Turkey Teeth Gone Wrong: Your Rights Under Turkish Law

What Actually Went Wrong

Most people reach this question with a mouth that looks or feels wrong and no way of telling whether what happened to them is a legal problem or simply a disappointing result. Turkish law sorts that out through one distinction, and it usually turns on what was done to the tooth underneath rather than on how the crown looks from the front.

Four patterns run through the decided cases, and each one matters legally for a different reason.

• The whole mouth was crowned. Where healthy or nearly healthy teeth were prepared so that a full set could be fitted, the scale of the work is what the court examines. The presence of some genuine decay does not change the character of the agreement, as the section below on decayed teeth sets out.
• The work failed repeatedly. Prostheses that come loose, debond or fall more than once are treated as evidence that the undertaken result was not delivered. Repetition does the evidential work, because it is difficult to explain away as a single misfortune.
• A design defect was recorded somewhere in the file. A written finding that the construction itself was flawed carries more weight than a complaint about appearance, because it identifies the cause rather than the symptom.
• No consent form was produced. This is a documentary failure rather than a clinical one, and it is the point a patient can most easily secure in advance by keeping a copy of everything that was signed.

Appearance alone is the weakest of these. A claim built only on disliking the shade or shape is harder to run than one built on preparation of sound teeth, repeated failure, a recorded design fault or a missing consent form. That is why the evidence you preserve matters more than the photographs you took, and the closing section returns to it.

There is also a question underneath all of this: whether a poor outcome is simply the patient’s misfortune. For treatment given to an international patient, the regulation answers that directly and places the responsibility on the clinic and on any agency that arranged the treatment:

“(3) Uluslararası sağlık turistinin ülkemizde bulunduğu süre içinde alacağı sağlık hizmeti ve aracılık hizmetlerinden sağlık tesisi ve aracı kuruluş, sunulan hizmetin türüne bağlı olarak sorumludur. Sunulan sağlık hizmeti sonrası ortaya çıkabilecek komplikasyon ve tıbbi kötü uygulamalar da bu sorumluluk kapsamındadır.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.6)

Unofficial translation: the health facility and the intermediary are responsible, according to the type of service supplied, for the health services and intermediary services that the international health tourist receives while in our country. Complications and poor medical practice that may emerge after the health service has been supplied are also within the scope of this responsibility.

Two things follow. The clinic cannot treat the word complication as an answer in itself, because the regulation places complications inside the responsibility rather than outside it. And the agency that sold the package is named alongside the clinic, which matters when the agency is the only party the patient ever dealt with.

Was the Clinic Even Authorised to Treat You?

This is the question almost nobody asks, and it is worth asking first, because the answer is a matter of record rather than of opinion.

Treating patients who travel to Türkiye for care is a regulated activity in its own right. It is not enough that the clinic holds an ordinary licence to practise. Both the facility and any intermediary need a separate authorisation certificate:

“MADDE 5- (1) Sağlık tesisi ve aracı kuruluşların uluslararası sağlık turizmi hizmetlerinde faaliyet yürütebilmesi için yetki belgesi alması zorunludur. Yetki belgesi; sağlık tesisi için Bakanlık, aracı kuruluş için USHAŞ tarafından düzenlenir.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.5)

Unofficial translation: it is compulsory for health facilities and intermediaries to obtain an authorisation certificate in order to carry on activity in international health tourism services. The certificate is issued by the Ministry for a health facility and by USHAŞ for an intermediary.

The same article adds that a second intermediary office or branch needs its own certificate, that health tourism activity may not be carried on at a branch that has not been authorised in this way, and that the certificate cannot be transferred to anyone else. A clinic operating under a certificate issued to a different business is therefore not covered by it.

The regulation also fixes standards for the service itself. Hospitals, medical centres, medical laboratories and dialysis centres must be accredited by TÜSKA, and facilities outside that list must hold a certificate issued by the Ministry. Two further requirements are worth knowing about:

“c) Uluslararası sağlık turizmi kapsamında ameliyathane ortamında yapılacak cerrahi ve girişimsel işlemler için sağlık tesisi tarafından komplikasyon sigortası yaptırılması zorunludur.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.6)

Unofficial translation: it is compulsory for the health facility to take out complication insurance for surgical and interventional procedures to be carried out in an operating theatre setting within the scope of international health tourism.

An honest limit here. That insurance requirement is tied to procedures carried out in an operating theatre setting. Routine crown and veneer work is not usually done in a theatre, so the requirement will often not reach it. It matters where the treatment involved theatre based surgery, and it matters a great deal for a failed hair transplant, where the procedure is surgical. Where such insurance does exist, it is worth knowing that the claim need not be routed through the clinic:

“MADDE 1478 - (1) Zarar gören, uğradığı zararın sigorta bedeline kadar olan kısmının tazminini, sigorta sözleşmesi için geçerli zamanaşımı süresi içinde kalmak şartıyla, doğrudan sigortacıdan isteyebilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.1478)

Unofficial translation: the injured party may claim compensation for the part of the loss suffered up to the sum insured directly from the insurer, provided that the limitation period applicable to the insurance contract has not expired.

The regulation further provides that a facility may not take services that fall to an intermediary from persons or organisations that hold no authorisation certificate. If the clinic worked with an unlicensed agency, that is a breach on the clinic’s side of the arrangement rather than only the agency’s.

Finally, the facility must run an international health tourism unit:

“MADDE 7- (1) Sağlık tesisinde uluslararası sağlık turistinin kabul, kayıt, teşhis, tedavi, faturalandırma, taburculuk, tercümanlık, aracı kuruluşlarla ilgili iş ve işlemlerin koordinasyonu ile benzeri hizmetleri yerine getirmekle görevli uluslararası sağlık turizmi birimi oluşturulur.”

(Uluslararası Sağlık Turizmi ve Turistin Sağlığı Hakkında Yönetmelik m.7)

Unofficial translation: an international health tourism unit shall be established at the health facility, charged with carrying out the admission, registration, diagnosis, treatment, invoicing, discharge and interpreting of the international health tourist, the coordination of business and procedures relating to intermediaries, and similar services.

The same article requires that at least one member of the unit’s staff speaks a foreign language and that this is documented, and that a named member of staff is assigned as the responsible person for each international patient and recorded on the Ministry’s portal. A patient who was never given an interpreter, or who cannot identify anyone at the clinic who was responsible for their file, is describing a departure from these requirements.

None of this decides a compensation claim by itself. The claim is still won or lost on the contract analysis that follows. But these are verifiable facts about the clinic rather than contested opinions about the treatment, and they are available before any expert has looked in your mouth.

Works Contract, Not a Treatment Mandate

Turkish law does not begin from negligence. It begins from the contract type, and that classification decides almost everything else: what you have to prove, what you can demand, which court hears the case, and how long you have. It is also a point the courts themselves have had to correct, because in the case discussed below a regional court of appeal treated the relationship as a treatment mandate and was quashed for doing so.

The works contract is defined in Article 470 of the Turkish Code of Obligations:

“MADDE 470- Eser sözleşmesi, yüklenicinin bir eser meydana getirmeyi, işsahibinin de bunun karşılığında bir bedel ödemeyi üstlendiği sözleşmedir.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.470)

Unofficial translation: a works contract is a contract by which the contractor undertakes to produce a work and the customer undertakes to pay a price in return.

Applying that provision to dental work, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation described the subject matter of the agreement in these terms:

“Davacı, diş tedavisi ve protez amaçlı davalıya başvurmuş olduğuna göre, istenilen ve kararlaştırılan amaca uygun güzel bir görünüm sağlanmasının taraflar arasındaki eser sözleşmesinin konusu olduğu açıktır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2023/2386, K. 2024/3777, T. 05.11.2024 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: since the claimant applied to the defendant for dental treatment and prosthetic purposes, it is clear that securing a pleasing appearance conforming to the desired and agreed purpose is the subject matter of the works contract between the parties.

The practical consequence is that the first question is not whether the dentist was careless but whether the promised result was achieved. Fault does not disappear from the analysis, and the Court of Cassation still directs a fault assessment to be made under the works contract provisions, but it is assessed against a result that was undertaken rather than against effort alone.

Where the Line Falls When Some Teeth Really Were Decayed

This is the point that decides most full-mouth cases, and it is where clinics and some published summaries go wrong. The argument runs that because there was genuine decay, the work was medically necessary, so the relationship must be a treatment mandate with only a duty of care.

The Court of Cassation rejected exactly that reasoning. The regional court of appeal had accepted a mandate relationship; the Chamber quashed it:

“Her ne kadar davacının dişleri arasında birkaç tane çürük bulunup tedavi edilse de ağızdaki tüm dişlerin kaplama yapıldığı dikkate alındığında taraflar arasındaki sözleşmenin eser sözleşmesi olarak değerlendirilmesi gerekirken vekalet sözleşmesi olduğu kabul edilerek sonucuna göre karar verilmesi doğru olmamıştır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2023/2386, K. 2024/3777, T. 05.11.2024 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: although a few of the claimant’s teeth were decayed and were treated, given that all the teeth in the mouth were crowned, the contract between the parties should have been assessed as a works contract, and it was not correct to decide the case on the footing that it was a mandate contract.

What the Chamber weighed was the scale and purpose of the work, not whether any single tooth needed attention. Where a whole mouth is prepared and crowned, the presence of some genuine decay did not convert the agreement into a treatment mandate.

The Duty the Practitioner Owes

Article 471 of the Turkish Code of Obligations fixes the standard, and the Chamber quoted it in the same decision:

“MADDE 471- Yüklenici, üstlendiği edimleri işsahibinin haklı menfaatlerini gözeterek, sadakat ve özenle ifa etmek zorundadır. Yüklenicinin özen borcundan doğan sorumluluğunun belirlenmesinde, benzer alandaki işleri üstlenen basiretli bir yüklenicinin göstermesi gereken meslekî ve teknik kurallara uygun davranışı esas alınır.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.471)

Unofficial translation: the contractor must perform the undertaken obligations with loyalty and care, observing the legitimate interests of the customer. In determining liability arising from the contractor’s duty of care, the standard is the conduct, in accordance with professional and technical rules, of a prudent contractor undertaking work in a similar field.

Two things follow. The standard is that of a prudent practitioner in the same field, so a general assurance that ordinary medical rules were observed does not answer the question. And because the contract also promises a result, the duty of care sits alongside the result obligation rather than replacing it.

Implants: What the Court Actually Weighed

A separate decision shows how a court reaches a finding of fault where expert reports favour the practitioner. Twelve implants had been fitted. The Chamber first settled the contract type:

“Somut olayda, davacı ile davalı arasındaki implant yapımına ilişkin sözleşmenin niteliği itibariyle hekim ile hasta arasında tıbbi zorunluluk sebebiyle gerçekleştirilen tedaviye ilişkin vekalet sözleşmesinden farklı olduğu ve eser sözleşmesi hükümlerin uygulanması gerektiği anlaşılmaktadır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/1729, K. 2025/1327, T. 27.03.2025 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: in the present case, the contract between the claimant and the defendant concerning the fitting of implants differs in its nature from a mandate contract relating to treatment carried out between physician and patient by reason of medical necessity, and the provisions on works contracts must be applied.

It then set out what it weighed:

“Adli Tıp Kurumu ve Uludağ Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesinden alınan raporlarda davalının tıp kurallarına uygun olarak gerekli dikkat ve özeni gösterdiği belirtilmiş ise de sonuç olarak tedavi aşamasında implantların üç kez düştüğü, dosya kapsamında bulunan 18.04.2023 tarihli raporda da implant üstü protezleri zayıflatan hatalı bir tasarım yapıldığının belirtildiği ve bu durumda taraflar arasındaki sözleşmedeki sonuç taahhüdünün gerçekleşmediği, davalıların murisi müteveffa doktor yüklenici tarafından yapılan işlemlere dair dosyaya onam formu sunulmadığı da dikkate alındığında davalıların murisi olan yüklenicinin kusurlu olduğu anlaşılmıştır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/1729, K. 2025/1327, T. 27.03.2025 — quashed, unanimous)

Unofficial translation: although reports obtained from the Council of Forensic Medicine and the Uludağ University Faculty of Dentistry stated that the defendant had shown the necessary attention and care in accordance with medical rules, it was nevertheless established that the implants fell three times during the treatment stage, that the report dated 18.04.2023 in the file stated that a defective design weakening the prostheses on the implants had been made, and that in these circumstances the result undertaking in the contract between the parties had not been achieved; taking into account also that no consent form concerning the procedures carried out by the deceased physician contractor had been submitted to the file, it was understood that the contractor was at fault.

Three concrete markers carried the finding: the work failed repeatedly, a design defect was recorded, and no consent form was in the file. The last of these is a documentary point, and it is one a patient can secure in advance simply by keeping a copy of what was signed.

The Notice Burden: Silence Can Cost the Claim

This is the part of the works contract regime that catches patients who travel, and it is the reason a strong claim is sometimes lost before the limitation period has run anywhere near its end. The regime does not only impose duties on the practitioner. It places a burden on the patient as well:

“MADDE 474- İşsahibi, eserin tesliminden sonra, işlerin olağan akışına göre imkân bulur bulmaz eseri gözden geçirmek ve ayıpları varsa, bunu uygun bir süre içinde yükleniciye bildirmek zorundadır.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.474)

Unofficial translation: after delivery of the work, the customer must inspect it as soon as the ordinary course of business allows and, if there are defects, must notify the contractor of them within a reasonable period.

The consequence of not doing so is set out in the next article and it is severe:

“MADDE 477- Eserin açıkça veya örtülü olarak kabulünden sonra, yüklenici her türlü sorumluluktan kurtulur; ancak, onun tarafından kasten gizlenen ve usulüne göre gözden geçirme sırasında fark edilemeyecek olan ayıplar için sorumluluğu devam eder. İşsahibi, gözden geçirmeyi ve bildirimde bulunmayı ihmal ederse, eseri kabul etmiş sayılır. Eserdeki ayıp sonradan ortaya çıkarsa işsahibi, gecikmeksizin durumu yükleniciye bildirmek zorundadır; bildirmezse eseri kabul etmiş sayılır.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.477)

Unofficial translation: after express or implied acceptance of the work the contractor is released from all liability, save that liability continues for defects deliberately concealed by the contractor and for defects that could not be noticed during a proper inspection. A customer who neglects to inspect and to give notice is deemed to have accepted the work. If a defect in the work emerges later, the customer must notify the contractor without delay; failing that, the customer is deemed to have accepted the work.

For someone who flew home a few days after the work was finished, three points follow.

Being deemed to have accepted the work is a separate loss from limitation. It can extinguish the elective rights while the two-year period still has time left to run. Waiting to see whether things settle down is therefore not a neutral choice.

Open and concealed defects are on different clocks. A defect visible on a proper inspection has to be notified within a reasonable period after delivery. A defect that only emerges later has to be notified without delay once it appears. Which of the two applies is decided case by case, and it is one of the first things a court is asked to determine. The 6th Civil Chamber set out the distinction and what follows from it:

“Açık ayıplar, eserin tesliminden sonra, işlerin olağan akışına göre imkân bulunur bulunmaz bizzat yapılan veya uzmanına yaptırılan gözden geçirme sonucu saptanınca, uygun sürede (TBK m.474); gizli ayıplar da ortaya çıkar çıkmaz, gecikmeksizin yükleniciye bildirilmelidir (TBK m. 477). Ayıp bildirimi süresinde yapılmadığı takdirde iş sahibi bu ayıbı örtülü olarak kabul etmiş sayılır.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/2379, K. 2025/1975, T. 13.05.2025 — quashed, by majority)

Unofficial translation: open defects must be notified to the contractor within a reasonable period once they are established by an inspection carried out personally or through a specialist as soon as the ordinary course of business allows after delivery of the work; concealed defects must be notified without delay as soon as they emerge. If notice of the defect is not given in time, the customer is deemed to have impliedly accepted that defect.

That decision concerned an industrial installation rather than dental work, and it was given by majority. It is cited here because it states the general rule of the works contract regime, which is the same regime that governs crowns and veneers, and because the dissent in it was directed at a procedural question about increasing the amount claimed rather than at this analysis.

Notice does not have to be formal, and that helps most patients. The same decision is explicit that notice is not subject to any prescribed form, that any communication capable of making the other side aware of the defect will serve, and that service of a determination of evidence petition or report also counts as notice:

“ayıp ihbarı kural olarak şekle tabi bulunmayıp içeriği itibariyle ayıptan karşı tarafın haberdar olmasını sağlamaya elverişli her türlü ihbarın, ayıp ihbarı olarak kabulü mümkün olup, tespit dilekçesinin ya da raporunun tebliği işleminin de ayıp ihbarı niteliğinde olduğunun kabulü gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/2379, K. 2025/1975, T. 13.05.2025 — quashed, by majority)

Unofficial translation: as a rule notice of defect is not subject to any particular form, and any notice whose content is capable of making the other party aware of the defect may be accepted as notice of defect; service of a petition or report for the determination of evidence must likewise be accepted as constituting notice of defect.

The Chamber added in the same passage that notice need not be in writing and that giving it in time may be proved by any evidence, including witness testimony. The practical consequence is that the messages you sent the clinic from home, complaining that something was wrong, may already be the notice the law requires. Keep them, with their dates, and do not rely on a telephone call you cannot evidence.

There is one situation in which the burden falls away. Where the contractor deliberately concealed the defect, liability continues despite acceptance. That is a high threshold and it has to be proved rather than asserted.

One further limit belongs here, because clinics raise it. The customer cannot rely on a defect that arose from the customer’s own instruction given despite a clear warning:

“MADDE 476- Eserin ayıplı olması, yüklenicinin açıkça yaptığı ihtara karşın, işsahibinin verdiği talimattan doğmuş bulunur veya herhangi bir sebeple işsahibine yüklenebilecek olursa işsahibi, eserin ayıplı olmasından doğan haklarını kullanamaz.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.476)

Unofficial translation: where the defect in the work has arisen from an instruction given by the customer despite an express warning by the contractor, or is attributable to the customer for any reason, the customer may not exercise the rights arising from the defect.

This is the provision behind the argument that the patient chose the shade, the shape or the number of units. It requires an express warning by the practitioner, so a preference expressed by a patient who was never warned of the consequence does not meet it.

What You Can Actually Ask For

Compensation is not the only remedy, and for a failed set of crowns it is often not the one the patient most wants. Article 475 sets out the choice:

“MADDE 475- Eserdeki ayıp sebebiyle yüklenicinin sorumlu olduğu hâllerde işsahibi, aşağıdaki seçimlik haklardan birini kullanabilir: 1. Eser işsahibinin kullanamayacağı veya hakkaniyet gereği kabule zorlanamayacağı ölçüde ayıplı ya da sözleşme hükümlerine aynı ölçüde aykırı olursa sözleşmeden dönme. 2. Eseri alıkoyup ayıp oranında bedelden indirim isteme. 3. Aşırı bir masrafı gerektirmediği takdirde, bütün masrafları yükleniciye ait olmak üzere, eserin ücretsiz onarılmasını isteme. İşsahibinin genel hükümlere göre tazminat isteme hakkı saklıdır.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.475)

Unofficial translation: where the contractor is liable for a defect in the work, the customer may exercise one of the following elective rights: rescission of the contract, where the work is defective or contrary to the contract to such a degree that the customer cannot use it or cannot in fairness be compelled to accept it; retaining the work and demanding a reduction of the price in proportion to the defect; or, provided it does not require excessive cost, demanding that the work be repaired free of charge with all expenses borne by the contractor. The customer’s right to claim damages under the general provisions is reserved.

Free repair at the contractor’s expense is therefore a statutory entitlement rather than a concession, subject to the excessive cost limit. Where remedial work has already been carried out elsewhere, the claim is typically framed as damages under the reserved general provisions instead.

Which Court Hears the Claim

Treatment at a private clinic is a consumer transaction. Law No. 6502 says so expressly, and names works contracts in the definition:

“l) Tüketici işlemi: Mal veya hizmet piyasalarında kamu tüzel kişileri de dâhil olmak üzere ticari veya mesleki amaçlarla hareket eden veya onun adına ya da hesabına hareket eden gerçek veya tüzel kişiler ile tüketiciler arasında kurulan, eser, taşıma, simsarlık, sigorta, vekâlet, bankacılık ve benzeri sözleşmeler de dâhil olmak üzere her türlü sözleşme ve hukuki işlemi,”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.3)

Unofficial translation: (l) consumer transaction means any contract or legal transaction, including works, carriage, brokerage, insurance, mandate, banking and similar contracts, concluded between consumers and natural or legal persons acting for commercial or professional purposes in goods or services markets, including public legal persons, or acting in their name or on their account.

Jurisdiction follows from Article 73:

“MADDE 73- (1) Tüketici işlemleri ile tüketiciye yönelik uygulamalardan doğabilecek uyuşmazlıklara ilişkin davalarda tüketici mahkemeleri görevlidir.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.73)

Unofficial translation: consumer courts have jurisdiction in actions concerning disputes that may arise from consumer transactions and from practices directed at consumers.

This is not only the statutory position. In both Court of Cassation cases discussed above the first instance court was a consumer court, in one case at Bakırköy and in the other at İstanbul Anadolu.

This is not only the statutory position. In both Court of Cassation cases discussed above the first instance court was a consumer court, in one case at Bakırköy and in the other at İstanbul Anadolu.

Treatment at a state or university hospital follows a different route, because claims arising from the services of a public administration are pursued as full remedy actions before the administrative courts rather than as consumer claims. The distinction is set out in our Turkish article on claims against private hospitals.

Before You Sue: Arbitration Committee or Mediation

There is a step before the consumer court, and skipping it gets the action dismissed rather than heard. Which step applies depends on how much the claim is worth.

For claims below the statutory threshold, the consumer arbitration committee has the remit and applying to it is compulsory:

“MADDE 68- (1) Tarafların İcra ve İflas Kanunundaki hakları saklı kalmak kaydıyla; değeri otuz bin Türk Lirasının altında bulunan uyuşmazlıklarda tüketici hakem heyetlerine başvuru zorunludur. Bu değerlerin üzerindeki uyuşmazlıklar için tüketici hakem heyetlerine başvuru yapılamaz.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.68)

Unofficial translation: without prejudice to the parties’ rights under the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, application to the consumer arbitration committees is compulsory in disputes with a value below thirty thousand Turkish Lira. Application to the consumer arbitration committees cannot be made for disputes above these values.

⚠ The figure in the text is the amount inserted by the 2022 amendment. The threshold is revalued for each calendar year, so the amount that applies to your claim is the one in force for the year in which the application is made and has to be checked against the current announcement rather than read off the printed article.

Above that threshold the dispute belongs to the consumer court, and mediation becomes a condition of bringing the action:

“MADDE 73/A- (1) Tüketici mahkemelerinde görülen uyuşmazlıklarda dava açılmadan önce arabulucuya başvurulmuş olması dava şartıdır. Şu kadar ki, aşağıda belirtilen hususlarda dava şartı olarak arabuluculuğa ilişkin hükümler uygulanmaz: a) Tüketici hakem heyetinin görevi kapsamında olan uyuşmazlıklar”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.73/A)

Unofficial translation: in disputes heard in the consumer courts, having applied to a mediator before bringing the action is a condition of the action. However, the provisions on mediation as a condition of suit do not apply to the following matters: (a) disputes falling within the remit of the consumer arbitration committee.

The two routes therefore fit together rather than compete: below the threshold you go to the committee and mediation is not required, above it you mediate first and then sue. A full set of crowns or a course of implants will usually sit above the threshold, so mediation is the realistic starting point.

The same article provides that where the parties cannot be reached, where no meeting can be held because the parties do not attend, or where they either settle or fail to settle, the mediation fee payable by the consumer is met from the budget of the Ministry of Justice, capped at the two-hour rate in the fee tariff. Where the action that follows succeeds, the fee is recovered from the defendant. Cost is therefore not a reason to skip the step, and skipping it is not available in any event.

Bringing the Claim From Abroad

Two questions arrive together for a patient who has gone home: which country’s law governs the dispute, and which country’s courts can hear it. Turkish private international law answers them separately.

On the governing law, the starting point is party choice, and in its absence the closest connection:

“MADDE 24 – (1) Sözleşmeden doğan borç ilişkileri tarafların açık olarak seçtikleri hukuka tâbidir. Sözleşme hükümlerinden veya hâlin şartlarından tereddüde yer vermeyecek biçimde anlaşılabilen hukuk seçimi de geçerlidir.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.24)

Unofficial translation: obligations arising from contract are subject to the law expressly chosen by the parties. A choice of law that can be understood beyond doubt from the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case is also valid.

Most patients never made a choice of law, because the paperwork was a treatment plan and a price rather than a contract with clauses. The fourth paragraph of the same article deals with that:

“(4) Tarafların hukuk seçimi yapmamış olmaları hâlinde sözleşmeden doğan ilişkiye, o sözleşmeyle en sıkı ilişkili olan hukuk uygulanır. Bu hukuk, karakteristik edim borçlusunun, sözleşmenin kuruluşu sırasındaki mutad meskeni hukuku, ticarî veya meslekî faaliyetler gereği kurulan sözleşmelerde karakteristik edim borçlusunun işyeri, bulunmadığı takdirde yerleşim yeri hukuku, karakteristik edim borçlusunun birden çok işyeri varsa söz konusu sözleşmeyle en sıkı ilişki içinde bulunan işyeri hukuku olarak kabul edilir. Ancak hâlin bütün şartlarına göre sözleşmeyle daha sıkı ilişkili bir hukukun bulunması hâlinde sözleşme, bu hukuka tâbi olur.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.24)

Unofficial translation: where the parties have made no choice of law, the law most closely connected with the contract applies to the contractual relationship. That law is taken to be the law of the habitual residence of the party owing the characteristic performance at the time the contract was made, or, for contracts made in the course of commercial or professional activity, the law of that party’s place of business, failing which the law of that party’s domicile, and where that party has more than one place of business, the law of the place of business most closely connected with the contract. However, if in all the circumstances there is a law more closely connected with the contract, the contract is subject to that law.

The characteristic performance in a treatment contract is the treatment, not the payment. For a clinic operating in Türkiye, that points to Turkish law.

The consumer protection rule does not rescue you here, and it is worth being straight about why. Turkish private international law has a protective rule for consumer contracts that would normally preserve the minimum protection of the consumer’s own home law. But it carries an express exclusion:

“(4) Bu madde, paket turlar hariç, taşıma sözleşmeleri ve tüketiciye hizmetin onun mutad meskeninin bulunduğu ülkeden başka bir ülkede sağlanması zorunlu olan sözleşmelere uygulanmaz.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.26)

Unofficial translation: this article does not apply, save for package tours, to contracts of carriage and to contracts under which the service must be supplied to the consumer in a country other than the country of the consumer’s habitual residence.

Dental treatment in Türkiye for a patient living abroad is supplied in Türkiye by necessity. On the ordinary reading of that exclusion the protective rule does not reach it, and because the special jurisdiction rule for consumer contracts is tied by its own wording to the contracts defined in that article, that rule does not reach it either. The point is one of interpretation rather than a settled holding, and a clinic will not concede it, but a patient should not plan a case on the assumption that home law travels with them.

What remains is the general rule on the reach of the Turkish courts:

“MADDE 40 – (1) Türk mahkemelerinin milletlerarası yetkisini, iç hukukun yer itibariyle yetki kuralları tayin eder.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.40)

Unofficial translation: the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts is determined by the rules of domestic law on venue.

So the question of whether a Turkish court can hear the claim is answered by the ordinary Turkish venue rules, which for a consumer dispute point to the consumer court. Living abroad does not prevent the claim from being brought, because it can be conducted through a lawyer instructed under a power of attorney, and attendance in person is not required for every step.

One clause to look for before assuming any of this. Where venue is not fixed on an exclusive basis, the parties may agree that the dispute goes to a foreign court:

“MADDE 47 – (1) Yer itibariyle yetkinin münhasır yetki esasına göre tayin edilmediği hâllerde, taraflar, aralarındaki yabancılık unsuru taşıyan ve borç ilişkilerinden doğan uyuşmazlığın yabancı bir devletin mahkemesinde görülmesi konusunda anlaşabilirler. Anlaşma, yazılı delille ispat edilmesi hâlinde geçerli olur. Dava, ancak yabancı mahkemenin kendisini yetkisiz sayması veya Türk mahkemelerinde yetki itirazında bulunulmaması hâlinde yetkili Türk mahkemesinde görülür.”

(5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.47)

Unofficial translation: where venue is not determined on the basis of exclusive jurisdiction, the parties may agree that a dispute between them containing a foreign element and arising from obligations shall be heard by the court of a foreign state. The agreement is valid if proved by written evidence. The action is heard by the competent Turkish court only if the foreign court holds itself to lack jurisdiction or if no objection to jurisdiction is raised before the Turkish courts.

If the paperwork you signed contains a clause of that kind, it changes the analysis and it should be read before anything is filed.

Time Limits

The limitation period for defective work is short, and it is the single most common reason a good claim is lost:

“MADDE 478- Yüklenici ayıplı bir eser meydana getirmişse, bu sebeple açılacak davalar, teslim tarihinden başlayarak, taşınmaz yapılar dışındaki eserlerde iki yılın; taşınmaz yapılarda ise beş yılın ve yüklenicinin ağır kusuru varsa, ayıplı eserin niteliğine bakılmaksızın yirmi yılın geçmesiyle zamanaşımına uğrar.”

(6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.478)

Unofficial translation: where the contractor has produced a defective work, actions brought on that ground become time barred on the expiry of two years from the date of delivery for works other than immovable structures, five years for immovable structures, and twenty years irrespective of the nature of the defective work where the contractor is grossly at fault.

Dental prosthetic work is not an immovable structure, so the two-year period is the starting point, extended to twenty years where the contractor is grossly at fault. Because Article 475 reserves the right to claim damages under the general provisions, whether a longer general period applies to a claim framed that way is contested, and the framing of the claim matters.

The same limitation analysis applies to a failed hair transplant, which is governed by the same works contract regime.

Evidence to Preserve

Nothing in the case law rewards a patient who returns home with only photographs. What carried weight in the decisions above was documentary: the recorded design, the reports, and the presence or absence of a consent form. This is where the four patterns set out at the start of this article turn into something a court can act on.

• The treatment plan and any written package description, including how many teeth were to be prepared.
• The consent form, whose absence from the file counted against the practitioner in the implant case.
• Clinical images before and after, together with the clinic’s own records of materials and shade.
• Invoices and payment records, including deposits paid before travel.
• Correspondence with the clinic and any agency, including messaging application records.

Where remedial treatment is carried out after the return home, the new practitioner’s findings and the cost of that treatment become part of the file. Preserving the original prosthetic work where it is removed matters too: in one of the cases above the original prostheses had been replaced, and the court recorded that the evidence of the first work had thereby been lost.