Turkish Law Blog

New Rising Star: Implementation of the Mediation System under Turkish Legal System and its Development

Yaman Gürsel Yaman Gürsel/ University of Fribourg
12 October, 2018

Abstract: In our times, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter “ADR”) is getting more and more crucial. In particular in the countries where their standard legal system, most likely litigation, is dealing with an enormous burden of conflicts. This devastating burden time-to-time might generate a substantial weight to overcome by the courts and the jurists of that country; however, mostly that affects the efficiency of the judicial system and the trust of the private parties subjecting their conflicts to the respective courts. For this reason, my discussion in this article will focus on the application of Mediation under Turkish law regulated as one of the method for ADRs rather than other typical alternatives such as litigation or conciliation or arbitration. The first part of the article will concern ADR’s applications in the Turkish legal system (for instance, how do ADR processes work in the Turkish legal system?) from a broad perspective and in the second part of the article there will be a discussion of Business Mediation and Conflict Management under the main title of Mediation.


First of all, Turkish legal system deals mostly with the litigation process. For instance, every single year, thousands of cases come to the Turkish courts, in the sense of procedure of litigation. Therefore, attention paid to ADR procedures is still insufficient, especially considering the scope they are given in the legal systems of other countries. There is, nonetheless, an enlarging endeavor in the Turkish legal system for the adoption of the other methods of dispute resolution likewise arbitration, mediation etc. Unignorably, Turkish Department of Justice made a huge contribution to the establishment and development of the Mediation system within the last decade. Indeed, various examples shall be provided below, in order to explain this contribution in a more understandable way.

Further to that, historically speaking the first attempt in adopting a new dispute resolution system was made in favor of arbitration. A working group constituted by talented and skillful academicians and best practitioners from their field, gathered under the lead of Prof. Dr. Ziya AKINCI established the Istanbul Arbitration Center, and under the same Institute, Rules for Arbitration and Mediation have been enacted on 25 October 2015[1]. On the other hand, adoption of mediation lasted longer than arbitration concerning the beginning of the studies to draft a code had many prior steps such as making of an extended research and assessment of the articles written on this dispute resolution method. To be precise, Turkish lawmakers laid the base in early 1990s and the above mentioned preliminary works have been conducted until the drafting session of the code, through the late 2000s. Ultimately, the very first Code of Mediation numbered 6325 has been enacted on 7 June 2012 in Turkey[2]. Before proceeding to the discussion of the properties and advantages of ADR processes, compared with other alternative processes, I would like to cite some official legal statistics along with the useful definitions, to support my arguments on the contribution of the ADR systems, mediation, to the Turkish legal market.

During the first two years of its enactment period, demand and interest to mediation were very low and most of the applications were labor-oriented conflicts. Precisely, according to the official website of the Ministry of Justice, since the beginning of 2013, 623 mediation attempts have been made under the Turkey’s legal system[3]. Approximately 500 out of these 623 cases were about conflicts under the labor law. Other cases of mediation in Turkey are conflicts about land registration, inheritance law, alimony payment, and pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages[4]. The vital aspect of these statistics was, nevertheless, that at the end of the mediation process, all parties have come to an agreement. The fact that under the Turkish legal system, parties were used to always try to solve their conflicts by applying to the litigation process without any thoughts about ADR. It makes these statistics even more meaningful, particularly in cross-reference with the statistics given below, whose numbers are more updated.

Starting from the beginning of the year 2018, on the conflicts that had their merits based on labor law, application of mediation has been regulated as a compulsory way of dispute resolution before going to the courts in order to launch the litigation process. By doing that, the number of mediation sessions has adopted an upward trend, inherently. Regardless of reaching out an amicable agreement at the end of the mediation process, Turkish law-makers aimed to expand the application to mediation by regulating it as a mandatory way to pursue for the labor law conflicts. In other words, Turkish judicial branch has targeted to put an end, or at least substantially minimize the culture of conflict, which had been established to the hilt of the society.

As regard to the expansion of the mediation system, a crucial distinction must be done. It is well-known that there are two means of application of mediation; (1) optional, (2) mandatory. Obvious reason for regulation of the compulsory way is to diminish the above-mentioned burden from the shoulders of the courts dealing with the litigation process, in particular from the labor courts. As a matter of fact, voluntary mediation has been more successful in terms of figures so far compared to the mandatory mediation regarding the amounts of the conflicts resulted in “amicable agreement”. To be more precise, according to the official statistics on the voluntary mediation closured by the Turkish Head of Department of Mediation, 15234 out of 15655 applications have resulted in agreement until the first two-quarter of 2018[5] from its very beginning. This extraordinary success puts a percentage value as 97% and despite the fact that Turkey is still deemed as a developing country regarding its economy and other relevant elements, this number is even pretty difficult to challenge for a developed Nordic country. Whereas the voluntary mediation results emerged from various conflicts including divorce, insurance, consumer rights, real-estate, administration, inheritance, IP rights etc., has almost achieved an unreachable number in overall. The success of the compulsory mediation under Turkish law remains a bit lower within an overall number related to the amicable settlement has been reached as 65 %. This percentage value is based on the same time span as till the first two-quarter of the 2018 and 38.667 out of 127.845 applications[6].

Prior to delving into the details on the procedure, I would like to talk about the definition of “mediation” under the Turkish legal system. The definition of “mediation” was copied from the “mediation rules” of the International Chamber of Commerce at the very beginning, where “mediation” refers to “a system of voluntary dispute resolution carried out with the participation of an impartial and independent third party; who is specially trained to convene the relevant parties by way of systemic techniques and with a view to help such parties mutually understand and reach a resolution through a process of communication”[7]. However, as per the Official Gazette published on 2 June 2018 numbered 30439[8], which bears the Ordinance on Mediation on the Legal Disputes, it seems possible to observe certain minor changes on the wording of the Article 4 paragraph 1 subparagraph (ç) providing the definition of the Mediation under Turkish law. Despite of these minor changes taken place under the said Ordinance, the meaning of the definition given by the International Chamber of Commerce has not been changed at all at the end of the day.

With regard to the procedure of a regular mediation session from the very outset, crucial advantages and a parties-friendly image appears at first glance. For instance, the applicant pays nothing in return of his/her application towards mediation. In case there would be non-amicable agreement at the end of the mediation session, meaning that parties could not meet on common grounds to resolve their dispute, the parties have their rights reserved to bring an action. Besides, the mediator does not demand any cost or expenses from the parties relying on his/her performance, instead the State makes a payment to him in the case where the parties could not reach up an amicable agreement. Notwithstanding these, depending on the claimed amount among the parties, the biggest advantage comes from the State incentives implemented in terms of a considerable reduction on the legal fees and expenses including various tax amounts. Hence, mediation, whether mandatory or voluntary, stands way more profitable than other dispute resolutions methods as litigation and arbitration or conciliation.

To exemplify this fact and also strengthen our claim on, hypothetically speaking, two parties are engaged in a commercial relationship; however, afterwards one of them breached the contract and a conflict has been arisen among them. They decide to bring the case to a mediator in order not to have a legal dispute in a state court for several years. At the middle of the mediation process they realize that they could reach out a solution, which will be efficient for both sides, and they both are of the opinion that they do not need a mediator anymore and also, they are strongly willing to bypass the mediator fees and expenses along with the commission. However, both of them need to be secured and this is not possible with the oral promises, therefore they will be intended to officialize their agreement via notary. Moreover, notarization of the agreement is also necessary in order for their amicable solution to be redounded with the performability. In this scenario, if one of the parties involved in the dispute is a legal entity, both of the parties will be obliged to pay a stamp duty way higher than the possible mediation fees and expenses even including the mediator’s commission. Thus, arriving to the point demonstrating us that mediation is most advantageous method even in a circumvention of mediation itself from inside, Ministry of Justice strongly advises the market to apply to this nonesuch opportunity.   

Given the fact that we have already dived in the deep waters of mediation, it would better to continue with certain crucial requirements on the rules of mediation under Turkish legal system. According to Article 20 of the Code of Mediation[9], to become a mediator, some requirements must be fulfilled. For instance, a mediator must be a Turkish citizen and have a bachelor’s degree in law and at least 5 years of experience in the profession, as recognized by the Turkish Minister of Justice. Additionally, a mediator must have a full legal capacity. In order to fulfill the last requirement, a mediator candidate has to attend all the legal courses along with the lectures having content human psychology and at the end of these lectures, the candidate must success in the written and oral exams to become a licensed mediator.

Moreover, Article 1 of the Code of Mediation states that only private disputes may be subject to a settlement between parties under the mediation procedure. This is another important rule that determines the applicability of the law in resolving the dispute in question. However, apart from the voluntary mediation between two private parties or from a mandatory mediation between an employee and employer, there are other types of mediation that might be observed under Turkish legal system. To exemplify, Article 253 of Code of Criminal Procedure[10] regulates the applicability of mediation in criminal disputes. Pursuant to Article 253, offences which could be investigated or be prosecuted on complaint might be subjected to a mediation. It should be noted that persons involved in the dispute shall be proposed to initiate a mediation prior to go to the courts. Indeed, this attempt shall be organized in coordination with the branch of prosecution. Further to that, regardless of whether the offences based on complaint, to list some of the offences which may be subjected to a mediation session, willful injury regulated under Articles 86 and 88 of Turkish Penal Code[11] excluding the third paragraph, reckless injury (Article 89), offence of threat (Article 106/I), violation of residence immunity (Article 116), robbery (Article 141), fraud (Article 157), kidnapping and being derailed (Article 234) and finally exposing a trade, banking or a client secret (Article 239 excluding the fourth paragraph) should be indicated. Especially once we take the main principle of mediation, confidentiality, into consideration, an opportunistic behavior must be adopted if the case relates to the lastly mentioned offence, exposing a trade or banking secret, since the important element of that resolution will be relatively linked to the protection of the secret under the principle of confidentiality.

In addition to above, offences which have 3 years up-to-limit in jail might be subject to mediation before applying for litigation. It is important to mark the taboo that there is no way to propose a mediation concerning the persons involved in a sexual offence. Starting from the fourth paragraph of the Article 253 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedural information is shared, and the designated procedure are relatively similar among each other, private, labor and criminal.

In brief, mediation helps people to come up with their own solution. In this respect, the success of the mediation process depends on the decisions of the parties, and the motivations of the parties are highly decisive during the mediation sessions. Since the parties have to bring their own solutions to the mediation table[12], it is much easier for the mediator to find a way to ensure agreement between the parties at the end of the process. However, this resolution will ultimately be shaped by the interests of the parties. The mediation process does not necessarily mean, however, reaching a peaceful resolution. Suggesting that would be a big misunderstanding of mediation. Mediation rather means finding a settlement between the parties regarding their respective interests, which is the sole aim of pursuing the process of mediation. In other words, we could call mediation a process of producing an amicable way of resolving a conflict between two parties. This makes the empathy skills of the mediator crucial for the process. Mediator, indispensably, must be skillful and experienced on how to lead the parties to the common grounds by making the facts and wills more understandable to the parties. In other words, mediator is nothing but a wise person who can demonstrate the parties how to reach out the rationale solution in combining the facts, demands and of course the rules of law. By indicating the skills and talents that a mediator must be equipped with, the importance of the lectures on the human psychology in obtaining the license to become a mediator comes in the prominence once again.

At the beginning of the mediation process, the mediator has the authority to organize a mediation session by announcing the rules to the parties, since the mediator can determine the rules at this point[13]. Here, it is important that the mediator facilitate the brain-storming during this whole process. Whether one side of the conflict is right or not, the point is for the mediator to listen carefully to every single issue about the conflict. Legal authorities call this period “looping someone”. Those skills could be used for a correction phase or for ensuring correct understanding. Without these skills, the parties would not feel as comfortable as they might in a courthouse litigating about their conflict. In this sense, every single loop of understanding becomes important by making parties feel comfortable and also by helping them to see the mediator as a trustworthy person. At the same time, another skill has to be demonstrated by the mediator: objectivity. As mentioned before, the mediator has to retain an objective perspective throughout the whole process, for every emotional issue in the business world that are open to dispute. Without this, the parties wouldn’t want to recourse to the ADR process because of lack of confidence. To avoid this issue, the mediator has to stay at the center of the dispute while looping the parties. In addition, during the looping period, the dialogues that exist between the mediator and the parties must be meaningful.

The main issue in mediation is why A entered a conflict with B. The mediator could get the answer to this question by looping the parties. Therefore, it could be said that the looping period is the most important part of the process. After this period, the parties can start to list their interests as the basis of their demands. But care should be taken at this point. Providing options for resolving the conflict is not the job of the mediator. The mediator has the responsibility to find a balance between the parties’ interests. But, at the end of the day, the solution to the case will arise from the parties’ decisions. In this process, the analytical skills of the mediator play the most major role, whereas the other two skills - being charismatic and possessing knowledge- could depend on the motivation of the parties. But analytical skills would have to be demonstrated by the mediator to solve the dispute under all circumstances.

The second important question in mediation is determining the real interests of the parties. However, there is a risk of not finding a clear answer to this question at the end even after listening to the parties with this in mind. Furthermore, the conflict between the parties could reach an impasse due to the interests of the parties. This pessimistic but realistic scenario could happen especially because of a lack of rules for managing the conflict. For this reason, the mediator should list the interests of the parties by writing them on a board and then compare those interests to find a balance between them. While doing this, it is hard to believe that the mediator could manage this situation with a completely objective perspective.

Despite all these problems, mediation is capable of providing a more efficient solution to a case, since the main advantage of mediation is confidentiality, as previously indicated. This can be demonstrated by citing a case example that is recalled from our mediation lectures at the Bucerius Law School: the one involving a restaurant owner and his customer. The fact that customer wanted to eat her meal with the company of her dog. However, the owner of the restaurant did not allow the customer to do that. The main issue in the case was that the customer was blind which means disable. In that case, the main interest of the restaurant owner was saving the reputation of his restaurant. ADR helped him save his restaurant’s reputation, since ADR keeps the deliberation in total confidence. Parties thus have a chance to benefit from this aspect of mediation if public knowledge of the case will undermine them. While the parties are listing their interests, a prudent mediator would also help them develop their options.

Before shifting through the other types of ADR applicable under Turkish law, it is necessary to stress that mediation has another crucial advantage compared to other dispute resolution methods, which reveals at the end of its procedure. As previously determined, in the event where the parties reach an amicable solution, meaning of having a settlement as regard to their conflict, one of the duties of mediation is to draft a written report subjecting parties’ agreement and this document has to be signed mutually. As an outcome of the latter, depending on the parties’ intention towards further process, one of the parties is entitled to recourse to a civil court of peace in order for the said written report to be officialized and become compatible in terms of the endorsement of performability. By doing this, the written report issued by the mediator gains the value of an enforcement proceeding with a judgment. This development grants the party in demand to dispose of pursing the lengthy procedures at the enforcement office along with the obligation of bringing the claim deriving from their agreement before a court. In other words, written report that has been drafted by the mediator and signed by the parties, earns a distinguishable advantage compared to other methods of dispute resolution. It directly turns out an enforcement proceeding with judgment. 

Whereas mediation as an ADR method keeps rising as a hope to cease the workload on the shoulders of the state courts reserved for litigation, arbitration stands as a sibling to initiate the understanding of ADR in the country. Historically speaking, arbitration could be considered as an old-standing method to solve the disputes, although mediation comes from the Ottoman legal system. Nevertheless, arbitration has its own roots due to the developments in the western legal systems. As it might be known, in the European continent along with US legal system, from its beginning arbitration made a life-altering impact on their legal systems.

More importantly, domestic and international institutions and chambers has dramatically boosted up the fame of arbitration in the last decades. As previously indicated, international bodies such as International Chamber of Commerce attract a substantial amount of conflicts as in the form of dispute resolution center due to its fame established throughout the world. During the era, of course Turkey as a developing country could not stay unchanged for a long while. Arbitration rules has firstly adopted under the Code of International Arbitration numbered 4686 dated on 21 June 2001[14]. However, as it might be understood, this one concerns only the disputes which fulfills the element of being international in compliance with the principles of the subjected code. On the other hand, domestic disputes, which are intended to be subjected to the arbitration have been regulated under the Code of International Private and Civil Procedure Law no 5718, enacted on 27 November 2007[15]

Established as a private institution in a similar form such as International Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce or Swiss Arbitration Association, Istanbul Arbitration Center has launched its business conduct very recently, therefore aggregating a useful data is still difficult at the beginning of its career in order to present more realistic facts. Not only due to this reason but also an old-established practice in the world of arbitration prevents the institute to make a full-closure relying on the features of the cases as reaching a positive or negative result, and if negative results prevail, how much of them are solved at the courts, gradually. However, it is an inevitable truth that the ADR methods have been functioning quite efficiently within these days, and they represent a serious hope in terms of a decrease of the burden on the shoulders of the state courts where the litigation process can be pursued.

It is pretty crucial to mark that although the scope of application mediation under Turkish legal system sets forth a private mediation center, only the mediation provided by the State has been touched upon under this article along with the private arbitration. To conclude this section; it is highly probable that mediation will be a favorable option for foreign investors as well as Turkish citizens in the near future, since parties will prefer to apply for mediation, which would offer the opportunity to resolve a conflict in a shorter time period and in a cheaper way than litigation would. However, lack of trust, which is common in Turkish society, remains an obstacle.

Another option which is provided under ADR is under Turkish legal system, however, arbitration is also not as popular as litigation. Law firms and the attorneys that they employ, do not have adequate experience in arbitration, especially relative to the developed countries’ legal systems. But, as explained above, arbitration is an essential component of ADR along with Mediation, Conciliation and Negotiation. As a result of the growing Turkish economy, arbitration is becoming a familiar ADR method within the Turkish jurisdiction[16]. Another reason for this situation is the number of foreign investors in Turkey, as a result of which interest for arbitration is growing. Since foreign investors lack knowledge of the relevant Turkish laws and regulations, foreign investors are putting an arbitration clause in their contracts as a standard term in order to resolve possible conflicts, however this issue shall keep being evaluated below.

In arbitration world, brand-new private institution mentioned above, ISTAC nevertheless continues to grow and develop day-by-day. Important part of ISTAC which helps to differentiate itself from the other bodies dealing with any other methods in dispute resolution is to be open for foreign players to solve their conflicts by underwriting an arbitration clause and opting the Istanbul Arbitration Center in as the applicable institute to review their case. At this point, it is important to stress that given Turkish market due to its many economical and sociological is an open zone for the foreign investment, in particular huge amounts of investments from Arabic countries such as Emirates, Saudi Arabia and strongly Qatar, ISTAC has an undeniable potential to attract in the aim of enhancing its recognition throughout the business world. This is not only good for arbitration but also for mediation due to the fact that mediation is a method of ADR, which is highly applied in Arabic legal culture.

Nonetheless, it should be also emphasized that ADR options are still quite new in Turkey. For instance, back in mediation under Turkish legal system, regulations concerning mediation were put in place by the Turkish government and published in the Official Gazette in 2012[17]. It is true that the number of applications for mediation was not enough at that moment. However, this had been changed by legislating it as a mandatory way and rational deliberation according to the legal authorities, since a reasonable litigation process aims to resolve the conflict in question, (let’s assume that the conflict is about debt) parties have to spend at least 12 months in the case of litigation. Compared with this time period, it would take only 2 meetings for the parties to resolve their problem if they used to a regular mediator. Having said that, it becomes effectively claim that Turkish judiciary branch is putting so much effort to expand the adoption of the mediation in order to cease the enormous burden on the courts in almost every field.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned Code of Mediation numbered 6325, we find the general principles of a mediation process. Perhaps the most obvious of these principles is confidentiality, which is the cornerstone of every ADR process. The remaining three principles pointed out in the code are: fairness, voluntariness, and the prohibition about the admissibility of the relevant documents that have been used in the mediation process[18]. To write down an important remark, principle of confidentiality is the main pillar that helps to extent the scope of application towards the third business persons meaning of other market players such as merchants and other big corporations. Principle of strict confidentiality helps them not to unveil their conflicts to the public and in most of the business cases, the parties become extremely keen to hide their statements, their know-how or even sometimes their branches or subsidiaries established in different parts of the world. In that regard, both mediation and arbitration grant them this crucial opportunity not to subject their dispute to the State courts where it is almost impossible to organize the hearings non-public and to keep the press attention off the whole case.

In conclusion, it is hard to deny the importance of ADR, in particular in Turkey. Economic reasons force parties in conflict to take advantage of the ADR process in order to save time. Furthermore, the system of litigation is less efficient than that of ADR, and thus it is more common to apply to the ADR system for conflict management globally speaking. I believe that in the future, the ADR process will become a more important method of conflict resolution than litigation in Turkey.


  • Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Developments in "A"DR in the United States: From Informalism and Formalism to Semi-Formalism (Part 2), 16 Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement 151 (2013)
  • Mustafa Serdar Ö, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin Hukuk Yayınları 2013)
  • Owen F, Against Settlement, (Yale Law Journal 93 1984)
  • Şamil D, Avukatın Uzlaşma Sağlama Yetkisi (Adalet Yayınevi 2014)

List of Online Source(s)

List of Statutes

  • Code of International Arbitration, Law No 4686, 2001
  • Code of International Private and Civil Procedure Law, No 5718, 2007
  • Ordinance on Mediation in Legal Disputes, 2018
  • Rules for Arbitration and Mediation 2015 (ISTAC)
  • Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure Law No 5271, 2004, amended 2016
  • Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Law No 2004, 1932
  • Turkish Code of Mediation, Law No 6325, 2012 
  • Turkish Penalty Code, Law No 5237, 2004

[1]Retrieved from, Istanbul Tahkim Merkezi, ISTAC Official Website, see available at: https://istac.org.tr/hakkimizda/istac-hakkinda

[2]Retrieved from, Ministry of Justice of Republic of Turkey, Official Website < http://www.adb.adalet.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Teskilat/tarihce.html#> accessed on 24 August 2018 Published in the Official Gazette No 28331; Dated on 22 June 2012

[3]Retrieved from,  http://www.adb.adalet.gov.tr/Sayfalar/istatistikler/uygulamalar/adb_uygylamalari/images/adb_uygulama.pdf; Turkish Minister of Justice accessed on 2 September 2018

[4] Retrieved from, http://www.adb.adalet.gov.tr/Sayfalar/istatistikler/uygulamalar/adb_uygylamalari/images/konu.pdfaccessed on 2 September 2018

[5] Retrieved from Arabuluculuk Daire Baskanlığı, Head of Department of Mediation, Official Website, http://www.adb.adalet.gov.tr/Sayfalar/istatistikler/istatistikler/ihtiyari.pdf accessed on 2 September 2018

[6] Retrieved from Arabaluculuk Daire Başkanlığı, Head of Department of Mediation, Official Website, http://www.adb.adalet.gov.tr/Sayfalar/istatistikler/istatistikler/davasarti.pdf accessed on 3 September 2018

[7]Baris Can Polat, ‘Mediation, The Long-Awaited Mediation in Turkey ‘(date) retrieved from <http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/267746/Arbitration+Dispute+Resolution/httpwwwmondaqcomarticleasparticleid267736accessed on 25 August 2018

[8] Ordinance on the Application of Mediation over the Legal Disputes, published in Turkish Official Gazette, dated on 2 June 2018, retrieved from <http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/06/20180602-1.htm> accessed on 27 August 2018 Published in the Official Gazette No 30439; Dated on 2 June 2018

[9] Turkish Code of Mediation numbered 6325 dated on 7 June 2016, see PDF version available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6325.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 28331; Dated on 22 June 2012

[10] Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure numbered 5271 dated on 4 December 2004, amended on 24 November 2016, see available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5271.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 25673; Dated on 17 December 2004

[11] Turkish Penalty Code numbered 5237 dated on 26 September 2004, see PDF version available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5237.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 25611; Dated on 12 October 2004

[12] Owen Fiss, ‘Against Settlement’ [1984] Yale Law Journal 93 p 19

[13] Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Developments in ADR in the United States-From Informalismand Formalism to Semi-Formalism Part 2, (Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement Part 2 2013)

[14] Code of International Arbitration numbered 4686 dated on 21 June 2001, see available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4686.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 24453; Dated on 5 July 2001

[15] Code of International Private and Civil Procedure Law no 5718, enacted on 27 November 2007, see available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5718.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 26728; Dated on 12 December 2007

[16]Baris Can Polat, ‘Mediation, The Long-Awaited Mediation in Turkey ‘(date) retrieved from <http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/267746/Arbitration+Dispute+Resolution/httpwwwmondaqcomarticleasparticleid267736accessed on 31 August 2018

[17]Code of Mediation numbered 6325 dated on 7 June 2012 published in Turkish Official Gazette, see PDF version available at: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6325.pdf Published in the Official Gazette No 28331; Dated on 22 June 2012

[18] Mustafa Serdar Özbek, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (yayınevi bilgisi 2013) p 31; Şamil Demir, Avukatın Uzlaşma Sağlama Yetkisi (yayınevi bilgisi 2014)

Leave a comment

Please login or register to comment