Which Law Governs a Cross-Border Tort in Turkey? MÖHUK Article 34, Place of Act, Place of Damage and Closest Connection
Law Governing Cross-Border Torts in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 34 cross-border tort law: place of act, place of damage, closer connection, post-event law choice, traffic accidents, fraud and online harms.
Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously
MÖHUK Article 34 is Türkiye’s general conflict-of-laws rule for non-contractual liability arising from torts with a foreign element. The starting point is the law of the country where the tortious act was committed. If the place of the act and the place where damage occurred are in different countries, the law of the country where the damage occurred applies. If the tort obligation is more closely connected with another country, that country’s law can apply instead. After the tort has occurred, the parties may expressly choose the law that will govern the non-contractual obligation. Article 34 operates as the general rule unless MÖHUK provides a specific tort provision, such as personality-rights, product liability, unfair competition or competition restrictions.
Article 34 decision map
| Fact pattern | Applicable-law starting point | Critical question |
|---|---|---|
| Act and damage in same country | Law of place of tortious act | Where did legally relevant conduct occur? |
| Act in one country, damage in another | Law of the country where damage occurred | Where did the damage occur, and is a special rule or closer connection relevant? |
| Strong relationship to a third country | More closely connected law may apply | Common residence, prior relationship and transaction context. |
| Parties agree after event | Chosen law can govern | Choice must be express and made after the tort occurred. |
| Special tort category | Articles 35–38 can displace Article 34 | Classify media/personality, product, unfair competition or antitrust claim correctly. |
1. Article 34 is the fallback rule for cross-border torts
When a wrongful act, damage or parties are connected to more than one country, a Turkish court must identify the substantive law governing liability before deciding negligence, unlawfulness, causation and damages.
Article 34 supplies the general framework unless a more specific MÖHUK article applies. It is therefore important to classify the tort before selecting law.
A defective-product claim belongs under Article 36, while a newspaper defamation claim can fall under Article 35.
2. The law of the place where the tort was committed is the first rule
The “place of act” is where the legally relevant wrongful conduct occurred. In a physical assault or road accident this can be obvious. In negligent corporate decision-making or digital conduct it can require factual analysis.
A Turkish company’s decision made in Mersin that causes damage abroad may present both act-place and damage-place connections.
Courts should identify the conduct constituting the alleged tort rather than merely the defendant’s registered office.
3. When act and damage occur in different countries, damage-place law can govern
Article 34 expressly addresses cross-border consequences. Where the wrongful conduct occurs in one state but the direct damage appears in another, the damage-country law applies, subject to the closer-connection rule and any applicable special provision.
This rule can be significant in financial, digital and environmental harms where no special conflict rule applies.
The relevant damage should be the legally direct injury rather than every later economic consequence suffered wherever the claimant happens to live.
4. Article 34 does not impose a general foreseeability condition
Article 34(2) does not make the damage-place rule conditional on the tortfeasor foreseeing damage in that country.
Foreseeability appears in specific alternatives under Article 35 for personality-rights violations. Those conditions should not be imported into Article 34. The claim must first be classified, and the applicable special rule, if any, identified.
5. A closer connection can displace the basic rule
Article 34 contains an escape clause where the tort is more closely connected with another country.
Examples can include both parties habitually residing in the same country, a tort arising directly from a pre-existing relationship governed by another law, or a transaction overwhelmingly centred in one state.
The exception should be justified from all circumstances and not used merely because one law provides higher damages.
6. Parties can choose governing law after the tort occurs
Unlike many contracts, tort parties do not ordinarily select governing law in advance. Article 34 permits them to make an express choice after the wrongful event.
This can simplify settlement or litigation, particularly between sophisticated businesses.
A pre-tort contract clause may still influence related claims through contract law, but Article 34’s express tort choice mechanism is post-event.
7. International traffic accidents require treaty and insurance checks
A collision in Türkiye involving a foreign-plated vehicle has an obvious Turkish act-place connection. Yet international motor-insurance systems, Green Card arrangements and insurer rules can add separate layers.
The applicable tort law determines liability and damage heads, while insurance contract and mandatory motor liability rules determine insurer responsibility.
Our existing site content on foreign-plated vehicle damage should be used for Turkish substantive compensation issues rather than duplicating it here.
8. Cross-border fraud can split conduct and financial damage across states
A fraudster can send false statements from one country to a victim in another, with money transferred through a third-country bank.
The court should identify where deception was committed, where the direct property loss occurred and whether the tort obligation is more closely connected with another country.
Criminal jurisdiction and civil tort governing law are separate questions.
9. Professional negligence can overlap with contract
An architect, consultant, accountant or adviser may owe both contractual duties and general tort duties.
The contract can be governed by Article 24 while the tort claim is analysed under Article 34. Courts should avoid using tort pleading to bypass contractual limitations where the legal system does not permit that result.
The relationship between the two claims depends on the applicable substantive laws.
10. Environmental damage can produce strong damage-place connections
Pollution originating in one country can damage land, water or persons in another. The place of damage and any closer connection become central.
Environmental statutes and treaties can also contain directly applicable rules.
Corporate-group liability for overseas operations should be analysed separately from the local operating company’s tort.
11. Online harms require a specific special-rule check before Article 34
Defamation, privacy violations and media publications are specially regulated by Article 35, so those claims should not be forced into Article 34.
Other online torts such as hacking-related property loss, fraudulent transfers or interference with business can fall under Article 34 or other special provisions.
The digital location should be established through the real conduct and harm rather than server location alone.
12. A pre-existing contract can create the closer connection
A tort arising from performance of an international contract may be more closely connected with the law governing that contract.
For example, negligent damage during a service relationship can have strong contractual context.
The court should classify independent tort duties and contractual duties separately before deciding whether one law governs both.
13. The applicable tort law generally determines recoverable damage categories
Once Article 34 identifies the applicable substantive law, that law can determine fault standards, causation, contributory negligence, damage categories and limitation rules, subject to special conflict provisions.
Foreign laws can differ dramatically on moral damages, punitive damages, loss of chance and future earnings.
Turkish public order can limit exceptional foreign results under Article 5.
14. Liability law and insurance law should not be merged
The tort law determines whether the defendant is liable. The insurance policy has its own governing law and coverage conditions.
Under Article 34(4), the injured person may bring a claim directly against the liable person’s insurer if either the law governing the tort or the law governing the insurance contract permits it.
Compulsory Turkish insurance rules can operate directly for risks located in Türkiye.
15. Directly applicable Turkish rules can remain controlling
MÖHUK Article 6 preserves Turkish directly applicable provisions. Safety, environmental, traffic or regulatory statutes can therefore apply even where Article 34 points to foreign law.
Article 31 can also allow consideration of third-state directly applicable rules in contractual contexts, though tort analysis has its own structure.
Mandatory public regulation should be identified separately from private liability law.
16. Applicable tort law and Turkish court jurisdiction are separate
MÖHUK Article 40 uses Turkish domestic territorial-jurisdiction rules to determine international jurisdiction unless a special rule applies.
A Turkish court may have jurisdiction over a foreign-law tort, and a foreign court may apply Turkish tort law.
Claimants should determine forum before calculating limitation and evidence strategy.
17. Foreign tort law is applied ex officio by the Turkish judge
Under Article 2, the court applies the foreign law designated by Article 34 and can request party assistance.
Official statutes, case law and expert opinions should address liability elements and damages under the designated law.
If foreign law cannot be determined despite all research, Turkish law applies as the statutory fallback.
Conclusion
MÖHUK Article 34 uses a layered structure for international torts: place of wrongful act first, place of damage where different, and a closer-connection escape clause. The parties can expressly choose law after the event. Before applying Article 34, the claim must be checked against the special tort provisions in Articles 35–38. Cross-border accident, fraud and negligence files should therefore begin with a precise map of conduct, damage and any closer connection or prior legal relationship.
Frequently asked questions
Does Turkish law apply to every tort sued in Turkey?
No. Article 34 determines the applicable law from the act, damage and closest connections.
What if the act happened abroad but damage occurred in Turkey?
Under Article 34(2), the law of the country where damage occurred applies when the act and damage occurred in different countries, subject to the closer-connection rule and any applicable special provision.
Can parties choose the tort law beforehand?
Article 34 allows an express choice of law after the tort occurs.
Does Article 34 govern defamation?
Personality-rights violations through media are specially governed by Article 35.
Does Article 34 govern defective products?
Product liability has the special Article 36 rule.
What is the closer-connection exception?
Another country’s law applies when the tort obligation is more closely connected with that country.
Does insurance follow the same law?
Not necessarily. Insurance coverage has separate conflict and mandatory rules.
Can Turkish public order block foreign damages?
In exceptional cases, Article 5 can prevent a result manifestly contrary to Turkish public order.
Can a Turkish judge apply foreign tort law?
Yes, under Article 2.
Where is the office?
Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu has physical offices in İstanbul and Mersin and coordinates cross-border tort files throughout Türkiye subject to court and procedural rules.
Legal source
Official MÖHUK Law No. 5718 text · TBMM enacted text
Legal review date: 26 October 2026. Article 34 and the general rules discussed above were checked against official sources; the law applicable to a specific dispute still depends on its facts and any later amendments.
Mersin office and Türkiye-wide coordination
Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu has physical offices in İstanbul and Mersin. Its Mersin-based Türkiye-wide file coordination covers cross-border tort matters subject to competent court and procedural rules.
Istanbul Office – Polaris Plaza, Maslak / Sarıyer
Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu
Maslak Ahi Evran Caddesi, Polaris Plaza No:21, Kat:9, 34475 Sarıyer/İstanbul
Our physical offices in Istanbul and Mersin coordinate matters throughout Turkey, subject to jurisdiction and the local steps required for each case. Please specify your preferred office when arranging an in-person appointment.
Open the Istanbul office on Google Maps · Contact and appointments
Contact regarding a legal matter
In your first message, you may briefly state the subject, your country or city, and any relevant notification or recent procedural date. Please do not send identity numbers, medical data, or personal documents. Messaging alone does not constitute legal advice or create a lawyer–client relationship.
Discover more from Bakırcı & Keskin Hukuk Bürosu
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
