Russian citizen A and Turkish citizen B each held a 50% share in a limited liability company operating in Istanbul. As the company grew, serious disagreements arose between the shareholders regarding new investments, the use of company bank accounts, and the powers of the company manager. Since neither party was able to make decisions independently, the company’s daily operations began to be affected and certain commercial decisions could no longer be taken.

Following a review of the company agreement, the existing authority structure, and the mutual obligations of the shareholders, a legal negotiation process was conducted between the parties. A temporary management model was created to ensure the continuation of the company’s operations, after which an agreement was reached on the terms for one shareholder to transfer his shares to the other. As a result, the dispute was resolved without turning into a prolonged company dissolution or shareholder litigation process. In Türkiye, the structure of limited liability and joint stock companies is regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102.

Company X, operating in Germany, intended to make direct sales in the Turkish market and establish an operational centre in Istanbul. At the initial stage, the plan was simply to establish a limited liability company in Türkiye. During the legal assessment, the investor’s ownership structure, management authorities, capital contribution, the status of foreign executives, and the possibility of admitting future investors were considered together.

The company type and shareholder structure appropriate to the investment model were determined; the corporate resolutions and incorporation documents required for the foreign company’s subsidiary in Türkiye were prepared, and the trade registry process was followed. As a result, the investor was able to commence operations in Türkiye with a corporate structure suited to its activities without requiring subsequent restructuring. As a rule, foreign investors in Türkiye may establish companies under the same conditions as domestic investors and may use the company types provided under the Turkish Commercial Code.

Company X, based in the United Arab Emirates, intended to establish a long-term commercial relationship with Company Y in Türkiye for the regular purchase of products. In the initial agreement prepared by the parties, the provisions concerning delivery conditions, payment dates, consequences of defective products, and termination of the agreement were not sufficiently clear. In particular, the requirement for a substantial advance payment created a significant risk for the foreign company.

Before the agreement was signed, the entire text was reviewed; the payment and delivery mechanisms were restructured, the parties’ responsibilities were clarified, and the provisions concerning default were made more explicit. As a result of the negotiations, the parties agreed on the revised agreement and commenced the commercial relationship. In this way, a significant portion of the contractual risks was eliminated before any dispute arose. Commercial companies and commercial relations in Türkiye are governed by the Turkish Commercial Code, while contractual relations are regulated primarily under the Turkish Code of Obligations and other applicable legislation.

Ukrainian citizen A was carrying out commercial activities as a shareholder and manager of a foreign-capital company established in Türkiye. Since the company incorporation had been completed, it was initially assumed that no separate work permit was required. However, when it became clear that the foreign national was actually performing managerial duties within the company, the work status had to be assessed separately.

The company structure, the foreign national’s shareholding ratio, duties, and representation powers were reviewed; the appropriate work permit application was prepared and the process before the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was followed. Upon completion of the application, the foreign national’s actual activities within the company were brought into compliance with his legal status in Türkiye. Under Law No. 6735, unless there is an express exemption under the law or an international agreement, foreign nationals must obtain a work permit or work permit exemption before working in Türkiye; a work permit also grants residence rights for its period of validity.

An Uzbek citizen A was issued a deportation order on public order grounds due to a criminal investigation being conducted against him in Istanbul. However, the investigation had not yet been concluded and there was no final criminal conviction against the client. The client’s long-term residence in Türkiye, the presence of his family in the country, and the specific circumstances of the file were assessed together.

An annulment action was filed before the administrative court against the deportation order within the prescribed period, and it was demonstrated that the grounds relied upon by the administration were insufficient in light of the client’s individual circumstances. As a result of the proceedings, the deportation order was annulled and the client’s legal status in Türkiye was protected. Deportation orders are regulated under Articles 52–60 of Law No. 6458; Article 54 sets out the grounds for deportation, while Article 55 identifies persons in respect of whom a deportation order may not be issued.

Russian citizen A had been residing in Türkiye for a long period under a short-term residence permit on the basis of owning real estate. After spending a certain period outside Türkiye due to educational and family reasons, the client learned that the existing residence permit had been cancelled. When assessing the administrative decision, the foreign national’s property in Türkiye, previous residence history, and documents concerning the reasons for staying abroad were examined.

An administrative application and subsequently judicial proceedings were pursued against the cancellation decision. The fact that the client’s purpose of residence in Türkiye continued and the individual circumstances of the file were taken into account, and the legality of the administrative decision was brought before judicial review. The process was concluded in favour of the client. Short-term residence permits are regulated under Articles 31–33 of Law No. 6458; foreign nationals who own immovable property and those intending to establish business or commercial connections may also apply for residence permits within this framework.

Iranian citizen A intended to acquire Turkish citizenship by purchasing two separate properties in Istanbul. Since there was uncertainty as to whether one of the properties may previously have been used by another foreign national for a citizenship application, the land registry records and the investment’s compliance with citizenship legislation were examined before the purchase transaction.

The property carrying the risk was excluded from the investment, and the process was restructured on the basis of properties found to be suitable. The purchase, registration of the required annotations in the land registry, certificate of conformity, and citizenship application stages were followed and completed. Under the current practice, citizenship through real estate investment requires the acquisition of property worth at least USD 400,000 or its equivalent and the registration of a three-year non-disposal undertaking in the land registry.

The father of Iraqi citizen A passed away leaving two properties and a bank account in Türkiye. The heirs lived in different countries and did not know how the assets in Türkiye should be transferred. In addition, the documents concerning death and civil status issued abroad had to go through the necessary documentation and translation procedures in order to be used in Türkiye.

The inheritance and asset procedures of the foreign heirs in Türkiye were assessed separately; the required foreign documents were obtained and made legally usable in Türkiye. The issuance of the certificate of inheritance, identification of the properties, determination of the assets held with the bank, and inheritance transfer procedures were followed together, and the assets in Türkiye were transferred to the heirs. In cross-border inheritance matters, the applicable law must be assessed separately depending on the type of asset and the country in which it is located; therefore, the personal and asset structure of each matter must be examined individually.