Competent Court in Non-Compete Agreements: Decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the Unification of Case Law

Published in the Official Gazette dated 12 September 2025 and numbered 33015, the decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the Unification of Case Law (“the Assembly”) dated 13.06.2025 and numbered 2023/1, ruled that the competent court in disputes arising from non-compete agreements is the commercial court of first instance.

I.                    Background of the Dispute

Articles 444–447 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulate the employee’s obligation not to compete with the employer after the termination of the employment contract. However, whether lawsuits to be filed in case of breach of such agreements shall be heard before labour courts or commercial courts of first instance has long been evaluated differently among the chambers of the Court of Cassation.

• The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the former 22nd Civil Chamber, relying on the Labour Courts Act No. 7036, adopted the view that such disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the labour courts.

  
  

• The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, on the other hand, considered non-compete agreements within the scope of absolute commercial disputes and rendered decisions to the effect that the competent court is the commercial court of first instance.

  
  

• The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation also rendered decisions in both directions at different times, which led to instability in practice.

  
  

Due to these differences of opinion, the matter was referred to the Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the Unification of Case Law by the decision of the First Presidency Board of the Court of Cassation dated 30.05.2023 and numbered 159.

II.                  Reasoning of the Assembly

In its assessment, the Assembly particularly emphasised the following points:

• The duty of loyalty is valid during the continuation of the employment contract and ceases with the termination of the employment relationship. Therefore, the non-compete obligation should not be characterised as an ancillary obligation arising from the employment contract but rather as an independent and autonomous agreement.

  
  

• The validity of the non-compete obligation is directly related to elements of commercial life such as “clientele,” “trade secrets,” or “production methods.” The evaluation of these concepts falls within the expertise of commercial law rather than the protective approach of labour law.

  
  

• Pursuant to Article 4/1-c of the Turkish Commercial Code, disputes arising from non-compete agreements are of the nature of absolute commercial disputes and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts of first instance.

  
  

• The general provisions set forth in the Labour Courts Act No. 7036 cannot override the special jurisdictional provision contained in the Turkish Commercial Code.

III.                Significance of the Decision

With this decision of the Assembly, the long-standing debate regarding the competent court has been definitively resolved. From now on, disputes arising from non-compete agreements will continue to be heard before the commercial courts of first instance.

This decision not only clarifies the issue of jurisdiction but also makes an important determination regarding the nature of non-compete agreements: These agreements are not annexes to the employment contract but are independent undertakings falling within the regulatory domain of commercial law.

IV. Conclusion

The decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the Unification of Case Law dated 13.06.2025 and numbered 2023/1 has ensured that disputes arising from non-compete agreements are classified as commercial disputes and that the competent court is the commercial court of first instance. Thus, both uniformity in practice and predictability in adjudication have been achieved.