LAWSUIT FOR THE CANCELLATION OF A MEDIATION AGREEMENT

LAW NO. 6325 ON MEDIATION IN CIVIL DISPUTES

Purpose and Scope

ARTICLE 1 – 1. The purpose of this Law is to regulate the procedures and principles to be implemented in the resolution of civil disputes through mediation.

2. This Law shall apply to the resolution of private law disputes, including those containing an element of foreignness, arising from transactions or acts over which the parties can freely dispose. However, disputes containing allegations of domestic violence are not eligible for mediation.

Definitions

ARTICLE 2 – 1. In the implementation of this Law;

• a) Mediator: Refers to the natural person who conducts the mediation activity and is registered in the registry of mediators maintained by the Ministry of Justice.

• b) Mediation: Refers to a voluntary dispute resolution method conducted with the participation of an impartial and independent third party who has received specialized training. This method applies systematic techniques to bring the parties together for communication and negotiation, facilitating mutual understanding so they can generate their own solutions, and allows the mediator to propose solution options if it becomes evident that the parties cannot produce a solution.

Voluntariness and Equality

ARTICLE 3 – 1. The parties are entirely free to apply to a mediator, maintain or conclude the process, or abandon it at any stage (Principle of Voluntariness).

2. The parties command equal rights both in applying to a mediator and throughout the entire process (Principle of Equality).

Confidentiality

ARTICLE 4 – 1. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties, the mediator is strictly obliged to keep confidential all information, documents, and other records submitted to them or otherwise obtained within the framework of the mediation activity.

2. Unless otherwise agreed, the parties are also bound by this rule of confidentiality.

Inadmissibility of Statements or Documents

ARTICLE 5 – 1. The parties, the mediator, or third parties participating in the mediation, cannot assert the following statements or documents as evidence, nor can they testify regarding them, in any subsequent civil lawsuit or arbitration proceedings related to the dispute:

• a) The invitation to mediation extended by the parties or a party's expression of desire to participate in the mediation activity.

• b) Opinions and proposals advanced by the parties to conclude the dispute through mediation.

• c) Proposals, admissions of facts, or claims advanced by the parties during the mediation activity.

• d) Documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation activity.

2. The provision of the first paragraph shall apply regardless of the form or medium of the statement or document.

3. The disclosure of the information specified in the first paragraph cannot be demanded by a court, an arbitrator, or any administrative authority. Even if these statements or documents are submitted as evidence in violation of the first paragraph, they cannot be adopted as the foundation of a judicial verdict. However, the said information may be disclosed to the extent mandated by a statutory provision or required for the implementation and enforcement of the settlement agreement reached at the end of the mediation process.

4. The paragraphs above shall apply in civil lawsuits and arbitration, regardless of whether the matter is directly related to the core subject-matter of the mediation.

5. Provided that the restrictions specified in the first paragraph remain reserved, evidence that is otherwise admissible in a civil lawsuit or arbitration shall not be rendered inadmissible merely because it was presented during mediation.

Core Characteristics of Mediation

• Interest-Based Dispute Resolution: Mediation is an interest-based process executed under the principle of mutual gain ("win-win"). It fosters a culture of conciliation in resolving disputes and contributes to social peace by enabling the parties to reach an amicable settlement.

• Exclusion of Substantive Judicial Evaluations: Mediation does not constitute an adjudication or a trial. It is not subject to the rigid rules and technicalities of civil procedural law. Instead, it serves as an alternative negotiation, conciliation, and resolution mechanism that empowers parties to generate customized solutions through their own free will. The mediator does not act as a Judge.

• Flexibility of Process and Tailored Solutions: The parties are not bound by existing statutory litigation templates; they can design customized remedies. Because the process is highly flexible, the parties can freely debate their grievances and negotiate without procedural constraints. Since it is not a litigation activity, demands can be increased, decreased, or modified dynamically during sessions.

• Voluntary and Autonomous Engagement: The entire process relies on the voluntary participation of the parties. Pursuant to Article 3/1 of Law No. 6325, parties maintain complete autonomy to initiate, continue, conclude, or abandon the process at their discretion.

• Absolute Parity of Arms: The parties enjoy equal rights throughout the timeline of the mediation. The mediator bears the professional responsibility to safeguard the principle of equality between the sides while steering the sessions.

• Strict Confidentiality Safeguards: Unless explicitly agreed otherwise, absolute confidentiality governs the negotiation rooms. The mediator, the parties, and any third-party participants are legally bound to keep all records, files, and disclosures hidden from the public eye.

• Availability at Any Stage of Dispute: There are no temporal bottlenecks; parties can initiate mediation at any time. Pursuant to Article 15/5 of Law No. 6325, even after a formal lawsuit has been filed, if the parties declare their mutual intent to apply to a mediator, the court shall stay/adjourn the trial for a duration not exceeding three months, which can be extended for an additional three months upon joint application.

Mediation as a Condition Precedent to Litigation (Mandatory Mediation)

• Labor Law: It is a mandatory condition precedent to litigation (dava şartı) under Article 3/1 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 that an application must be made to a mediator prior to initiating a lawsuit for any receivables, indemnities, or reinstatement demands (işe iade) arising from individual or collective labor contracts.

• Commercial Disputes: Under Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code, it is a condition precedent to litigation that a mediator must be consulted prior to filing a commercial lawsuit where the subject-matter consists of a monetary claim, collection debt, or indemnity demand.

• Consumer Disputes: Pursuant to Article 73/A of the Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection, applying to a mediator is mandatory for disputes falling within the jurisdiction of consumer courts (excluding applications that fall below the mandatory threshold of Consumer Arbitration Committees).

• Rental and Real Estate Disputes: Under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325, mediation is a condition precedent to litigation for disputes arising from rental relationships (excluding eviction via enforcement proceedings without a judgment under Law No. 2004), actions for the partition and dissolution of co-ownership (ortaklığın giderilmesi) of movables and real property, disputes arising from the Condominium Law No. 634, and conflicts rooted in neighbor law (komşuluk hukuku).

• Subscription Contracts: Pursuant to Article 20 of the Law No. 7155 on the Enforcement Procedures Regarding Monetary Claims Arising from Subscription Contracts, applying to a mediator is mandatory prior to filing a lawsuit based on debt collection tracking for subscription agreements.

• Agricultural Production Contracts: Under Article 13/e of the Agriculture Law No. 5488, applying to a mediator is a condition precedent to litigation for disputes arising from agricultural production contracts and corresponding agricultural insurance policies. These cases are managed by mediators who have received specialized training in contractual production. The mediator must conclude the application within two weeks from assignment, with a maximum extension of one week under mandatory circumstances.

LAWSUIT FOR THE CANCELLATION OF A MEDIATION AGREEMENT

The inclusion of mediation into our civil system contributes to resolving conflicts through conciliation before they reach a courtroom, thereby reducing the judicial workload. It is highly cost-effective and achieves resolution within a fraction of the time required by standard litigation.

However, for these systemic benefits to manifest, the process must be executed in strict alignment with the Law, regulations, doctrine, case law, and mediation ethical codes. In practice, the institution of mediation is occasionally weaponized—particularly in labor law—as an artificial tool to force a release / discharge (ibra) upon an economically and socially weaker employee, or utilized by employers merely as a vehicle to fast-track terminations and evade future litigation.

When such malpractices occur, an action for the cancellation of the mediation agreement must be initiated.

                  [THE STRUCTURAL VALIDITY TEST]
                                │
       ┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
       ▼                                                 ▼
[PROCEDURAL/FORMAL REQUISITES]                    [SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTS OF CONSENT]
       │                                                 │
       ├─► Valid and prior dispute existence.            ├─► Mistake (Esaslı Yanılma - Art. 30 TBK)
       │                                                 │
       ├─► Authentic, independent mediation session.     ├─► Fraud/Deception (Aldatma - Art. 36 TBK)
       │                                                 │
       └─► Executed by authorized representatives.        └─► Duress/Coercion (Korkutma - Art. 37 TBK)

A) Competent Jurisdiction (Görevli Mahkeme)

The competent court for an action to cancel a mediation settlement agreement is determined directly by the underlying subject-matter of the dispute:

• Labor Disputes: Labor Courts (İş Mahkemesi)

• Commercial Disputes: Civil Commercial Courts of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi)

• Consumer Disputes: Consumer Courts (Tüketici Mahkemesi)

• Rental Disputes: Civil Courts of Peace (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi)

• Real Property, Dissolution of Co-ownership, or Neighbor Law Disputes: Civil Courts of First Instance (Asliye Hukum Mahkemesi)

• Removal of Enforcement Objections: Enforcement Courts (İcra Hukuk Mahkemesi)

B) Proper Venue / Territorial Jurisdiction (Yetkili Mahkeme)

• Pursuant to the general venue rules of the Civil Procedure Code (Art. 6/1 HMK), the court of the domicile of the defendant natural person or legal entity at the date of filing holds jurisdiction.

• Under Article 10/1 of the HMK governing contractual venue, the lawsuit can concurrently be initiated before the court of the place where the contract is to be performed. Consequently, the action can be filed where the mediation agreement was drafted, where its terms are to be executed, or where the authorized mediation center that processed the assignment is located.

• Special venue rules remain reserved (e.g., the absolute venue of the deceased's last domicile for inheritance disputes under Art. 11, or the absolute venue of the location of the real property for in-rem property disputes under Art. 12).

C) Grounds for Cancellation / Rescission

A mediation settlement agreement can be judicially canceled if it is proven that a vitiation of free will / defect of consent occurred during its execution—such as fraud, deception, duress, intimidation, or unconscionability (gabin). Additional grounds include clear violations of statutory procedures, non-compliance with mandatory formal requirements, or the signing of the final record by an unauthorized representative or attorney.

D) Statute of Limitations and Peremptory Periods

Pursuant to Article 39/1 of the Turkish Obligations Code (TBK) governing the cure of defective consent, the party who accepted the mediation agreement under the influence of a mistake, fraud, or duress must formally declare that they are not bound by the contract within a prescriptive peremptory period of 1 year.

This one-year window commences the moment the mistake or fraud is discovered, or the moment the influence of duress/intimidation disappears. Failure to file within this timeline results in the summary dismissal of the lawsuit due to forfeiture. Because this peremptory timeframe concerns public policy, the Judge must monitor it ex-officio, even if neither party raises a defense.

Substantive Review of Vitiation of Consent Under the Turkish Obligations Code (TBK No. 6098)

An executed mediation agreement is, at its core, a contract governed by private law. Under Article 1 of the TBK, a contract is formed when the parties mutually and concordantly declare their intent. Therefore, the validity of a mediation document must be tested against the statutory rules governing defects of consent:

1. Mistake / Error (Yanılma / Hata - Articles 30-35 TBK)

An unintended discrepancy between an actor's internal will and their external declaration. To trigger the cancellation of the agreement, the mistake must be fundamental / material (esaslı). Under Article 31, a mistake is material if:

• The mistaken party declares intent for a completely different contract than desired;

• The declaration targets a completely different subject-matter;

• The contract is directed at a person other than the intended counterparty;

• The counterparty's specific qualifications were the decisive factor, but intent was declared to another;

• The performance promised is significantly greater, or the counter-performance is significantly less, than genuinely intended.

• Note: Simple calculation errors do not invalidate the agreement; they are merely subject to correction. In labor disputes, this manifests when an inexperienced worker is misled about the scope of their rights or led to accept an amount significantly lower than their actual entitlement due to an asymmetric understanding.

2. Fraud / Deception (Aldatma / Hile - Article 36 TBK)

Occurs when a party or a third-party intentionally induces or maintains a false impression in the mind of the counterparty to compel them to execute the contract. If a party signs a mediation agreement due to the fraudulent misrepresentations of the other side, they are not bound by the contract, regardless of whether the mistake was material. Furthermore, compensation for damages derived from fraud can be claimed concurrently.

3. Duress / Intimidation (Korkutma / İkrah - Articles 37-39 TBK)

Occurs when a party or a third party extracts consent through unlawful threats that cause the victim to reasonably believe that heavy and imminent peril threatens their personal rights, life, bodily integrity, or property assets, or those of their immediate relatives. A party signing a mediation record under the influence of such fear holds the absolute right to cancel the agreement.

If a party extracts consent by threatening to exercise a statutory right or authority, duress is legally established if the threat was leveraged to exploit the difficult situation of the counterparty and extract an exorbitant or highly disproportionate benefit.

4. Unconscionability / Exploitation (Aşırı Yararlanma / Gabin - Article 28 TBK)

If a clear, shocking disproportion exists between the mutual performances written into a contract, and this imbalance was achieved by deliberately exploiting the distress/dire situation, thoughtlessness, or sheer lack of experience of the injured party, unconscionability is established.

The victim can declare that they are not bound by the agreement and demand restitution, or choose to remain bound while demanding the modification of the terms to remove the disproportion. The right must be exercised within 1 year from the disappearance of the distress, or from the discovery of the thoughtlessness/inexperience, and in any event, within 5 years from the formation of the contract. In labor practice, this manifests when an employer leverages an employee's immediate financial distress or family medical emergency to force them to sign away substantial entitlements for a nominal cash sum.

LANDMARK PRECEDENTS OF THE COURT OF CASSATION ON CANCELLATION ACTIONS

1. T.C. COURT OF CASSATION – 9th Civil Chamber

• Merits No: 2024/13091

• Decision No: 2025/348

• Decision Date: 13.01.2025

Summary of Judgment: > "A review of the contested mediation settlement record reveals that on the exact same calendar day the employment contract was terminated, the employer applied for voluntary mediation, a mediator was assigned, the statutory duty to inform was allegedly fulfilled, and the parties negotiated and settled across all listed labor claims.

It is contrary to the natural flow of life to accept that all these complex procedural steps materialized concurrently within a single day. The file fails to show the prior existence of a concrete, active dispute between the parties before the mediation gateway was invoked.

As emphasized across high-court rulings, the mechanism of mediation cannot be weaponized as a passive tool or vehicle to execute termination settlements and process structural exit payments. The primary objective of mediation must be the active negotiation and resolution of a genuine, pre-existing dispute. It cannot be deployed out of its statutory context with the sole purpose of stripping a worker of their constitutional right to access a court.

Because the termination and matching payments were fast-tracked through the mediator without establishing an authentic, compliant negotiation environment, it is manifest that the actors operated solely to block the worker’s right to sue. The contract dated 24.09.2021 lacks the legal character of a valid mediation agreement; the trial court's dismissal of the action is erroneous, and the agreement must be CANCELED."

2. T.C. COURT OF CASSATION – 9th Civil Chamber

• Merits No: 2022/436

• Decision No: 2022/1380

• Decision Date: 7.2.2022

Summary of Judgment: > "The plaintiff served as a purchasing chief at the defendant's workplace. When the employer modified his job description, the plaintiff refused to accept the modification, demanded his severance pay, and requested termination. The employer accepted the request and processed the exit. Following the termination, upon the plaintiff's own demand, the parties applied for voluntary mediation and executed a settlement agreement ensuring a net payment of 98,878.75 TL to the worker.

Although the plaintiff later initiated an action for cancellation, asserting that he was coerced into utilizing the employer's designated mediator and signed under duress, the file context unearths that the employment relationship was terminated directly upon the worker's own request due to the modification dispute. The plaintiff failed to submit concrete witness testimony or solid evidence proving the existence of 'coercion, bullying, or intimidation' capable of vitiating his free will. Furthermore, the allegation that the mediator lacked impartiality remained abstract and unproven.

The trial court's reasoning—ruling that a mediation agreement functions as a standard release (ibra), that release rules are strictly mandatory, and that because a worker cannot freely dispose of their statutory entitlements via a release document, the mediation agreement is void—is fundamentally flawed. Implementing the restrictive provisions of Article 420 of the Turkish Obligations Code (governing labor releases) to settlements executed before a mediator is legally impossible. >

If Article 420 were applied to mediation, the ability of parties to reach a binding settlement before a mediator would be completely paralyzed. Article 18/5 of Law No. 6325 explicitly dictates that if a settlement is reached at the conclusion of mediation, no lawsuit can subsequently be filed regarding the settled matters. Thus, the validity of a mediation record cannot be tested against the statutory restrictions of a standard release. The action for cancellation must be DISMISSED."

3. T.C. COURT OF CASSATION – 9th Civil Chamber (Affirming Bursa 9th Labor Court)

• Merits No: 2025/770 E. (BAM) / 2025/5726 E. (Yargıtay)

• Decision No: 2025/1351 K. (BAM) / 2025/7066 K. (Yargıtay)

• Decision Date: 29.09.2025

Summary of Judgment: > "The Court of First Instance accepted the action for cancellation based on the following verified facts: no valid or procedurally compliant application was made to initiate mediation; the designated mediator was concurrently serving as the active corporate counsel for the defendant employer; the plaintiff worker exercised no volition or choice regarding the initiation of the process, the selection of the mediator, or the venue of the meetings; the worker physically signed the pre-drafted papers at the employer's factory premises in Kestel, although the text of the mediation record falsely claimed the meeting occurred at a separate official address where the worker was never present; the mediator completely failed to perform their statutory duty to inform the worker regarding the nature and consequences of the process; the worker was never formally or properly invited to a session, and the record was signed blindly without his informed knowledge. Thus, no valid mediation activity occurred.

The Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation unanimously affirmed this judgment. The high-court specifically noted that the defendant’s own statement of defense—admitting that the parties first reached an agreement regarding the exact amounts of severance, notice, and annual leave pay, and subsequently applied to a mediator to record the terms—conclusively proves that no active dispute existed between the sides when they turned to voluntary mediation. Invoking voluntary mediation when no dispute exists is a procedural violation, and the affirmation of the agreement's CANCELLATION is fully compliant with the law."

4. T.C. COURT OF CASSATION – 9th Civil Chamber

• Merits No: 2024/14514

• Decision No: 2025/1993

• Decision Date: 24.02.2025

Summary of Judgment: > "The Lower Court established that while the plaintiff worker was actively away on annual leave, the employer summarily terminated the employment contract and simultaneously pushed through a mediation process. The file unearths a systemic pattern where numerous workers were systematically directed to the exact same mediator by the employer upon termination.

Under the provisions of Law No. 6325, such forced corporate tracking cannot be characterized as a valid, independent voluntary mediation activity. There was no lawful application, no actual negotiation sessions were ever conducted, and no valid record was structured under the framework of the legislation. The Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation affirmed the lower court's decree, ruling that based on the verified testimonies of witnesses, the mediation documents lacked legal prerequisites and public credibility, necessitating their absolute CANCELLATION."

Synthesis and Strategic Advocacy Blueprint

Following a comprehensive analysis of contemporary jurisprudence up to June 2026, the exact boundaries governing the validity and cancellation of mediation agreements are mapped out below:

Technical ParameterLegally Compliant & Valid MediationStructurally Defective & Subject to CancellationChronological TimelineAn active, verified dispute emerges first; the parties subsequently invoke mediation to navigate and resolve it.Termination, calculation of funds, and the signing of the mediation record are compressed into the exact same day as a rubber-stamp exercise.The Role of the MediatorFunctions as an independent, neutral, and licensed third party who performs their absolute duty to inform both sides.Serves concurrently as the active corporate attorney or legal consultant for the employer, creating an absolute conflict of interest.Negotiation EnvironmentThe parties personally or via authorized counsel attend authentic negotiation sessions at a designated neutral venue.The worker is handed pre-drafted papers to sign blindly directly at the employer's factory floor or HR office, without any actual session occurring.Evidentiary StandardVague claims of pressure or standard economic imbalance are insufficient to break the binding nature of Art. 18/5.Concrete evidence or witness testimony proves a vitiation of free will (Mistake, Fraud, Duress, or Unconscionability under the TBK).The Concept of ReleaseThe agreement is handled as a distinct statutory transaction under Law No. 6325, independent from the strict restrictions of Art. 420 TBK.The mediation framework is explicitly hijacked and weaponized as a mere disguised release instrument (ibra aracı) to strip the worker of their right to sue.

Furthermore, any mediation settlement agreement whose substantive terms violate public policy (kamu düzeni), mandatory statutory prohibitions, public morality, or core personality rights is void ab initio (kesin hükümsüz) pursuant to Article 27 of the TBK.

When an employer manipulates this mechanism to enforce an artificial waiver of rights upon an unrepresented worker, the chain of procedural legitimacy breaks. To protect the integrity of the legal order and ensure that mediation serves its authentic purpose as an instrument of conciliation rather than a tool of structural exploitation, the independent labor judiciary will systematically dismantle non-compliant records through decrees of absolute cancellation.

REFERENCES:

• 6325 Sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu Mevzuatı (Law No. 6325)

• 6098 Sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu Genel Hükümleri ve Sözleşme Hukuku (Turkish Obligations Code)

• Contemporary Precedents and Landmark Judgments of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay)

• Official Guidelines and Ethical Rules of the Directorate General for Mediation (Arabuluculuk Daire Başkanlığı)

• Academic Commentaries and Lectures of Prof. Dr. İlhan Helvacı

• The Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey (T.C. Resmî Gazete)