Turkish courts and artificial intelligence — Part I: Istanbul commercial court expressly discloses use of AI in drafting reasoned judgment

Background: the underlying dispute and enforcement proceedings

The case arose from a consultancy agreement concluded in 2015 between a Netherlands-domiciled consultancy firm and an Istanbul-based Turkish joint-stock company. Under the agreement, the claimant undertook to provide consultancy services for an eye clinic the defendant intended to open in the Netherlands, in return for a total fee of approximately EUR 300k payable in two equal instalments. The defendant paid the first instalment but refused to pay the second on various grounds.

The claimant brought a claim before the Amsterdam courts pursuant to the jurisdiction clause in the agreement. The Amsterdam court found in the claimant’s favour, ordering the defendant to pay the principal sum, a contractual penalty and litigation costs. The defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and became final.

The claimant then filed proceedings before the Istanbul 14th Commercial Court seeking recognition and enforcement (exequatur) of the Amsterdam judgment in Turkey. The defendant raised objections on four grounds: (i) absence of reciprocity between Turkey and the Netherlands; (ii) lack of jurisdiction of the commercial court (arguing the matter fell within the competence of a civil court of first instance); (iii) failure to deposit security for foreign parties; and (iv) a public policy objection to enforcement of the contractual penalty clause. The Istanbul court dismissed all four objections under MÖHUK and granted enforcement.

The reciprocity question: an evolving line of Turkish Court of Cassation authority

The question of reciprocity between Turkey and the Netherlands in the context of enforcement has long been contested in Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) jurisprudence. Historically, enforcement requests were rejected on the basis that no such reciprocity existed — the most recent decision to this effect having been rendered by the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (13th CC, 27 June 2019, Case No. 2019/1026, Decision No. 2019/7846).

However, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation changed course by expressly finding that Dutch and Turkish law mirror each other on recognition and enforcement, thereby paving the way for a shift in the case law (11th CC, 24 January 2019, Case No. 2017/4852, Decision No. 2019/698). This approach was subsequently confirmed in a further decision by the same Chamber (11th CC, 16 October 2023, Case No. 2022/6371, Decision No. 2023/5889).

The Istanbul 14th Commercial Court’s judgment follows this more permissive line of authority, reinforcing the trend towards recognition of reciprocity between Turkey and the Netherlands for enforcement purposes.

The headline issue: AI as an auxiliary tool in drafting the judgment

The most significant aspect of the judgment for the purposes of this alert is the court’s express disclosure that it had used AI as an auxiliary technical tool in preparing the reasoned judgment.

How AI was used

The court used AI specifically for three purposes: reviewing foreign legal sources, verifying foreign court decisions, and translating legal texts into Turkish. AI was positioned not as a mechanism to replace the judge or resolve the dispute, but as an auxiliary tool providing research and translation support to assist the judge in the exercise of his functions of resolving the dispute and rendering a verdict.

Transparency and auditability

One of the notable features of the judgment is that the court expressly set out in its reasoning the fact that AI had been used and the specific purposes for which it had been employed. This disclosure signals that the use of AI cannot be treated as an unbounded freedom; rather, such use must operate within defined procedural and ethical constraints. By making AI use visible and explaining the stages at which it was deployed, the court affirmed the importance of transparency and auditability in judicial proceedings.

Ethical principles and the judge’s ultimate responsibility

The court assessed its use of AI against the framework established by the Turkish Public Officials Ethics Board Decision dated 10 September 2024 (Decision No. 2024/108). In this context, the court noted adherence to principles including transparency, accountability, honesty, originality, impartiality, output verification, confidentiality and data protection, and oversight obligations. The court further emphasised that, under the principle of competence, AI must be used with awareness that it may produce incomplete or erroneous outputs, and that AI-generated outputs cannot be adopted directly and without scrutiny. The judgment makes clear that legal interpretation, the evaluation of evidence, the formation of judicial conviction and the delivery of the final decision remain the exclusive and non-delegable duty and responsibility of the judge.

It is also worth noting that the enforcement of the contractual penalty clause was decided by majority, with a dissenting opinion arguing that it should have been refused on public policy grounds.

Significance for Turkish legal practice

The judgment of the Istanbul 14th Commercial Court demonstrates that the use of AI in judicial proceedings may be permissible under Turkish law, whilst making clear that such use must be circumscribed by defined procedural and ethical principles. Debate on the purposes for which AI may be used in court, the limits within which it must operate and the safeguards that must accompany it is expected to intensify in the period ahead.

For parties involved in litigation before Turkish courts — whether domestic or cross-border — this development raises several practical considerations:

• Disclosure norms: This judgment sets a precedent for proactive judicial disclosure of AI use, which may shape expectations around transparency in future proceedings.
• Quality control obligations: The court’s emphasis on verification of AI outputs and the judge’s ultimate responsibility underscores that AI-assisted drafting does not diminish accountability standards.
• Enforcement of foreign judgments: The court’s handling of the reciprocity question reaffirms the gradual liberalisation of Turkish enforcement jurisprudence vis-à-vis Dutch court judgments.

Looking Ahead

This is the first in a series of alerts we are publishing on the use of AI in Turkish courts. We will continue to monitor developments in this area — including any regulatory or legislative responses, further judicial guidance and comparative international practice — and will report on them as they emerge.