Interim Injunctions in Turkish Civil Procedure
Turkish civil procedure law provides a mechanism for courts to issue temporary protective measures before a final judgment is rendered. Known as ihtiyati tedbir in Turkish, this institution serves as a safeguard against the risks that naturally arise from the length and complexity of litigation. When a party fears that the passage of time or a change in circumstances may render an eventual favorable judgment meaningless, the law permits courts to intervene and stabilize the situation. The legal foundation for this mechanism is found in Articles 389 through 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, referred to as the HMK (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), which came into force in 2011.
Definition and Legal Nature
An interim injunction in Turkish law is a provisional judicial measure aimed at protecting the legal position of a party throughout the course of litigation, from the filing of the action until the finalization of the judgment. Turkish legal scholarship has defined it as a form of temporary protection covering the broad period that extends until the final and binding ruling, operating to neutralize threats that might otherwise frustrate the purpose of the main proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) has consistently affirmed this characterization, describing the measure as one designed to eliminate the disadvantages stemming from the duration of litigation and to secure the practical enforceability of an eventual ruling.
A critical feature of the interim injunction under Turkish law is that it does not constitute a decision on the merits of the dispute. The court issuing the measure makes no substantive determination about which party will ultimately prevail. This distinction is fundamental: a court may not issue an interim injunction whose effect would be to resolve the very question that the main action is meant to decide. Doing so would render the principal proceedings redundant and strip the final judgment of its legal significance.
Statutory Conditions
The conditions for granting an interim injunction are set out in Article 389 of the HMK, which provides:
Mevcut durumda meydana gelebilecek bir değişme nedeniyle hakkın elde edilmesinin önemli ölçüde zorlaşacağından ya da tamamen imkânsız hâle geleceğinden veya gecikme sebebiyle bir sakıncanın yahut ciddi bir zararın doğacağından endişe edilmesi hâllerinde, uyuşmazlık konusu hakkında ihtiyati tedbir kararı verilebilir.
In English, the provision requires that an interim injunction may be ordered where there is a reasonable concern that a change in the current state of affairs may significantly complicate or render entirely impossible the enforcement of the applicant’s right, or where delay is likely to cause a material disadvantage or serious harm. Two fundamental prerequisites emerge from this text. First, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of the right for which protection is sought, at least on a prima facie basis through what Turkish procedural law calls yaklaşık ispat, or approximate proof — a standard lower than full evidentiary proof but requiring more than mere assertion. Second, there must be a concrete basis for fearing that delay poses a genuine risk to that right. These two elements correspond broadly to the classic civil law criteria of fumus boni iuris and periculum in mora.
Jurisdiction and Application
Article 390 of the HMK governs which court has authority to hear interim injunction requests. Before a main action is filed, the application must be directed to the court that would have jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute. Once a case is pending, only the court seized with the main proceedings may entertain the interim injunction request. This rule reflects a deliberate legislative choice to maintain coherence between provisional and principal proceedings, ensuring that the same court evaluates both the urgency of the situation and the underlying legal dispute.
The application itself must satisfy specific formal requirements. The petitioner is obliged to state clearly the legal basis and factual grounds of the request, to identify the specific measure sought, and to specify the nature and amount of security they propose to offer. The court then evaluates the application, often without summoning the opposing party. Where the circumstances demand immediate protection, Article 390 expressly authorizes the court to issue the measure ex parte, without hearing the other side. This extraordinary power reflects the recognition that requiring adversarial proceedings in urgent cases could defeat the very purpose of interim protection.
Content of the Injunction Order
Under Article 391 of the HMK, the court has broad discretion in determining the specific form the interim injunction will take. The statute enumerates possible measures including the placement of an asset under judicial custody, its transfer to a court-appointed trustee, and orders requiring or prohibiting specified conduct. In practice across Turkey, courts grant interim injunctions preventing the transfer of immovable property in title deed cancellation cases, prohibiting the disposal of assets in divorce proceedings where one spouse fears the other is concealing wealth, suspending corporate resolutions in commercial disputes, and restraining the publication or distribution of content in intellectual property matters.
The court’s order must precisely identify the asset or right to which the measure applies and describe the nature of the restriction with sufficient clarity to leave no room for doubt. A vaguely worded order creates practical difficulties at the enforcement stage and exposes the decision to successful challenge on appeal.
Security Requirements
Article 392 of the HMK imposes a security obligation on the party seeking interim relief. The applicant is required to deposit a security — typically a cash deposit or bank guarantee — to cover potential losses that the opposing party or third parties might suffer if the injunction proves to have been wrongly obtained. The amount and form of this security are determined by the court on a case-by-case basis. An exception exists where the applicant’s claim is supported by official documents or conclusive evidence; in such circumstances, the court may waive the security requirement, provided it articulates its reasoning explicitly. This security mechanism serves an important balancing function: it discourages frivolous or strategically abusive applications while preserving access to emergency relief for parties with legitimate and urgent needs.
Enforcement and Time Limits
Once an interim injunction is granted, enforcement must be initiated promptly. Article 393 of the HMK provides that the applicant must seek enforcement within one week of the court’s decision; failure to do so causes the order to lapse automatically. Enforcement is carried out through the enforcement office (icra dairesi) located either within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the order or at the place where the subject matter of the injunction is situated. Where necessary, the enforcement officer is authorized to use compulsory means.
Where the interim injunction is granted before the main action is filed, the applicant is under a strict obligation to commence the principal proceedings within two weeks of the date on which enforcement of the injunction is requested. If this deadline is not met, the interim measure dissolves by operation of law. The petitioner must also present proof of having filed the main action to the enforcement officer and obtain a receipt. This strict temporal coupling between provisional and principal proceedings prevents the misuse of interim injunctions as standalone pressure tools independent of genuine litigation.
Challenge and Modification
Turkish law provides the opposing party with multiple avenues to contest an interim injunction. Where the order was issued without hearing the other side, the affected party may challenge it by filing an objection, which the court must examine on a priority basis. Objections may be based on the court’s jurisdiction, the absence of the statutory conditions, insufficient evidence, or the adequacy of the security. The court may uphold, modify, or vacate the injunction following this review, and its decision is itself subject to appeal before the regional courts of appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi).
In addition, Article 396 permits either party to seek modification or cancellation of the injunction if the circumstances underlying the original order have materially changed. A significant shift in the factual or legal landscape may warrant the lifting of the measure, and the court retains continuing supervisory authority over the orders it has issued.
Liability for Wrongful Injunctions
Article 399 of the HMK addresses the consequences of injunctions that are ultimately determined to have been unjustified. A party that obtains an interim injunction and subsequently loses on the merits, or whose application is rejected as unfounded, is liable in damages to the opposing party and any affected third parties. The claim for compensation must be brought within one year of the date on which the injunction is lifted or the main proceedings are finally concluded. This liability regime reinforces the seriousness with which Turkish courts and legislators treat interim injunctions: while they are an indispensable tool for protecting parties during litigation, they carry real legal consequences when misused.
For more assistance or consultation on this matter, you can contact us.
