Learn how force majeure clauses work under Turkish contract law, including impossibility, hardship, delay, notice, mitigation, drafting techniques, enforcement, and dispute resolution in Turkey.
Introduction
Force majeure clauses in Turkish contract law matter most when a contract is tested by events the parties did not plan for: earthquakes, wars, embargoes, export bans, government shutdowns, pandemics, supply-chain collapse, severe weather, cyber incidents, or major transportation disruptions. In Turkish law, however, “force majeure” is not a magic label that automatically excuses performance. The legal result depends on whether the event made performance impossible, only delayed it, or merely made it much more burdensome. That is why the legal analysis begins not with rhetoric, but with classification.
The Turkish Code of Obligations does not contain a separate chapter titled “force majeure.” Instead, force majeure issues are usually handled through the Code’s general rules on freedom of contract, non-performance, default, impossibility, partial impossibility, and excessive hardship, together with the Civil Code’s good-faith principle. As an inference from that structure, contractual drafting becomes especially important in Turkey because the statute supplies the framework, but the clause often determines how that framework will operate in the particular contract.
This matters in practice because Turkish law does not treat every serious difficulty as force majeure. A debtor whose performance became objectively impossible may rely on one set of rules. A debtor whose performance is still possible but drastically more burdensome falls into another set. A debtor who is simply late may face ordinary default rules unless the force majeure clause clearly suspends deadlines or excuses delay. The clause therefore needs to be drafted with the statutory map in mind.
This article explains force majeure clauses in Turkish contract law in practical English. It focuses on the distinction between force majeure, impossibility, hardship, and delay; the role of good faith; how to draft enforceable force majeure clauses; and how such clauses are interpreted and enforced in Turkish disputes.
The Contractual Foundation: Why the Clause Matters
The first legal starting point is freedom of contract. Article 26 of the Turkish Code of Obligations allows parties to determine the content of their contract freely within legal limits. That means Turkish law generally allows parties to define force majeure events, allocate risk, regulate notice and evidence, suspend obligations, extend deadlines, or provide termination rights when extraordinary events occur. A well-drafted clause is therefore not alien to Turkish law; it is an expected use of contractual freedom.
But freedom of contract is not unlimited. Article 27 states that contracts contrary to mandatory law, morality, public order, personal rights, or involving an impossible subject matter are definitively void. For force majeure drafting, this means a clause cannot simply erase the whole statutory system or immunize a party against everything under all circumstances. Turkish law permits risk allocation, but not in a way that crosses mandatory boundaries.
The good-faith principle is also central. Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code requires everyone to act according to the rules of honesty while exercising rights and performing obligations, and it denies protection to manifest abuse of rights. In force majeure disputes, this principle influences how notice obligations, mitigation efforts, opportunistic invocation, and adaptation requests are assessed. A party that tries to use a force majeure clause as a tactical exit from an inconvenient but still manageable contract is in a weaker position than a party that invokes the clause transparently and consistently.
Force Majeure Is Not a Standalone Result Under Turkish Law
A central point in Turkish law is that “force majeure” is usually not the end of the legal analysis. It is the beginning. Once an extraordinary event occurs, Turkish law asks what legal consequence follows. Did the event make performance impossible? Did it make only part of the performance impossible? Did it merely delay performance? Or did it make performance still possible but excessively burdensome? The answer determines whether the obligation ends, is reduced, is suspended, or may be adapted by the court.
That is why a Turkish force majeure clause should never be drafted as a loose list of dramatic events with no consequence language. The clause should state what happens legally when a listed or comparable event occurs. Without that, the parties are left to the Code’s default structure, and the dispute will quickly turn into an argument over classification rather than resolution.
Impossibility: When Performance Ends
The most important statutory rule for true force majeure situations is Article 136 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. It states that if performance becomes impossible for reasons for which the debtor cannot be held responsible, the obligation ends. In reciprocal contracts, the debtor released from performance must return what it received under unjust-enrichment rules and loses the right to demand the counter-performance not yet received, unless the law or contract allocated pre-performance risk to the creditor. The debtor must also notify the creditor without delay and take necessary measures to prevent the loss from increasing; otherwise, it is liable for the resulting extra damage.
This rule is the clearest statutory home for force majeure where performance has truly become impossible. But it is narrower than many commercial parties assume. The event must produce impossibility, not just inconvenience, higher cost, or commercial unattractiveness. Turkish law does not end the obligation simply because performance became more difficult or less profitable. The impossibility must be serious enough that the obligation can no longer be performed in the legal sense contemplated by Article 136.
For drafting purposes, this means a force majeure clause should distinguish between events that terminate obligations because performance is genuinely impossible and events that merely suspend or delay performance. If the clause uses the word force majeure for both categories without separating them, the parties risk collapsing very different legal consequences into one vague formula.
Partial Impossibility: When Only Part of the Contract Fails
Article 137 addresses partial impossibility. If performance becomes partially impossible for reasons not attributable to the debtor, the debtor is released only from the impossible part. But if it is clear that the parties would not have entered into the contract had they foreseen the partial impossibility, the whole obligation ends. In reciprocal contracts, if the creditor accepts partial performance, the counter-performance is reduced proportionally; if partial performance is not accepted or the counter-performance is indivisible, the rules of total impossibility apply.
This provision is highly relevant for modern supply and infrastructure contracts. A force majeure event may block one production line, one delivery tranche, one regulatory permit, or one route, without destroying the entire contract. Turkish law is structurally capable of handling that situation, but the parties should still draft for it. A strong force majeure clause should state whether affected obligations are severable, whether the unaffected part of the contract continues, and how price, minimum quantities, or milestones adjust during partial impossibility.
Without that detail, the parties may end up litigating whether the event merely reduced performance scope or destroyed the whole contractual basis. Article 137 supplies the legal skeleton, but the clause should supply the commercial muscle.
Hardship: When Performance Is Still Possible but Excessively Burdensome
The second major statutory route is Article 138, which regulates excessive hardship in performance. It applies where an extraordinary event, not foreseen and not expected to be foreseen at the time of contract formation, arises from a cause not attributable to the debtor and changes the circumstances existing at formation so significantly that demanding performance would be contrary to the rules of honesty. The debtor must also either not yet have performed or must have performed while reserving its rights. In that case, the debtor may ask the judge to adapt the contract to the new conditions, and if adaptation is not possible, may rescind it; in continuous-performance contracts, termination is generally used instead of rescission. The article also expressly applies to foreign-currency debts.
This is one of the most important distinctions in Turkish force majeure analysis. Article 138 does not deal with impossibility. It deals with performance that remains possible but has become excessively difficult or disruptive. That makes it especially relevant for inflation shocks, exchange-rate crises, regulatory burdens, dramatic input-cost increases, and serious but non-destructive market disruptions. In such cases, a party may not be able to claim that the obligation ended, but it may still seek judicial adaptation or, if that fails, rescission or termination.
A well-drafted force majeure clause should therefore address the relationship between force majeure and hardship expressly. Some contracts treat them as separate sections, which is usually sensible under Turkish law. Force majeure can then cover impossibility and defined suspension events, while hardship covers adaptation and renegotiation where performance survives but the contractual balance is destroyed.
Delay and Default: When the Event Does Not Excuse Performance Completely
If the event does not make performance impossible and does not satisfy Article 138, the dispute may fall into ordinary default and non-performance rules. Article 112 states that if the obligation is not performed at all or is not properly performed, the debtor must compensate the creditor’s damage unless it proves absence of fault. Article 117 states that the debtor of a due obligation falls into default upon creditor notice, unless the due date was fixed jointly or through a contractual mechanism, in which case default may arise automatically when that day passes. Article 118 adds liability for delay damages unless the debtor proves no fault in the delay.
The reciprocal-contract remedies in Articles 123 to 126 then become important. The creditor may grant an additional period for performance, except in the cases listed in Article 124, and if performance still does not occur the creditor may insist on performance plus delay damages, waive performance and claim non-performance damages, or rescind the contract. In continuous-performance contracts, the creditor may terminate and seek the damage caused by premature termination.
This is why force majeure clauses should deal clearly with deadlines. If the clause merely lists events but says nothing about time extensions or suspension of delay consequences, the debtor may still face an argument that it fell into default. Turkish law does not automatically convert every disruption into an excuse from delay. The clause should state whether deadlines are extended, whether performance is suspended, when notice must be given, and when the other party may terminate if the event lasts too long.
Gross Fault, Subcontractors, and the Limits of Exclusion
A force majeure clause should not be drafted as a blanket immunity for the invoking party’s own serious fault. Article 115 states that advance agreements excluding liability for the debtor’s gross fault are definitively void. This is an important mandatory-law limit. Turkish law allows risk allocation, but it does not allow a party to hide grossly faulty conduct behind broad exculpatory language.
Subcontractor and helper risk also needs attention. Article 116 states that the debtor is generally liable for the damage caused by auxiliaries it lawfully uses in performance. That means supply-chain or subcontractor failure is not automatically externalized simply because a third party was involved. If the contract intends to treat certain third-party failures as force majeure, it should say so expressly and should do so with careful causal language.
This is one of the most common drafting gaps in Turkish and cross-border contracts. Parties list “supplier failure” or “subcontractor failure” as force majeure without explaining when that failure is truly external and extraordinary, and when it is simply part of the debtor’s own performance sphere. Turkish law makes that distinction important.
What a Good Force Majeure Clause Should Contain
A strong Turkish-law force majeure clause should begin with a definition rather than a list alone. The definition should usually require an event beyond the reasonable control of the affected party, not caused by that party, not reasonably avoidable or overcome, and actually preventing, delaying, or materially obstructing performance in the way specified by the clause. This structure tracks the logic of Articles 136 and 138 while using Article 26’s contractual freedom to give the parties clearer commercial guidance.
The clause should then include an illustrative list of events. Typical examples in Turkish-law drafting include natural disasters, earthquake, flood, war, terrorism, mobilization, civil unrest, epidemic or pandemic measures, governmental prohibitions, embargoes, export or import restrictions, sanctions, widespread utility failures, and major transport shutdowns. But the list should be read through the definition. Otherwise, parties may later argue that a listed event counts even when it did not actually prevent the relevant performance.
The clause should also state the required causal link. It should not be enough that a force majeure event existed somewhere in the background. The affected party should show that the event actually caused the non-performance, delay, or impediment relevant to the contract. This is consistent with the general Turkish-law logic that the party relying on legal consequences must prove the facts on which its right is based.
A good clause should contain a notice provision. Article 136 already requires the debtor to notify the creditor without delay when performance becomes impossible and to take steps to prevent additional loss. Even beyond impossibility, a contractual notice rule is good drafting because it preserves transparency, lets the other party react commercially, and supports later proof of good-faith conduct. The clause should specify how quickly notice must be given, what information it must contain, and whether follow-up updates are required.
The clause should also impose a mitigation duty. This aligns naturally with Article 136’s expectation that the debtor take measures to prevent the increase of loss and with the Civil Code’s good-faith principle. A force majeure clause is stronger when it shows that the affected party must use commercially reasonable efforts to overcome or minimize the impact rather than simply declare non-performance and wait.
The clause should state the contractual consequence: suspension, deadline extension, partial performance, adaptation, termination, or some combination. This is often the most important drafting element. Turkish law offers different statutory outcomes depending on classification, but the parties can and should say how they want the relationship managed during the event, as long as they stay within mandatory-law limits.
The clause should address long-stop termination. If the force majeure event continues beyond a stated period, either or both parties may want a termination right. This is especially useful in continuous-performance and long-term supply contracts, where indefinite suspension is often worse than orderly exit. Turkish law already recognizes termination logic in continuous-performance contexts, so the clause should connect commercial timing to that logic.
Finally, a well-drafted clause should deal expressly with payment obligations. Many disputes arise because one side assumes all obligations are suspended, while the other side argues that already-accrued payment obligations, milestone payments, or take-or-pay structures survive. Turkish law will not resolve this in one universal way; the contract should do so.
Events That Need Especially Careful Drafting
Certain events are often poorly handled in Turkish contracts. One is currency volatility. Article 138 expressly states that excessive hardship rules also apply to foreign-currency debts. That means exchange-rate disruption is often better addressed through a hardship or adaptation clause than through a generic force majeure list, unless the parties truly want extreme exchange events to trigger suspension or termination.
Another is change in law or regulatory action. Government prohibitions, licensing suspensions, export bans, and sanctions may fit comfortably inside a force majeure clause, but the contract should say whether they excuse performance entirely, only suspend it, or trigger renegotiation. This matters because some legal changes may make performance impossible, while others merely raise costs or delay timing.
A third is supply-chain failure. As noted above, Turkish law generally keeps the debtor responsible for auxiliaries under Article 116, so a clause that wants to treat upstream supplier collapse as force majeure should define the conditions clearly and should avoid language so broad that it looks like an attempt to escape ordinary procurement risk.
Interpretation and Enforcement in Turkish Disputes
When a force majeure dispute reaches court, Turkish law will not interpret the clause in isolation. Article 19 directs the court to look at the parties’ real and common intention, and Article 2 of the Civil Code requires rights to be exercised according to honesty. That means the clause will be read against the overall contract structure, the parties’ conduct, the seriousness of the event, and the commercial purpose of the agreement.
Evidence also matters. The Civil Code states that, unless the law provides otherwise, each party must prove the facts on which it relies. In force majeure practice, that usually means the invoking party should be prepared to show the event, its timing, its effect on performance, the absence of attributable fault, the notice it gave, and the mitigation efforts it undertook. Contracts that require documentary support, ongoing updates, and specific notice content are therefore easier to enforce.
Mediation and Court Route for Commercial Force Majeure Disputes
Enforcement is also procedural. If the dispute is a commercial case involving a claim for payment of money or compensation, Turkish law generally requires pre-suit mediation. Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code, added by Law No. 7155, makes mediation a condition of action for commercial disputes involving monetary receivables and compensation claims. Article 4 defines commercial cases broadly, and Article 5 assigns them, unless otherwise provided, to the commercial court of first instance regardless of value.
This matters for force majeure disputes because many of them are framed as payment claims, damages claims, or defenses against such claims under supply, construction, agency, distribution, logistics, or commercial sales contracts. In practice, that means the force majeure clause should be drafted not only for substantive rights, but also with an awareness that a Turkish commercial dispute may pass through mandatory mediation before it reaches the commercial court.
Conclusion
Force majeure clauses in Turkish contract law are enforceable and commercially important, but they only work well when they are drafted against the Turkish statutory structure. The key legal distinction is between impossibility under Article 136, partial impossibility under Article 137, excessive hardship under Article 138, and ordinary non-performance or default under Articles 112 and 117 to 126. Turkish law also allows broad contractual risk allocation under Article 26, but limits that freedom through mandatory-law rules, gross-fault restrictions, and the Civil Code’s good-faith principle.
The practical takeaway is simple. A good Turkish-law force majeure clause does not just list dramatic events. It defines the triggering standard, separates impossibility from hardship, requires prompt notice and mitigation, states the contractual consequences clearly, addresses partial performance and long-stop termination, and allocates payment and supply-chain risk with precision. That kind of clause is far more likely to be interpreted and enforced in the way the parties actually intended.
FAQ
Is force majeure expressly defined in the Turkish Code of Obligations?
Not in a standalone chapter. Turkish law usually analyzes force majeure through the Code’s general rules on contractual freedom, non-performance, default, impossibility, partial impossibility, and excessive hardship, together with the Civil Code’s good-faith principle.
Does force majeure automatically end the contract in Turkey?
No. If performance becomes impossible for reasons not attributable to the debtor, Article 136 provides that the obligation ends. But if performance is only partially impossible, Article 137 applies, and if performance is still possible but excessively burdensome, Article 138 may lead to adaptation or rescission/termination instead.
What is the difference between force majeure and hardship under Turkish law?
In practical Turkish-law analysis, force majeure often points to impossibility or serious prevention of performance, while hardship under Article 138 concerns extraordinary events that do not make performance impossible but make demanding it contrary to good faith because circumstances changed drastically against the debtor.
Can a force majeure clause excuse delay as well as impossibility?
Yes, but the contract should say so clearly. Otherwise, ordinary default rules may still apply under Articles 117 to 126 if performance was delayed rather than destroyed.
Can a Turkish force majeure clause exclude liability for gross fault?
No, not safely. Article 115 makes advance agreements excluding liability for gross fault definitively void.
Should a force majeure clause include notice and mitigation requirements?
Yes. Article 136 already requires prompt notice and measures to prevent additional loss where performance becomes impossible, and good-faith principles support similar requirements more broadly.
Are supplier failures automatically force majeure in Turkey?
No. Article 116 generally makes the debtor responsible for auxiliaries used in performance, so supplier or subcontractor failure should be addressed expressly and carefully in the contract if the parties want certain upstream failures treated as force majeure.
How are commercial force majeure disputes enforced in Turkey?
If the dispute is a commercial claim for payment or compensation, pre-suit mediation is generally a condition of action under Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code, and commercial cases are generally heard by the commercial court of first instance under Articles 4 and 5.
Yanıt yok