A shareholder dispute can justify asking a Turkish court to dissolve a company, but dissolution is not the only possible outcome. Under Articles 531 and 636 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the court may instead order a shareholder exit with payment of the real share value or another suitable solution. The applicable shareholding threshold depends on whether the business is a joint-stock or limited company.
This article concerns just-cause dissolution and shareholder exit. A compensation claim against management is a separate issue addressed in director liability in Turkey. The administrative stages after dissolution are covered in company liquidation in Turkey.
1. Who Can Seek Just-Cause Dissolution?
For a joint-stock company (anonim şirket), Article 531 sets a minimum shareholding and identifies the court: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.531 — Dissolution for just cause
“(1) Haklı sebeplerin varlığında, sermayenin en az onda birini ve halka açık şirketlerde yirmide birini temsil eden payların sahipleri, şirketin merkezinin bulunduğu yerdeki asliye ticaret mahkemesinden şirketin feshine karar verilmesini isteyebilirler. Mahkeme, fesih yerine, davacı pay sahiplerine, paylarının karar tarihine en yakın tarihteki gerçek değerlerinin ödenip davacı pay sahiplerinin şirketten çıkarılmalarına veya duruma uygun düşen ve kabul edilebilir diğer bir çözüme karar verebilir.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.531)
Unofficial translation: “(1) Where just causes exist, the holders of shares representing at least one tenth of the capital, and one twentieth in publicly held companies, may request the commercial court of first instance at the place where the company’s head office is located to order the dissolution of the company. Instead of dissolution, the court may order that the real values of the claimant shareholders’ shares at the date closest to the date of the decision be paid to them and that the claimant shareholders be removed from the company, or may order another solution that is appropriate to the situation and acceptable.”
For the limited company the threshold disappears: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636 — Dissolution of a limited company for just cause
“(3) Haklı sebeplerin varlığında, her ortak mahkemeden şirketin feshini isteyebilir. Mahkeme, istem yerine, davacı ortağa payının gerçek değerinin ödenmesine ve davacı ortağın şirketten çıkarılmasına veya duruma uygun düşen ve kabul edilebilir diğer bir çözüme hükmedebilir.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636)
Unofficial translation: “(3) Where just causes exist, every shareholder may request the court to dissolve the company. Instead of granting the request, the court may rule that the real value of the claimant shareholder’s share be paid to them and that the claimant shareholder be removed from the company, or may rule on another solution that is appropriate to the situation and acceptable.”
The limited-company rule (limited şirket) allows every shareholder to apply. The joint-stock threshold is one tenth of capital, reduced to one twentieth for publicly held companies. These are standing requirements; meeting them does not itself establish just cause.
2. What Conduct Can Amount to Just Cause?
The statute does not define just cause. The examples come from the Code’s own preparatory reasoning, and the Court of Cassation reproduces them:
“6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun (6102 sayılı Kanun) 531 inci maddesi gerekçesinde, İsviçre öğretisine atıfla; genel kurulun birçok kez kanuna aykırı bir şekilde toplantıya çağrılmış olması, azlık hakları ile bireysel hakların devamlı ihlali, özellikle bilgi alma ve inceleme haklarının engellenmesi, şirketin sürekli zarar etmesi, dağıtılan kâr payının düzenli olarak azalması haklı sebepler arasında sayılmıştır. Haklı sebeplere; genel kurulun uzun süredir toplantıya çağrılmamış olması, şirketin uzun süredir organsız kalması, şirket yönetiminin sistematik şekilde şirket menfaatleri ya da azınlık menfaatlerini ihlal edici tavır ve davranışlar içerisinde bulunması, haklı gerekçesi olmadığı halde uzun süredir kâr yapı dağıtılmaması veya göstermelik olarak düşük oranda dağıtılması, buna karşılık şirket yöneticilerine huzur hakkı adı altında örtülü kazanç aktarımı, hakim ortak yöneticilerin şirket imkanlarından kendileri yararlanıp azınlık pay sahiplerini yararlandırmamaları gibi sebeplerin eklenmesi gerekir.”
(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/7419, K. 2024/1381, T. 22.02.2024 — bozma, oy çokluğuyla)
Unofficial translation: “In the preparatory reasoning of Article 531 of Law No. 6102, with reference to Swiss doctrine, the following are counted among just causes: the general assembly having been convened unlawfully on many occasions, the continuous violation of minority rights and individual rights, in particular the obstruction of the rights to obtain information and to inspect, the company making continuous losses, and the distributed dividend decreasing regularly. To the just causes should be added such grounds as the general assembly not having been convened for a long time, the company remaining without organs for a long time, the company’s management systematically engaging in attitudes and conduct violating the company’s interests or the minority’s interests, no profit being distributed for a long time without justified reason or being distributed at a token low rate while disguised profit is transferred to the company’s managers under the name of attendance fees, and controlling shareholder managers benefiting themselves from the company’s resources without allowing the minority shareholders to benefit.”
The examples concern restrictions on information rights, dividends and the use of company resources for the majority’s benefit. They are illustrative rather than exhaustive; the assessment depends on the facts of the dispute.
3. Can the Court Order a Shareholder Exit Instead?
The court may consider alternatives to dissolution and is not bound by the remedy requested. The following judgment explains that assessment:
“Esasen, anonim şirketin haklı sebeple feshi daha çok, çoğunluğun şirketteki hakim pozisyonunu istismarına yönelik olarak azınlık haklarını korumak için getirilmiş bir hukuki çare ise de; şirketin yaşatılmasında ortakların dışında, üçüncü kişilerin (şirket çalışanları, şirketle iş yapan tacirler, kamu) de menfaati olduğundan aslolan şirketin yaşatılması olup, azınlık pay sahiplerinin hakları alternatif çözüm yöntemleri ile (gerçek pay bedelinin ödenip şirketten çıkartılması, şirketin bölünmesi vs.) korunabiliyorsa fesih yerine bu çözüm yolları denenmelidir.”
(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/7419, K. 2024/1381, T. 22.02.2024 — bozma, oy çokluğuyla)
Unofficial translation: “In essence, although dissolution of a joint-stock company for just cause is a legal remedy introduced largely to protect minority rights against abuse by the majority of its dominant position in the company, since parties other than the shareholders (the company’s employees, merchants doing business with the company, the public) also have an interest in the company being kept alive, what is essential is keeping the company alive; and if the rights of the minority shareholders can be protected by alternative methods of resolution (payment of the real value of the shares and removal from the company, division of the company, and so on), these methods should be tried instead of dissolution.”
Payment of the real value of a shareholder’s shares is one possible alternative to dissolution. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers confirms the court’s discretion to select an appropriate solution:
“Bu anlamda haklı nedenlere dair yapılacak değerlendirmede, 6102 sayılı TTK’nın 531. madde hükmünün sadece şirketin feshini öngörmediği, somut olayın koşulları çerçevesinde şirketin yaşatılmasının ekonomik ve rasyonel açıdan yararlı olduğuna ilişkin kanaatin mevcudiyeti hâlinde hâkime en uygun çözümü bulması anlamında geniş bir takdir hakkı tanıdığı da göz önüne alınmalıdır.”
(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2025/121, K. 2025/364, T. 28.05.2025 — direnme uygun bulunarak diğer temyiz itirazları için dosyanın Özel Daireye gönderilmesine)
Unofficial translation: “In this sense, in the assessment to be made as to just causes, it must also be taken into account that the provision of Article 531 of Law No. 6102 does not provide only for the dissolution of the company, and that it grants the judge a wide discretion, in the sense of finding the most appropriate solution, where there is a conviction that keeping the company alive is economically and rationally beneficial within the circumstances of the specific case.”
4. Must the Claimant Remain a Shareholder?
In a limited-company dissolution action, the claimant’s shareholder status must continue throughout the proceedings:
“Limited şirketin fesih ve tasfiyesine ilişkin davada (fesih davasında) davacı sıfatı şirketin ortaklarına aittir. Bu kapsamda TTK’nın 636/3. maddesi kapsamında ancak pay defterine kayıtlı ortaklar limited şirketin haklı nedenle feshini mahkemeden isteyebilirler. Limited şirketin feshini isteyen davacının ortaklık sıfatının yargılama boyunca mevcut olması gerekir. Aksi durumda ortaklık sıfatını yitiren davacı, taraf sıfatını da yitirecektir.”
(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2019/795, K. 2022/374, T. 24.03.2022 — bozma)
Unofficial translation: “In an action concerning the dissolution and liquidation of a limited company (the dissolution action), the capacity of claimant belongs to the company’s shareholders. In this context, within the scope of Article 636/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code, only shareholders registered in the share ledger may request the court to dissolve the limited company for just cause. The claimant requesting the dissolution of the limited company must hold the capacity of shareholder throughout the proceedings. Otherwise, a claimant who loses the capacity of shareholder will also lose the capacity of party.”
The decision requires the claimant’s shareholder status to continue during the proceedings. The share ledger and the documents supporting the acquisition should therefore be examined before filing. A later transfer or removal can affect standing. Where shares pass through succession, the governing-law question is addressed in inheritance with a foreign element in Turkey.
5. Is an LLC Shareholder’s Own Exit a Separate Remedy?
Yes. Article 638 distinguishes a right of exit granted by the company agreement from an action by a shareholder seeking their own exit for just cause. A request to leave the company is not identical to a request to dissolve it under Article 636(3). Article 638 also allows the court, on request, to suspend some or all of the claimant’s membership rights and obligations during the case or take other measures protecting their position.
“(2) Her ortak, haklı sebeplerin varlığında şirketten çıkmasına karar verilmesi için dava açabilir. Mahkeme istem üzerine, dava süresince, davacının ortaklıktan doğan hak ve borçlarından bazılarının veya tümünün dondurulmasına veya davacı ortağın durumunun teminat altına alınması amacıyla diğer önlemlere karar verebilir.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.638)
Unofficial translation: “Every shareholder may bring an action for a decision allowing them to leave the company where just causes exist. Upon request, during the proceedings the court may suspend some or all of the claimant’s rights and obligations arising from membership, or order other measures to secure the claimant shareholder’s position.”
Article 641 gives a departing shareholder the right to a payment corresponding to the real value of their capital share. It also permits the company agreement to regulate that payment differently for a contractual exit right. The wording of the company agreement and the legal basis for leaving therefore matter.
“(1) Ortak şirketten ayrıldığı takdirde, esas sermaye payının gerçek değerine uyan ayrılma akçesini istem hakkını haizdir.”
(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.641)
Unofficial translation: “If a shareholder leaves the company, they are entitled to claim an exit payment corresponding to the real value of their capital share.”
6. Which Company Records Should Be Examined?
The conduct identified in the 11th Civil Chamber’s decision should be connected to specific evidence. Depending on the allegation, relevant records include meeting notices and minutes, information requests and responses, financial statements, dividend decisions and payments or benefits received by controlling managers. A disagreement between shareholders must be explained through its effect on company affairs and shareholder rights.
Article 531 identifies the commercial court of first instance at the company headquarters for joint-stock dissolution. For limited companies, Article 636(3) supplies the substantive remedy; commercial-court jurisdiction follows Articles 4 and 5. The claim must also identify the proper defendant. In its decision of 24 March 2022, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers states the general rule:
“Limited şirketin fesih davasında davalı sıfatı kural olarak limited şirketin tüzel kişiliğine aittir. Zira feshi istenen limited şirket, açılacak davada kural olarak davalı olarak yer almalıdır.”
(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2019/795, K. 2022/374, T. 24.03.2022 — bozma, oy çokluğuyla)
Unofficial translation: “In an action for dissolution of a limited company, the capacity of defendant belongs as a rule to the limited company’s legal entity. The limited company whose dissolution is sought should therefore, as a rule, be a defendant in the action.”
The same majority decision accepted the constitution of the parties in its particular two-shareholder case because both shareholders were already parties. The dissent disagreed. That fact-specific procedural result does not justify ignoring the company when framing a new claim.
A pure dissolution request is not a claim for payment of a sum of money. Article 5/A’s mandatory commercial mediation rule is framed around the listed monetary actions. If a separate payment or compensation claim is added, its procedural requirements must be assessed in its own right. The court’s statutory power to choose an alternative remedy and a separately pleaded monetary claim should not be treated as the same issue.
7. What Happens If the Court Dissolves the Company?
Dissolution and liquidation address different stages. Articles 531 and 636 allow the court to resolve the shareholder dispute through dissolution or an alternative. Where dissolution leads to liquidation, the liquidator, creditor notices, final accounts and deregistration require further steps. Those stages are explained in the company liquidation guide; a shareholder exit alone does not mean that the remaining company must close.
- Identify company type and standingCheck the shareholding threshold for a joint-stock company or shareholder status for an LLC.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.531
- Document the alleged groundsConnect restrictions on rights and management conduct to company records.
- Define the remedy soughtDistinguish company dissolution from the LLC shareholder’s own exit claim.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.638
- Assess possible court outcomesConsider a share-value payment or another suitable solution as well as dissolution.6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636
Frequently Asked Questions
Can any shareholder ask for dissolution?
Article 636(3) permits every limited-company shareholder to seek dissolution for just cause. Article 531 requires one tenth of joint-stock company capital, or one twentieth in a publicly held company.
Does the court have to dissolve the company?
No. Articles 531 and 636 permit alternatives, including payment of the real share value and the claimant’s exit, or another suitable and acceptable solution.
Is blocked access to information relevant?
The 11th Civil Chamber’s decision of 22 February 2024 includes persistent obstruction of information and inspection rights among possible just causes. The facts and evidence still require assessment.
Can an LLC shareholder ask only to leave?
Article 638 permits a shareholder to seek their own exit for just cause. This is separate from asking for company dissolution under Article 636(3).
Can the claimant sell all their LLC shares during the case?
The General Assembly of Civil Chambers’ decision of 24 March 2022 requires shareholder status throughout the dissolution proceedings. Losing that status also affects the claimant’s standing.
Is the exit payment always the original investment?
Article 641 refers to the real value of the capital share. For a contractual exit right, the company agreement may regulate the exit payment differently.