, 7, 13, 16/4, 28 and 58.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 17, 125 and 129/5.
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu), especially Article 1478.
- Law No. 1219 (1219 sayılı Kanun), Additional Article 12.
- Law No. 3359 on Basic Health Services (3359 sayılı Sağlık Hizmetleri Temel Kanunu), Additional Article 18.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 3rd Civil Chamber, 01.07.2025, E.2025/192, K.2025/3719, reasoning B/2–5 and judgment; reversal.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 3rd Civil Chamber, 02.10.2023, E.2023/747, K.2023/2446, reasoning C/3 and judgment; affirmance of the dismissal.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Kerim Kilit and others, Application No. 2020/26381, 07.02.2024, §§23–32 and judgment; Official Gazette (RG) 13.06.2024/32575.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 3rd Civil Chamber, 10.09.2025, E.2025/2437, K.2025/3962, reasoning B and judgment; reversal.
- Yıldız Abik, Loss of Chance in Physicians' Liability: Loss of Chance of Recovery (Doktorun Sorumluluğunda Şans Kaybı: İyileşme Şansının Kaybı), Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal (Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2005, C.54, S.3, s.241–287; especially s.241–243, DOI:10.1501/Hukfak_0000000391.
- Law No. 7589 (7589 sayılı Kanun), Articles 18–20, 26 and Provisional Articles 1/9–10; Official Gazette (RG) 31.07.2026/33326.
- Civil Servants Law No. 657 (657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu), Article 13.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/A/16.
- Law No. 2004, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (2004 sayılı İcra ve İflâs Kanunu), provisions on enforcement based on a judgment and Articles 257–259.
- Law No. 6698 on Protection of Personal Data (6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), Articles 4 and 6.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), Articles 1, 24, 26, 34, 40 and 48.