Unification Of Precedents Of The Court Of Cassation

The decision of the Grand General Assembly on the Unification of Precedents of the Court of Cassation, dated 13 June 2025, File No. 2023/1 and Decision No. 2025/3, which confirms the lawsuits arising from the breach of the non-compete obligation governed by Articles 444 to 447 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 ("TCO") fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial court of first instance, was published in the Official Gazette dated 12 September 2025, No. 33015.

Articles 444 to 447 of the TCO regulate the employee's obligation not to compete with the employer after termination of the employment contract. These provisions impose on the employee the duty not to work in a company or engage in activities that could harm the employer's commercial operations. However, for a long time, there was practical uncertainty regarding the competent judicial body for disputes arising from these provisions. In particular, where the jurisdiction of the labour courts and commercial courts overlap, divergent decisions across judicial authorities led into inconsistency in practice. With the decision of the Grand General Assembly on the Unification of Precedents, this uncertainty has been eliminated, and it has now been explicitly established that actions based on the post-contractual non-compete obligation shall be heard before the commercial courts of first instance.

In the reasoning of the decision, it was emphasized that the non-compete obligation rooted in the duty of loyalty an ancillary obligation arising from the employment contract - is valid only for the duration of the employment contract and ceases upon its termination. Consequently, a non- compete obligation stipulated for the post-employment period cannot be regarded as a continuation of the duty of loyalty. Rather, it constitutes an independent contractual undertaking that the employee must assume separately and in writing. Such obligation does not qualify as an ancillary term of the employment contract. For its validity, the employee must have had access to the employer's clientele, production methods or operational information, and the potential use of such knowledge must present a significant risk of harm to the employer's legitimate interests.

Given that the non-compete obligation produces legal effects only after the termination of the employment contract, the focus at this stage shifts away from the principle of employee protection that underpins labour law. Instead, the emphasis lies in preserving commercial order and reconciling it with the constitutional freedoms of work and contract under Article 48 of the Constitution. The responsibility for evaluating and maintaining this balance rests with the commercial courts specialised in commercial law. Furthermore, it was noted that the scope of the terms "customer base" and "production secrets" under Article 444/2 of the TCO, as well as the determination of whether the information obtained by the employee qualifies as trade secrets, are matters intrinsically connected to "core commercial life" rather than labour law. Therefore, these issues should be adjudicated by the commercial courts of first instance

Accordingly, disputes arising from non-compete agreements governed by Articles 444 to 447 of the TCO are classified as absolute commercial cases and fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts of first instance pursuant to Article 5/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102. Consequently, such cases must be heard not by the labour courts but by the commercial courts of first instance, thereby ensuring consistency in judicial practice and enhancing legal predictability for the parties involved.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.