International Product Liability in Turkey: MÖHUK Article 36, Manufacturer Law and Country of Purchase

1. Article 36 is the dedicated conflict rule for manufactured-product harm

Product claims often arise from a commercial chain involving a manufacturer in one country, an importer in another, a seller in Türkiye and an injured consumer or business in a fourth state. A Turkish court cannot determine the merits until it identifies the substantive law governing the non-contractual manufacturer-liability claim. Article 36 solves that question through a rule designed specifically for manufactured products.

The special nature of Article 36 matters because the general Article 34 tort rule looks first at the place of the act and place of damage. Product liability instead gives the injured person a statutory choice among more product-specific connections. The correct classification can therefore materially affect available defences, damage heads and limitation rules.

A claimant should plead the factual distribution chain clearly enough for the court to understand why Article 36 rather than only Article 34 applies.

2. The claim must arise from damage caused by a manufactured thing

Article 36 is drafted around damage caused by manufactured products. Ordinary disputes about late delivery, wrong specifications or unpaid invoices belong primarily to contract law. The product-liability rule becomes central when a manufactured item itself causes personal injury, property damage or another legally recognised harm outside the mere failure to receive contractual performance.

Examples include a defective electrical appliance causing a fire, a machine component causing industrial injury, a medical device causing physical harm, or a vehicle component failing and causing an accident. The exact substantive definition of defect and recoverable damage comes from the governing law selected under Article 36.

Digital elements can complicate classification. A connected device may combine hardware, embedded software and remote updates. The court should identify whether the alleged harm arises from the manufactured product, a separate service or a contractual software obligation.

3. Identify the legally responsible person before choosing the governing law

The phrase “person causing the damage” cannot be reduced automatically to the retail seller. Depending on the substantive liability framework, the manufacturer, producer of a component, importer, own-brand supplier or another economic operator may be legally responsible. The conflict analysis should identify which defendant’s habitual residence or business establishment is being relied upon.

Corporate group structures require care. A parent company’s country is not necessarily the relevant establishment if the product was produced and marketed through a different group entity. Trade-register records, product labels, invoices, conformity documents and distribution contracts can help identify the actual operator.

Where multiple defendants are sued, the governing-law analysis may need to be performed separately for each non-contractual claim.

4. Article 36 gives the injured person a statutory election

The statute allows the injured person to choose between the responsible party’s habitual-residence or business-establishment law and the law of the country where the product was acquired, subject to the consent exception. This is not an unrestricted ability to choose any favourable law after an accident. The choice is limited to the connecting laws identified by Article 36.

A professional claim should explain why the selected law falls within the provision. If a product was acquired in Germany from an authorised distributor but caused injury in Türkiye, German law can potentially be selected as the country-of-acquisition law while another option may arise from the manufacturer’s establishment.

The election should be legally coherent across the pleadings rather than changing opportunistically whenever a particular defence is raised.

5. Habitual residence is a legal connecting factor, not a postal address

Where the defendant is a natural person or the legal framework makes habitual residence relevant, the court examines the person’s stable centre of life. For a corporate manufacturer, the business-establishment connection is generally more practically important.

Habitual residence should not be confused with nationality. A foreign national can habitually reside in Türkiye, while a Turkish national can habitually reside abroad. MÖHUK deliberately uses different connecting factors for different legal problems.

The relevant evidence can include residence records, business activity, management location and the factual circumstances existing at the legally relevant time.

6. Business establishment can connect the claim to the manufacturer’s operational country

A manufacturer may be incorporated in one country yet conduct production through an establishment in another. Article 36 expressly refers to the responsible party’s business establishment as a possible governing-law connection.

The claimant should identify the establishment connected with the entity said to bear liability. Factory records, commercial registry entries, product conformity certificates and distribution contracts can demonstrate the connection.

This option is particularly important for foreign investors and buyers dealing with multinational manufacturers whose brands are global but whose legal entities differ by region.

7. The law of the country where the product was acquired can be chosen

The second major Article 36 option is the law of the country where the manufactured product was acquired. Acquisition is a transaction-based connection and can be proved with invoices, purchase contracts, retailer records, customs documentation or delivery records.

The place where the accident happened is not automatically the country of acquisition. A vehicle purchased in Germany and later driven in Türkiye can present different acquisition and damage locations. Likewise, industrial machinery ordered from a Turkish seller can be installed abroad.

The rule reflects the reasonable expectation that a manufacturer distributing products into a country may face the product-liability law of that market.

8. The responsible party can defeat the acquisition-country option by proving non-consensual market entry

Article 36 contains an important defence: the law of the acquisition country is not available if the responsible party proves that the product was introduced into that country without consent. This is a factual burden placed on the person responsible.

Grey-market imports, unauthorised resale and products diverted from an intended distribution territory can therefore matter. The manufacturer must do more than state that the local sale was unauthorised; the distribution evidence must support the lack of consent contemplated by the statute.

Authorised dealers, territorial distribution contracts, serial-number tracing and customs records can become decisive evidence.

9. A product case can contain both contractual and non-contractual claims

A buyer injured by a defective machine may have contractual claims against the seller for non-conformity and non-contractual product-liability claims against the manufacturer. These claims should not be merged into one governing-law analysis.

The sales contract can fall under Article 24, Article 26 for consumers, or the CISG where applicable. The manufacturer-liability claim can separately fall under Article 36. Different laws can therefore govern different causes of action in the same factual dispute.

A pleading should identify each legal relationship, defendant and remedy separately so the court can apply the correct conflict rule.

10. Consumer protection can add a separate mandatory layer

If the injured party is a consumer, Turkish Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 and MÖHUK Article 26 may govern contractual rights against the seller or service provider. Product liability under Article 36 remains a distinct non-contractual issue.

Where the product was marketed to a Turkish consumer, mandatory Turkish safety and consumer rules may also have direct relevance even if another law governs a particular non-contractual claim.

Our international consumer-contract guide explains the contractual conflict rule separately.

11. Importers and distributors require defendant-specific analysis

An importer can have obligations under Turkish product-safety and consumer legislation that differ from the manufacturer’s obligations. A distributor may also incur direct liability based on its own conduct, representations or statutory role.

Do not assume that Article 36 necessarily applies identically to every participant in the supply chain. A defendant’s own negligent storage or alteration of a product can create an Article 34 tort claim, while the original manufacturing defect can remain within Article 36.

The chain should therefore be reconstructed from manufacture through import, wholesale, retail and final acquisition.

12. The governing law determines the substantive concept of defect and liability

Once the court selects the applicable law, that law determines questions such as whether liability is strict or fault-based, what constitutes a defective product, what safety expectations are relevant and what defences the manufacturer can invoke.

Technical evidence remains essential regardless of governing law. Expert examination should identify the product, alleged defect, intended use, warnings, maintenance history and alternative causes.

A legal argument that a product is defective should not substitute for engineering or medical evidence where the issue requires specialised expertise.

13. Causation is usually one of the central contested issues

The claimant must connect the alleged defect with the actual harm under the standards of the governing law. Temporal sequence alone does not prove causation.

For industrial machinery, maintenance records and operator training can be relevant. For medical devices, clinical evidence and alternative medical causes can matter. For vehicles, collision reconstruction and component inspection can be decisive.

Preserving the product before repair or destruction can therefore be more important than obtaining multiple witness statements.

14. Recoverable damage depends on the selected substantive law

Potential claims can include medical costs, loss of earnings, disability-related losses, death-related family claims, repair or replacement of damaged property and non-pecuniary damages. The governing law determines which heads exist and how they are calculated.

The court must also distinguish damage to the defective product itself from damage caused by the product to other property. Some liability regimes treat these categories differently.

Currency conversion and future-loss calculations can create further cross-border issues when income and expenses arise in different countries.

15. Recall and safety-regulator records can be powerful evidence without automatically proving civil liability

A product recall, safety notice or administrative sanction can support the argument that a product line had a safety problem. It does not automatically establish that the individual claimant’s product contained the defect or that the defect caused the specific damage.

Conversely, the absence of a public recall does not prove that a single product was safe. Individual manufacturing errors can occur outside a broad recall programme.

Official regulator records should therefore be combined with product-specific evidence.

16. Limitation rules are part of the substantive-law analysis

Cross-border claimants should not assume that the Turkish limitation period applies merely because proceedings are filed in Türkiye. The law governing the product-liability claim can control limitation questions depending on their classification under MÖHUK.

The claim date, date of injury, date the responsible person was identified and any long-stop period should be calculated under the correct substantive law before litigation is delayed.

Contract claims against the seller can have different limitation periods from non-contractual manufacturer claims.

17. Applicable law and court jurisdiction are different questions

MÖHUK Article 36 selects substantive law. It does not by itself establish that a Turkish court has international jurisdiction. Turkish jurisdiction is determined under MÖHUK Article 40 through domestic territorial-jurisdiction rules and any applicable special provisions or treaties.

A Turkish court can sometimes hear a claim governed by foreign substantive law. Equally, Turkish law can govern a claim that is litigated elsewhere if that foreign court’s conflict rules point to Turkish law.

Forum selection, service abroad and enforcement strategy should therefore be considered separately from applicable law.

18. Cross-border evidence should be preserved before the product changes hands

Keep the product, packaging, serial number, invoice, instructions, warranty records, maintenance history, photographs, expert reports and communications with seller or manufacturer. If urgent repairs are unavoidable, document the condition before intervention.

Foreign-language technical records should be translated accurately for Turkish proceedings. Where evidence is at risk of disappearing, a Turkish delil tespiti procedure can be considered.

Our evidence-preservation guide explains that procedural tool.

Conclusion

MÖHUK Article 36 gives an injured person a carefully defined choice of law in international manufacturer-liability cases. The claimant can rely on the responsible party’s habitual-residence or business-establishment law, or the law of the country where the product was acquired unless the responsible party proves that the product entered that market without consent. The legal strategy should distinguish manufacturer liability from contractual seller claims, identify the correct defendant, preserve technical evidence and analyse jurisdiction separately.