Publications

Shaped by the introductory provisions of the Civil Code, the Law of Persons centers on the legal capacity that a human being possesses from birth and the capacity to act, which is the will to exercise this capacity. However, in today’s increasingly digitalized and individualized world, an individual’s legal subjectivity is under severe siege by digital identity thefts, unauthorized data processing activities, and press/social media manipulations. The law of persons is not merely a bureaucratic field where birth-death registries are kept; it is the ultimate trench where human honor, dignity, bodily integrity, and spiritual existence are protected under state guarantee.

The Tension Between the Supremacy of Public Interest and Individual Property The right to property, which is a constitutional right, is not absolute and unlimited; where required by social needs, infrastructure projects (roads, dams, hospitals, power transmission lines), or strategic public services, the state’s or public legal entities’ seizure of real estate under private ownership by paying its price (expropriation) is a constitutional authority. This process, conducted within the framework of Expropriation Law No. 2942, is one of the strictest and most formalistic fields where administrative law and property law intersect, as it means the individual’s real estate is taken away against their will. Even though the administration has discretionary power when making a “public interest” decision, the exercise of this power arbitrarily or for personal interests is the primary cause of unlawfulness.

Public Procurement Law is one of the most sensitive administrative fields where massive budgets worth billions of liras leaving the state treasury (goods procurements, service procurements, and massive construction works) are distributed to private sector actors, and economic power and rent are reproduced. Although Public Procurement Law No. 4734 and Public Procurement Contracts Law No. 4335 (4735) theoretically aim for transparency, competition, equal treatment, and the efficient use of public resources, in practice, it is a fierce battleground where the discretionary power of administrative authorities collides with the commercial interests of the private sector. The slightest procedural error experienced during the tender process has the capacity to lead to a company being unjustly eliminated from a massive project it has prepared for years, or public resources being handed over to an undeserving company.

“White-Collar” Crises at the Boundaries of Corporate Hierarchy and Labor Law Labor law is dogmatically built upon the principle of “protecting the vulnerable employee.” However, when it comes to “C-level” executives such as CEOs, CFOs, or General Managers, this classic protection paradigm collapses. Crises occurring between company shareholders (the board of directors) and top-level executives who make the company’s most strategic decisions, manage massive budgets, and are privy to all trade secrets represent a multi-sided corporate chess game rather than an ordinary employment contract termination. An executive’s departure (or removal) process from a company is an extremely high-risk liquidation process where, alongside compensation, stock options, profit shares, and most importantly, sectoral reputation, are on the table.

The Transformation of the Purpose of Urban Renewal into Rent-Seeking and Property Extortion Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, although being a legitimate regulation inherently aimed at securing the right to life, has in practice turned into one of the most abused tools of administrative law and property law. It is a frequently encountered situation for contracting companies or majority-share owners to use this law as a weapon of “dispossessing the minority” or “blackmail.” In the process conducted by the state through the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, creating de facto eviction pressure through administrative sanctions such as cutting off electricity, water, and natural gas constitutes the violation of the constitutional right to “property and housing” by the administrative authority.

The State’s Monopoly on the Use of Force and Individual Bodily Integrity The modern state constitutionally holds the “legitimate monopoly on the use of force” for the purpose of ensuring public order. However, this authority is not unlimited; the actions of law enforcement officers (police, gendarmerie, prison guards) are strictly bounded by universal human rights law and the Constitution. Allegations of the disproportionate use of force, ill-treatment, and torture against individuals under the state’s own custody and control (detention centers, prisons) or during interventions in social events constitute the peak point of the power imbalance between the individual and the state. A public official stepping outside the law by hiding behind a uniform and state authority is an attack not only on the victim, but directly on the foundations of the state governed by the rule of law.

The Administration’s Power of Expropriation and the Conflict of Property Rights The right to property is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitution. However, large-scale zoning plan amendments, urban transformation projects, or urgent expropriation procedures carried out by the administration on the grounds of public interest constitute the most severe interventions against an individual’s right to property. In these processes, backed by powerful administrative and economic dynamics, the blurring of the boundaries of the concept of “public interest” and the establishment of operations based on disproportionate rent make administrative judicial review mandatory.

Legal Management of Financial Crises and the Struggle for Economic Survival As a result of global fluctuations, macroeconomic crises, or unpredictable disruptions in the supply chain, even well-established commercial enterprises can experience severe financial depressions where cash flows deteriorate and they are driven into a state of insolvency. A company reaching the verge of bankruptcy is not merely a commercial failure; it means the collapse of thousands of jobs, years of labor, and the supplier ecosystem. The purpose of the legal system at this stage is not to rapidly liquidate and break apart the company, but to create a rational “breathing space” (moratorium) for the honest debtor to maintain its commercial existence by protecting it against the destructive and uncontrolled seizure pressures of creditors.

The State’s “Monopoly on the Use of Force” and the Legalization of Economic Violence Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is the harshest, most ruthless area of conflict between the creditor’s right to property and the debtor’s economic survival and human dignity. At the point where consensual payment stops as a result of the deadlock of commercial relationships or law of obligations contracts, the state’s “forced execution” (cebri icra) mechanism comes into play. This mechanism is the coldest and most mechanical face of the law; e-attachments placed on bank accounts, the sealing of production lines in factories, or putting centuries-old family heirloom real estate up for forced sale (auction) is not merely the collection of a receivable, but a staggering process of property stripping and economic liquidation for the debtor. Within the massive workload and routinized bureaucracy of enforcement offices, the human element completely disappears; the individual or company is reduced to a “file number” on paper and an “asset item” to be seized.

The Devaluation of Creative Labor and the Establishment of Ownership Over “Ideas” Art, literature, industrial design, and the world of cinema are fields where human intellect and creativity are most embodied, yet at the same time, where labor can be copied most easily and ruthlessly. While the theft of physical property causes public outrage, turning months of intellectual labor, software, or an artistic composition into commercial gain by copying it (plagiarizing) is frequently attempted to be legitimized under the guise of “inspiration.” The raison d’être of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK) and the Industrial Property Code (SMK) is to protect this creative labor (the work), filtered through the human brain and materialized, with the shield of the state against the unlimited copying power of capital or unfair competition.