Can WhatsApp Messages and Digital Records Be Evidence in Court? Proof and Lawfulness in Civil Actions

WhatsApp messages, e-mails, SMS messages, voice messages and other digital records can be assessed as evidence in civil actions. However, the existence of a record does not show that it was obtained lawfully, that it belongs to a particular person, or that it proves a claim on its own. The court examines the method of obtaining it, its source, its integrity, its connection with the dispute and the applicable rules of proof together. Electronic data may be a document within the scope of Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK); not every electronic document is a written instrument, and not every screenshot is automatically initial evidence. [1]

A person may hold a message that they believe acknowledges a debt. An employee may have kept instructions received outside working hours. A spouse may believe that the messages sent to them support a claim in family law. What these people need is not only the answer to the question “Can I submit the message to the court?” They also need to know how to preserve the record, what they intend to prove with it, which objections the other side may raise, and how to act without interfering with another person’s privacy.

This guide focuses on civil actions in Türkiye. The powers of search, seizure and digital examination in a criminal investigation are subject to a separate procedure; a party to a civil action cannot use the powers of the criminal authorities on their own initiative. The explanations are based on the legislation and sources reviewed as of October 11, 2026.

What questions should be asked when assessing digital evidence?

Before starting to examine a record, the event to be proved must be identified. The statement “We have correspondence” is insufficient. The creation of a debt, its amount, its due date, a payment made, a delivery, a work instruction or a particular act are separate facts. The burden of proof under HMK Article 190 and the burden of substantiation under Article 194 are therefore also important for digital evidence. As a rule, the party who wishes to derive a legal consequence in their favor must prove the relevant fact and explain which item of evidence supports which fact. [1]

Table 1. Basic review questions for a digital record

These questions are not substitutes for one another. A genuine record may have been obtained unlawfully; a record obtained lawfully may be unrelated to the dispute or insufficient as proof. Technical verification by an expert also does not remove the judge’s assessment of lawfulness and evidentiary value. [1]

Can a WhatsApp message be a document, a written instrument or initial evidence?

The difference between an electronic document and a written instrument

HMK Article 199 treats data in an electronic medium as a document as well. An unsigned e-mail or message is therefore not excluded from the field of evidence merely because it was not written on paper. However, “document” is a broad concept; the probative force attached to a written instrument (senet) is not granted to all documents in the same way. Under HMK Article 205/2, electronic data created in accordance with the procedure with a secure electronic signature have the effect of a written instrument. A username in an application, a profile photo, a name typed at the end of a message or an approval mark does not take the place of a secure electronic signature. [1, 4]

The form of proof must also be distinguished from the form required for the validity of a transaction. A message may show what the parties discussed; however, it does not by itself satisfy the official form required by law. Article 5 of the Electronic Signature Law also regulates the effect of a secure electronic signature and its exceptions. The conclusion “There is a message, so the contract is valid in every case” therefore cannot be drawn. First the type of transaction, then the conditions of validity and proof are assessed. [4]

What conditions are required for initial evidence?

HMK Article 202 becomes important for a legal transaction that must be proved by a written instrument. The document relied on must make the transaction probable, even if it does not prove it completely, and it must have been issued or sent by the person against whom it is used or by that person’s representative. Where these conditions are met, the possibility of proof by witness testimony may be considered. A note that a creditor wrote to themselves, or an unanswered message they sent themselves, does not carry the same weight as a statement of acknowledgment that came from the other side. [1]

Levent Börü’s study on e-mail deals jointly with the status as a document of e-mails that do not bear a secure electronic signature and the conditions under which they may constitute initial evidence (delil başlangıcı). The practical conclusion to be drawn is not to be content with calling the message merely “written evidence”: the link between the sender, the content and the alleged transaction must be shown. Because there are differing assessments in the doctrine on whether initial evidence alone suffices for a judgment, it is advisable not to leave the case file to this debate alone and to support it with other lawfully obtained evidence. [9]

Does the same proof regime apply in every dispute?

No. The proof of a legal transaction, the proof of a material event and a claim asserted against a written instrument are not the same. The rules in HMK Articles 200 and 201 are assessed together with the exceptions in Article 203. As for the monetary limit, it is not enough to memorize the amount for the year in which an article was published; the date of the transaction and the application rule in additional Article 1 of the HMK are important. This guide does not give a single monetary threshold applicable to all disputes. [1]

For example, the fact that a message supports a payment due date does not mean that it conclusively proves the full amount of the debt. The scope of the phrase “We will settle up” differs from that of a clear statement concerning a specific debt, amount and payment date. The language of the message, the preceding and following correspondence and the conduct of the parties must be read together.

Is a screenshot sufficient on its own?

A screenshot conveys the content visible on the screen at a particular moment. The name of the person in the image is often the name that the device owner saved in the contacts; it does not by itself verify the sender’s legal identity. In cropped images, the previous message, the statement being replied to, the date or the attached file may not be visible. For these reasons, the relationship of the image submitted to the court with the original record must be explained. [1, 11]

The value of a screenshot is not zero; its value depends on the circumstances of the case file. The other side’s acceptance of the content, consistency with bank transactions, independent documents and mutually corroborating correspondence affect the assessment. By contrast, where the attribution or integrity of the record is seriously disputed, relying solely on the image creates a significant risk of proof. It is also not correct to say that every case file requires an expert examination; the need for examination is determined according to the technical dispute. [1]

What does submitting the entire message mean?

Preserving the context does not mean pouring the whole private life on a phone into the case file. The relevant range of conversation should be preserved in a way that makes its beginning, continuation, replies and attachments understandable. A separate working copy may be prepared for unrelated personal information; however, the original record must not be altered, and any redaction or removal must be clearly stated. Selective presentation that impairs the other side’s right of defense and right to examine the evidence should be avoided. [1, 2]

A good submission shows the exhibit number, the date of the conversation, the person or account concerned, the fact to be proved and where the record is located. Uploading hundreds of pages of messages without explanation creates the expectation that the judge will look for the facts and the evidence on behalf of the party. The substantiation required by HMK Article 194 is not achieved in this way. [1]

The line between submitting your own correspondence and entering someone else’s account

Using a conversation to which you are a party

A person’s using a message sent to them in order to assert or defend a right is not the same as collecting data by entering another person’s account without permission. However, being a party to a conversation does not give an unlimited authority to disclose all of its content. The purpose of the use, its relationship with the dispute, the data of third persons and the special confidentiality provisions are assessed separately. The condition in Article 5/2-e of Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK), that processing be necessary for the establishment, exercise or protection of a right, cannot be interpreted as permission for unnecessary data collection or public disclosure. [1, 2]

Submitting a record to the court within the necessary scope and publishing the same record on social media are different legal acts. Disclosing to the public data held for the purpose of evidence cannot be automatically legitimized on the basis of the justification of the first use. The provisions on personal data, communication and private life must be assessed separately for each act. [2, 3]

The exception in KVKK Article 28/1-d, concerning the processing of data by judicial authorities and sentence-enforcement authorities in connection with judicial proceedings, does not give the parties to an action an unlimited authority to collect all personal data. A party’s obtaining of data must be distinguished from the judicial authority’s own act within its area of duty. As for special categories of data and the information of third persons, the necessary scope and appropriate protection are also important. [2]

Password cracking, open sessions and shared devices

Accessing another person’s phone, e-mail account or messaging session without permission, tracking them secretly, or copying data without consent and authority may give rise to serious legal problems. HMK Article 189/2 provides that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be taken into account in proving a fact. Depending on the characteristics of the specific act, the provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) on the confidentiality of communication, private life, personal data and access to an information system may also come into question. It cannot be said that the same offense is committed in every case; the manner of access and the elements of the act are examined. [1, 3]

A screen being left open, a device being kept in a shared home or a password being known in advance does not mean unlimited consent for all uses. Being technically able to access is different from being legally authorized to access. The later filing of an action does not automatically cure the earlier unlawful obtaining. [1, 8]

Mediation correspondence is assessed separately

Article 5 of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes contains special prohibitions on evidence regarding the will to participate in mediation, the offers put forward within the scope of the negotiations, statements of acceptance and documents prepared solely because of this activity. The fact that these take the form of a message or an e-mail does not lift the prohibition. By contrast, a document that exists independently does not become unusable in every case merely because it was submitted in mediation. The source of the document and the category into which it falls must be determined. [12]

Digital records in divorce and family disputes

In a divorce action, a message may be linked to fault, conduct that undermines trust, a threat or another fact. However, the fact that the content is disturbing does not make the method of obtaining it unimportant. The marital bond does not give a general authority to monitor the other spouse’s entire communication. On whose device, under what conditions and through what access the record was obtained must also be explained. [1, 2, 3]

Fatma Dilan Topuz’s study draws attention to two separate aspects of the use of WhatsApp records in divorce: the criminal liability of the person who obtained the record, and whether the civil court can use that record as proof. Although these are connected, they cannot be reduced to the same question. It would therefore not be correct to carry the assessment in a criminal decision over to all divorce actions without examining the differences in the facts and the procedure. [10]

Hypothetical example: One spouse has kept a voice message containing a threat that was sent directly to them. Another spouse has secretly entered the other side’s account and copied all of their correspondence with third persons. The presence of a digital record in both case files does not mean that the methods of obtaining them are the same. In the first, the purpose and the necessary scope are also at issue; in the second, in addition to these, the lawfulness of the access is the main subject of review. Showing the content of the message and the way it was obtained separately makes the assessment sounder.

Can an employer examine an employee’s e-mail or WhatsApp correspondence?

What criteria do the Constitutional Court’s decisions show?

The employer’s right of management and its interest in the safe conduct of work, on the one hand, and the employee’s private life, communication and personal data, on the other, must be protected together. The fact that a device belongs to the employer does not lead to the conclusion that every communication may be examined without limit. The decisions of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) focus on prior notification, a legitimate aim, necessity, less intrusive methods, the scope of the examination and the use of the data obtained. [5, 6, 7]

In the E.Ü. decision, the examination of corporate e-mails in a law practice entity (avukatlık ortaklığı) and the termination of the employment relationship were assessed. The Court found it significant that no sufficient assessment had been made regarding prior explicit notification, the necessity of the content review and the limited nature of its scope; it reached a finding of violation with respect to the right to request the protection of personal data and the freedom of communication. The practical significance of the decision is that the existence of a corporate account cannot, by itself, be regarded as a ground for unlimited monitoring. [5: §§69–80]

In the Celal Oraj Altunörgü decision, by contrast, no violation was found, taking into account together the provisions on use and monitoring in the employment contract, the examination being focused on a specific allegation, the use of the data in line with its purpose, and the other evidence. This different outcome shows that e-mail monitoring is neither always prohibited nor always free. The assessment of consent in the decision also belongs to its specific case; any sentence placed in an employment contract does not make all monitoring lawful. [6: §§38–45]

In the Samet Ayyıldız decision, the obtaining of personal WhatsApp correspondence on a computer allocated for work and its use as a basis for termination were examined. The Constitutional Court pointed to deficiencies in the assessment regarding notification, the method of access, necessity and less intrusive means, and held that the right to respect for private life and the freedom of communication had been violated. Leaving a computer open cannot be interpreted as a general permission of access, disregarding all the reasoning of the decision. [7: §§35–46]

What does the October 2026 KVKK principle decision clarify?

The principle decision (ilke kararı) of the Personal Data Protection Board (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu) dated September 16, 2026, numbered 2026/2035 and published on October 8, 2026, offers a current framework for the monitoring of corporate e-mail and the communication channels used to carry out work. It separates technical access from legal authority; it questions the sufficiency of general notices; it focuses on specific privacy notices, proportionality, graduated monitoring and access security. It is not accepted that data may be processed for an unlimited period after the employment relationship ends. [8]

Within this framework, it is important that the employer can submit to the case file not only the message printout but also the documents showing the legal basis and the limits of the monitoring. As for the employee, objections concerning the method of access and use can be made concrete, separately from denying the content. The earlier decisions of the Constitutional Court and the current KVKK obligations must be assessed together; the constitutional assessment of notification and the obligation to provide a privacy notice under the KVKK are not the same act. [5, 6, 7, 8]

Is a voice message the same as a secret audio recording?

A voice message that a person sends of their own will is an element of communication that has been recorded and sent. The recording of a private face-to-face or telephone conversation without the knowledge of the other person is different with respect to the method of obtaining it. In both cases the content, attribution, integrity and purpose of use are assessed; in a secret recording, the lawfulness of the act of recording is also discussed. [1, 3]

Situations in which a sudden attack or the absence of any other means of proof is alleged do not create a general permission to record all private conversations in a planned manner. A claim of exception must be examined separately with respect to the characteristics of the event and the applicable law. The thought “I will use it for the case” is not by itself a sufficient justification of lawfulness. Instead of having recordings made, setting traps or conducting continuous surveillance, the existing lawful evidence should be preserved and, where necessary, the protection of the competent authorities should be sought. [1, 3, 10]

How should digital records be preserved?

Separate the original file from the working copy

Preserve the original message, the attached file and the device holding the record as far as possible. Use separate copies to prepare a readable printout and an explanatory file. Avoid operations that could change the date, the content or the file properties; keep a record of the operations carried out. In the case of an e-mail, not only the visible text but also, where necessary, the header information and the original form of the attachments may be important. [11]

Resetting the device, uninstalling the application or recreating the record may cause irreversible loss. On the other hand, recovery programs used carelessly may also change the data on the device. If there is a need for a technical examination, the method, the authority and confidentiality should be planned together. If there is a security danger, the balance between the need to preserve evidence and the security of the account and the person should also be taken into account.

It cannot be said that a deleted message can necessarily be recovered. The state of the original device, the backups and the existing data is decisive. In the request for examination, the data that are not available and the technical limits they create should also be explained. [11]

Traffic data showing the movement of communication is different from the content of the message. From an HTS record or a similar communication record, one cannot infer which sentence was said or written merely on the ground that there is a connection between persons. It should be clearly stated in the case file whether the requested data relate to the time of communication, the account connection or the content. The fact shown by the technical record and the meaning attributed to it must be distinguished. [1, 11]

Technical integrity is not the whole of legal accuracy

In an expert examination, recording the numerical digest of the file, that is, its hash value, and comparing it between copies may help in checking integrity. However, showing that a file was not changed afterwards does not by itself prove that it was genuine when first created or that it contains the statement of a particular person. The preservation method, the source and the chain of custody must be assessed together. NIST’s digital forensics guide explains the importance of preserving data integrity in this technical process; this guide is not a law on the admission of evidence in Turkish law. [11]

Table 2. Preservation and review by type of record

How are messages submitted to the court?

Match the evidence with the claim in the petition

A digital record must be clearly identified in the list of evidence. It is not correct to rely on the phrase “all kinds of legal evidence” and leave specific records and the facts to be proved unclear. If you hold the record, the manner of submission should be explained; if you do not, who holds it, which period it covers and why it is requested should be explained. The provisions on the production of documents in HMK Articles 219–221 are assessed under the relevant conditions. [1]

The fact that a document is in the other side’s possession is not sufficient to request an unlimited examination of their entire phone or their entire corporate archive. The request for production must be connected with the dispute and specific. The consequences of refusing to produce are also subject to statutory conditions; it cannot be accepted that all claims are automatically proved because the record was not produced. [1]

Can messages found later always be submitted?

Evidence must be notified and submitted at the time provided for by the procedure of the proceedings. The exception in HMK Article 145 provides that the court may grant permission where the later submission of evidence is not aimed at delaying the proceedings or where its failure to be put forward in time did not arise from the fault of the party concerned. The existence of the exception must be reasoned; the easy duplication of digital records does not remove the rules on time limits. [1]

There is also the risk of a technical error occurring while a file upload is believed to have been completed. It should be checked that the submission has been completed, that the attachments are readable and that the transaction record has been created. In multi-page printouts, the order, the exhibit numbers and the explanatory petition should follow the same system.

What do a notarial record, the preservation of evidence and an expert examination provide?

Does having a notarial record made make the evidence indisputable?

No. A notary’s recording (noter tespiti) of the content they saw on a particular date may be useful depending on the scope of the transaction. However, what the record covers, who created the message in the past, whether its context is complete and whether it was obtained lawfully are separate matters. A record obtained afterwards does not cure unlawful obtaining. The probative force of an official document must be assessed within the limits of the transaction that it certifies. [1]

For the court to be able to order the preservation of evidence, the conditions in HMK Article 400 and the following articles, in particular legal interest, are examined. The possibility that the record will be lost or that it will become significantly more difficult to put forward in the future must be made concrete. Before the action is filed, the court that will hear the main action or the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) at the place specified in the law is considered; after the action is filed, the court hearing the action is considered with regard to subject-matter jurisdiction and the application procedure. The preservation of evidence does not mean that the underlying dispute has been won. [1]

How should the right question be put to the expert?

Instead of requesting a general answer such as “The messages are true,” technical questions should be determined: Where were the examined data taken from? Does the image find a counterpart in the original record? Are there traces of alteration? Are the account and date details consistent? For lack of access to which data was the examination limited? Under HMK Article 266 and the following articles, a technical examination requiring specialized knowledge must be distinguished from the legal assessment to be made by the judge. [1]

It is also possible for a party to obtain an expert opinion (uzman görüşü) under HMK Article 293. This opinion does not have the same standing as the report of an expert appointed by the court. In both cases, the method, the data source and the limits must be explained. As for the objection to an expert report, the two-week period from notification under HMK Article 281 and the additional period, which has special conditions, must also be followed. Instead of merely objecting to the conclusion, an incomplete examination or a technical contradiction should be shown. [1]

How is the other side’s objection assessed?

Table 3. Common objections and direction of review

A message coming from a company employee does not show that the employee is authorized to make a binding statement on the company’s behalf on every matter. Likewise, the subscriber information of a single number does not in every case settle who wrote the message at that moment. Technical attribution, the authority of representation and the legal scope of the statement must be examined separately. The reference to a document coming from a representative in HMK Article 202 shows the importance of this distinction. [1]

A working sequence that can be applied in preparing the case file

Table 4. Action plan for a digital evidence file

Instead of telling the client “There is a message, we will win the case,” it should be explained in which respects the record is strong and in which respects it is disputable. The costs of technical examination, record preservation, document duplication and, if necessary, translation should also be assessed in advance. The existence of electronic evidence does not change the court with subject-matter jurisdiction, the procedural prerequisites or other proof needs. For records in a foreign language, translation under HMK Article 223 applies; for records to be obtained from abroad, the procedure to be applied is examined separately. [1]

Conclusion

The probative force of digital records does not arise solely from the sentence written on the screen. The lawful obtaining of the record, the preservation of its authenticity, its being attributable to the person concerned and its connection with the concrete claim are important together. Without correctly drawing the distinction between an electronic document, a written instrument and initial evidence, the effect of a message in the action cannot be soundly assessed.

Preserving the record without altering it, explaining the conditions of obtaining it and showing which fact it proves are the basis of case file preparation. The limits of privacy and the time limits for submitting evidence must be monitored with the same care. A reliable digital evidence file is one that shows its claim and honestly explains its limits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a WhatsApp message evidence in court?

It can be. What is decisive is that it was obtained lawfully, that its attribution and integrity can be assessed, its connection with the relevant claim, and the applicable rules of proof. Not every message is conclusive evidence. For details, see the distinction between a document and initial evidence. [1]

Can I prove my receivable with a screenshot alone?

It depends on the circumstances of the case file. The acceptance of the content, its consistency with other evidence and the rules on proof by written instrument affect the outcome. If attribution or integrity is disputed, the original record and a technical examination may become important. There is no rule of automatic sufficiency for a screenshot. [1]

Does the person’s name in a message prove the sender?

It does not prove it on its own. The name saved in the contacts, the legal holder of the account and the person actually using it may be different. The number, the account relationship and independent records are assessed together. [1]

Is consent always required to submit my own conversation to the court?

Consent is not the only legal basis in every case; conditions such as necessity for the exercise or protection of a right may be assessed. However, being a party to a conversation does not give an unlimited authority to disclose. The purpose, the necessary scope and the special confidentiality provisions must be observed. [2, 12]

Can I use the messages on a phone my spouse left open?

A device being open does not by itself provide a general authority to access and use. How the record was obtained, the scope of the access and the specific case must be examined separately. The marital bond is not permission to monitor all private correspondence. [1, 2, 3]

Can an employer examine WhatsApp on a company computer?

The device belonging to the company does not give unlimited authority. Personal communication and work communication, notification, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality are assessed separately. The Constitutional Court decisions and the current KVKK principle decision are explained in the section on employer monitoring. [5, 6, 7, 8]

If I have a notarial record made, does the message become indisputable?

No. The record documents the facts within the scope of the transaction carried out. From whom the record came, whether it was altered in the past and whether it was obtained lawfully may still be disputed. [1]

Can deleted messages definitely be recovered?

No definite guarantee of recovery can be given. The state of the device, the backups and the existing data determines the technical possibility. Instead of haphazard recovery operations, an authorized and appropriate technical examination that preserves the original data should be considered. [11]

Does an HTS record show the content of a message?

A record of the communication movement and the text of the message are different. Data showing that there is a relationship or communication with a number does not by itself prove which sentence was written. The scope of the record requested must be clearly determined. [1, 11]

Is there a difference between a voice message and a secret audio recording?

Yes. A voice message sent voluntarily and the recording of a private conversation without the other person’s knowledge differ with respect to the method of obtaining. The lawfulness of a secret recording is examined separately; the purpose of the lawsuit is not by itself a general permission. [1, 3]

Can I add a message I found later to the case file?

The time limits for evidence and the exception in HMK Article 145 are assessed. The circumstances of the delay must be explained and, where necessary, the court’s permission must be requested. Having been found later is not by itself a guarantee of admission. [1]

Can all messages sent in mediation be evidence?

No. There are special prohibitions for data such as offers and statements of acceptance specific to mediation negotiations. A document that independently existed beforehand must be distinguished from content created solely for the negotiations. [12]

Sources and legal bases

1. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (HMK); in particular Arts. 27, 145, 189–205, 219–223, 266–293, 400–405 and additional Art. 1. Current legislation text.
2. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK); in particular Arts. 4–6, 10, 12 and 28. Current legislation text.
3. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5237, Turkish Criminal Code (TCK); in particular Arts. 132–136 and 243. Current legislation text.
4. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 5070 on Electronic Signature; in particular Arts. 4–5. Current legislation text.
5. Constitutional Court, Plenary Assembly, E.Ü., Application No: 2016/13010, September 17, 2020; in particular §§69–80. Decision.
6. Constitutional Court, First Section, Celal Oraj Altunörgü, Application No: 2018/31036, January 12, 2021; in particular §§35–45. Decision.
7. Constitutional Court, First Section, Samet Ayyıldız, Application No: 2018/34548, December 28, 2021; in particular §§35–46. Decision.
8. Personal Data Protection Board, Principle Decision No. 2026/2035 dated September 16, 2026 on the monitoring of communication channels allocated to employees; Official Gazette, October 8, 2026. Text published by the authority.
9. Börü, Levent, “The Evidentiary Value of E-mail Records Not Created with a Secure Electronic Signature” (Güvenli Elektronik İmza ile Oluşturulmamış Elektronik Posta (E-mail) Kayıtlarının Delil Değeri), Journal of the Faculty of Law of Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University (Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 27(4), 2023, pp. 101–128; in particular pp. 124–125. DOI: 10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1350218. Article.
10. Topuz, Fatma Dilan, “The Use of WhatsApp Records as Evidence in a Divorce Action with Respect to the Offense of Violating the Confidentiality of Communication” (Haberleşmenin Gizliliğini İhlal Suçu Bakımından Whatsapp Kayıtlarının Boşanma Davasında Delil Olarak Kullanılması), Çukurova University Journal of Legal Research (Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi), no. 5, 2024, pp. 127–166. DOI: 10.59399/cuhad.1359191. Article.
11. Kent, Karen; Chevalier, Suzanne; Grance, Tim; Dang, Hung, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, NIST SP 800-86, August 2006; in particular sections 3 and 4. DOI: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86. Technical guide.
12. Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes; in particular Arts. 4–5. Current legislation text.