Which Court Has Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Foreign Patients?

A foreign patient who suffers injury after medical treatment in Turkey may have a valid compensation claim but still face an important preliminary question:

Which court should hear the case?

The answer is not always obvious.

A British patient may have undergone cosmetic surgery at a private hospital in Istanbul.

A German patient may have received treatment at a public university hospital in Antalya.

A Dutch patient may have contracted through a medical tourism company but undergone the actual surgery at a different private hospital.

A patient may already have returned home when the injury becomes apparent.

The contract may even contain a provision stating that disputes must be resolved in another country.

These circumstances raise several separate questions.

Is the case heard by a Consumer Court?

Should it be filed before an Administrative Court?

Can the patient sue the doctor individually?

Does the patient have to file in Istanbul because surgery took place there?

Can a foreign patient sue in Turkey even though he or she has no Turkish residence?

Does a contract selecting English, German or another foreign court prevent proceedings in Turkey?

Can a foreign patient sue in his or her home country instead?

To answer these questions correctly, Turkish law requires several different concepts to be separated.

The first is subject-matter jurisdiction — görev. This determines what type of court hears the dispute.

The second is territorial jurisdiction — yetki. This determines which geographical court in Turkey may hear the case.

The third is international jurisdiction — milletlerarası yetki. This determines whether Turkish courts have jurisdiction at all when the dispute contains a foreign element.

These questions must be answered in the correct order.

For most foreign medical tourists, the broad practical starting point is:

Private hospital or private clinic → generally Consumer Court.

State or public hospital → generally Administrative Court through a full-remedy action.

But that summary is only the beginning.

The identity of the healthcare provider, the contractual structure, the place of treatment, the defendants and the international elements must all be examined before proceedings are filed.

Why Foreign Nationality Creates an International Jurisdiction Question

When both patient and healthcare provider are Turkish and treatment takes place in Turkey, the case normally raises only domestic questions of court competence and territorial venue.

The position changes when the patient lives abroad.

A foreign patient introduces a foreign element into the dispute.

Turkey’s International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 therefore becomes relevant.

Article 40 contains the central rule:

The international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is determined by the domestic rules concerning territorial jurisdiction.

In other words, if Turkish procedural law identifies a Turkish court as territorially competent, that rule can ordinarily provide the basis for the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts as well.

This principle is extremely important in medical tourism.

A British patient does not normally lose access to Turkish courts simply because the patient lives in London.

If surgery was performed in Istanbul by an Istanbul private hospital, several Turkish territorial connections can exist.

The defendant hospital may be domiciled in Istanbul.

The medical contract may have been performed there.

The allegedly negligent act may have occurred there.

Those connections can establish Turkish international jurisdiction through MÖHUK Article 40 and the domestic jurisdiction rules.

Private Hospital Malpractice: Which Type of Court Is Competent?

Where treatment is provided by a private hospital, private clinic or private healthcare professional to a patient acting for personal purposes, the dispute commonly falls within Turkish consumer law.

Article 73 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 provides that Consumer Courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes arising from consumer transactions and practices directed toward consumers.

Healthcare treatment purchased for personal purposes can constitute such a consumer relationship.

This position can be seen directly in recent Court of Cassation medical malpractice proceedings.

For example, in Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, E. 2025/1321, K. 2025/5054, dated 22 October 2025, the malpractice dispute against a private hospital proceeded at first instance before Manavgat 2nd Civil Court of First Instance acting as a Consumer Court. The Court of Cassation examined the private hospital’s contractual duty of care and required further expert examination regarding the alleged deficiencies in patient transfer and hospital organisation.

Likewise, recent aesthetic-surgery disputes have been heard by Consumer Courts. In Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/210, K. 2025/428, a cosmetic eyelid-surgery claim against a private hospital and physician originated before Bakırköy 4th Consumer Court.

Accordingly, a foreign patient claiming compensation from a private Turkish hospital will generally begin the jurisdiction analysis with the Consumer Court system.

What If There Is No Separate Consumer Court in That Location?

Not every judicial district has a specialised court carrying the title “Consumer Court.”

That does not mean the patient has no remedy.

Where a specialised Consumer Court has not been established, the competent Civil Court of First Instance — Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi — may hear the dispute in its capacity as a Consumer Court.

Current Ministry of Trade guidance expressly distinguishes between applications to Consumer Arbitration Committees and claims to Consumer Courts, noting that where no Consumer Court exists, the Civil Court of First Instance performs that function.

Therefore, a foreign patient should focus on the legal function of the court rather than merely searching for a courthouse with “Consumer Court” written on the door.

Is the Doctor Also Sued in the Consumer Court?

Potentially, yes.

A private medical malpractice claim may involve both:

the hospital or clinic, and

the individual treating physician.

The legal basis of responsibility may differ between them, but where the dispute arises from the consumer healthcare relationship, claims against the relevant private healthcare defendants can be litigated within the consumer jurisdiction framework.

Recent Court of Cassation aesthetic-surgery cases demonstrate proceedings in which both the private hospital and the physician were defendants before the Consumer Court.

However, identifying the correct defendants should be done before filing.

A medical tourism brand, hospital company, surgeon and intermediary organisation may all be legally separate entities.

Which City’s Consumer Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction?

Once subject-matter jurisdiction has been identified, the next question is territorial jurisdiction.

There may be more than one competent court.

Article 6 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure provides the general rule:

A lawsuit may be brought before the court of the defendant’s domicile at the date the action is filed.

Accordingly, if the legal entity operating the hospital has its registered domicile in Istanbul, Istanbul may constitute a competent venue.

But this is not the only possibility.

The Place Where the Medical Contract Was Performed Can Also Be Competent

Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that contractual actions may also be filed before the court of the place where the contract is to be performed.

In a medical-treatment contract, the healthcare service is normally performed where the treatment takes place.

Therefore:

If the surgery occurred in Istanbul, Istanbul will frequently have a strong territorial connection.

If treatment occurred in Antalya, Antalya may be competent.

If a dental procedure occurred in Izmir, Izmir may be relevant.

This rule is particularly useful where the hospital company has a registered headquarters in one city but the medical procedure took place at a branch or healthcare facility in another.

The exact corporate and contractual structure should still be examined.

Tort Jurisdiction Creates Additional Options

Medical malpractice may also involve tortious liability.

Article 16 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure gives jurisdiction in tort claims to the courts of:

the place where the wrongful act occurred,

the place where the damage occurred or is likely to occur,

or the injured person’s domicile.

For medical tourists, the most important limb is usually the place where the allegedly negligent medical intervention occurred.

Suppose a German patient undergoes surgery in Istanbul and returns to Munich before permanent nerve damage is diagnosed.

Even if part of the damage becomes apparent in Germany, the allegedly wrongful medical act occurred in Istanbul.

This can independently provide a Turkish territorial and therefore international jurisdiction connection.

Can the Foreign Patient Use His or Her Home Address to Choose a Turkish Court?

This requires careful explanation.

Article 73(5) of Consumer Protection Law states that consumer actions may also be filed before the Consumer Court in the place of the consumer’s residence.

This is useful where the consumer resides in Turkey.

For example, a foreign national living permanently in Ankara who underwent surgery in Istanbul may potentially rely on Ankara as an additional consumer venue depending on the circumstances.

However, the provision does not create a “Turkish Consumer Court in London” or a “Turkish Consumer Court in Berlin.”

If the patient’s residence is outside Turkey, that domestic venue rule cannot by itself identify a Turkish court geographically located in the patient’s foreign country.

The Turkish forum will generally need to be established using another Turkish connection such as:

the defendant’s domicile,

the place where treatment was performed,

or the place of the alleged tort.

International Jurisdiction Under MÖHUK Article 40

This brings the analysis back to MÖHUK Article 40.

The statute provides that Turkish international jurisdiction follows domestic territorial jurisdiction rules.

Turkish appellate case law applies this principle by asking whether a domestic Turkish venue rule points to a Turkish court. Where such a domestic basis exists, Turkish international jurisdiction exists as well.

For a typical medical-tourism claim, the structure can therefore look like this:

The patient lives in the United Kingdom.

The defendant hospital is incorporated and domiciled in Istanbul.

Surgery occurred in Istanbul.

The alleged negligence occurred in Istanbul.

HMK Articles 6, 10 and potentially 16 therefore provide Turkish territorial connections.

Through MÖHUK Article 40, Turkish courts can have international jurisdiction.

The patient’s foreign residence does not by itself eliminate that jurisdiction.

Does MÖHUK Have a Special Consumer Jurisdiction Rule?

Yes, but it must be applied carefully in medical-tourism cases.

MÖHUK Article 45 provides a special international jurisdiction rule for consumer contracts defined in Article 26. It refers to Turkish courts connected with the consumer’s residence or habitual residence and the other party’s business establishment, residence or habitual residence.

However, Article 26 contains an important limitation.

Article 26(4) states that, except for package tours, the special consumer-contract provision does not apply to contracts where the service must necessarily be provided in a country other than the consumer’s country of habitual residence.

International medical treatment frequently has exactly that characteristic:

the patient travels from abroad specifically so that the medical service can be performed in Turkey.

For that reason, MÖHUK Article 45 should not simply be assumed to govern every medical-tourism contract.

Its relationship with Article 26 and the scope of the exclusion require proper international-private-law analysis.

Fortunately, Turkish jurisdiction usually does not depend entirely on Article 45.

In most medical-tourism disputes, MÖHUK Article 40 together with the ordinary HMK rules concerning the defendant’s domicile, contractual performance and tort provide more direct Turkish jurisdictional grounds.

Example: British Patient Undergoes Surgery in Istanbul

Consider a patient living in Manchester.

She travels to Istanbul for breast surgery at a private hospital.

After returning to the UK, she develops permanent complications and wants to sue both the hospital and surgeon.

The legal structure is likely to be:

Subject-matter jurisdiction: Consumer Court, assuming an ordinary private consumer healthcare relationship.

International jurisdiction: Turkish courts can have jurisdiction because the defendants and medical treatment are connected to Turkey.

Territorial jurisdiction: Istanbul will normally be a strong venue because the treatment and allegedly negligent intervention occurred there and the healthcare provider may also be domiciled there.

The patient does not lose access to the Turkish courts merely because she returned to the UK.

Example: Surgery in Antalya but Hospital Company Registered in Istanbul

Suppose a healthcare company has its legal headquarters in Istanbul but operates a private hospital in Antalya.

A foreign patient undergoes surgery in Antalya.

Depending on the legal structure, more than one venue rule may become relevant.

The defendant’s domicile can point toward Istanbul under HMK Article 6.

The place where the medical contract was performed can point toward Antalya under Article 10.

The place where the alleged negligent act occurred can also point toward Antalya under Article 16.

This demonstrates why a patient’s lawyer should not determine venue merely from the address appearing on a clinic’s website.

The actual legal entity and place of treatment need to be identified.

What If Several Defendants Are Sued?

A malpractice case may involve:

the hospital company,

the surgeon,

another healthcare professional,

and potentially a medical-tourism intermediary.

Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where there are several defendants, an action can generally be filed in the domicile court of one of them, subject to rules concerning common jurisdiction and improper manipulation of venue.

Where all relevant acts arose from the same medical treatment, the factual connection can often support joint litigation.

However, the claimant should not add a defendant merely to manufacture a preferred venue.

Turkish procedural law allows the court to examine such situations.

Medical Tourism Intermediaries Can Complicate the Court Analysis

A foreign patient may never have communicated directly with the hospital before travelling.

Instead, the patient may have contracted with a medical-tourism intermediary that:

advertised the treatment,

received the deposit,

arranged travel,

selected the hospital,

and coordinated communication with the surgeon.

The surgery itself may then have been performed by another legal entity.

If the claim concerns both defective intermediary services and negligent medical treatment, the court must determine the legal nature of the claims against each defendant.

Many intermediary services supplied to a patient for personal purposes can themselves form part of a consumer relationship.

But the claimant should not assume that responsibility for the hospital’s medical negligence and responsibility for an intermediary’s misleading commercial statements are legally identical.

The contracts, invoices and payment records should be examined before deciding whether defendants can and should be sued together.

Public Hospitals: Consumer Court Is Usually the Wrong Forum

The position changes fundamentally where treatment was provided as part of a public healthcare service.

Medical malpractice arising from a state hospital generally involves alleged service fault — hizmet kusuru — of the administration.

The compensation claim is therefore ordinarily pursued through administrative jurisdiction rather than as a consumer lawsuit against the state hospital physician.

The procedure is a full-remedy action — tam yargı davası.

Before the lawsuit, Article 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 requires a person harmed by administrative conduct to apply to the relevant administration within one year from learning of the conduct and in any event within five years from the conduct, seeking restoration of the right or compensation. If the request is rejected or no answer is given within 30 days, the action may then be filed within the relevant litigation period.

Therefore, filing directly in Consumer Court against a state hospital can place the entire proceeding on the wrong jurisdictional track.

Which Administrative Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction?

Article 36 of the Administrative Procedure Law contains the territorial jurisdiction rule for full-remedy actions.

Where damage arises from a public service or administrative act, the competent Administrative Court is, according to the statutory hierarchy, generally the court in the place where the service was provided or the administrative act occurred.

This produces a practical rule in public hospital malpractice.

If the allegedly negligent public healthcare service was provided in Istanbul, the competent court will ordinarily be an Istanbul Administrative Court.

If the public hospital treatment occurred in Antalya, the Antalya Administrative Court will generally be relevant.

The foreign patient’s residence abroad does not transform the case into a foreign court case.

The place where the Turkish public healthcare service was provided remains the central territorial connection.

Who Is the Defendant in a State Hospital Case?

In an ordinary public-service malpractice claim, the compensation action is generally directed against the responsible administration, rather than simply being framed as a private damages lawsuit against the individual public physician.

For a Ministry of Health hospital, the relevant administration will ordinarily be connected with the Ministry.

For a state university hospital, the responsible university administration may be the defendant.

This is another reason why identifying the legal status of the healthcare institution is critical before filing.

The name printed on the hospital building does not always reveal the correct defendant.

What About State University Hospitals?

Public university hospitals generally operate within the administrative-law framework.

A malpractice claim concerning healthcare supplied by a state university hospital will therefore normally be pursued through the administrative courts against the relevant university administration rather than through a private consumer action.

Territorial jurisdiction will generally follow Article 36 of the Administrative Procedure Law, particularly the place where the healthcare service was performed.

Vakıf University Hospitals Require Particular Caution

Foundation university hospitals are more complicated.

Turkish case law has historically produced jurisdictional disputes concerning whether particular healthcare services supplied through foundation universities belong to administrative or judicial jurisdiction.

The answer can depend on the actual institutional structure:

Is the hospital directly operated within the university’s public legal personality?

Is the healthcare service being supplied through a separate private company?

Is there a cooperation protocol with a private hospital operator?

Against which legal entity is the claim actually directed?

Earlier Conflict Court and Court of Cassation decisions have not always approached every institutional structure identically. Current legal commentary therefore correctly emphasises the need to examine the specific hospital’s corporate and administrative status rather than simply assuming that the word “foundation university” automatically determines the court.

For foreign patients, this is an area in which the provider should be legally identified before any claim is filed.

City Hospitals Should Not Automatically Be Treated as Private Hospitals

Turkey’s city hospitals may involve public-private cooperation in construction and certain support functions.

That does not necessarily mean that the medical healthcare service itself is a private consumer service.

Where the disputed treatment was supplied as a public healthcare service, administrative liability principles can remain applicable.

The contractual structure behind the hospital building should not be confused with the legal status of the actual treatment relationship.

What If the Patient Signed a Contract Saying “Only English Courts Have Jurisdiction”?

This clause requires careful analysis.

MÖHUK Article 47 regulates agreements selecting the courts of a foreign state for disputes containing a foreign element and arising from obligations.

Such an agreement can be recognised where territorial jurisdiction has not been determined on an exclusive basis and the agreement can be proved in writing.

Article 47 further provides that where a valid foreign jurisdiction agreement exists, the dispute can be heard in the otherwise competent Turkish court if the foreign court declares itself incompetent or if the defendant does not raise the jurisdiction objection before the Turkish court.

However, a medical-tourism contract should not be dismissed from Turkish jurisdiction merely because a standard form contains one sentence saying:

“All disputes shall be resolved exclusively by the courts of another country.”

The validity and scope of the clause must first be examined.

Questions include:

Was there actually a valid written jurisdiction agreement?

Does the dispute fall within it?

Is the dispute one for which jurisdiction can validly be transferred?

Do special consumer jurisdiction protections apply?

Is the clause itself enforceable against the consumer?

MÖHUK Article 47(2) expressly states that the special jurisdictions in Articles 44, 45 and 46 cannot be removed by agreement where those provisions apply.

Accordingly, the effect of a foreign jurisdiction clause should always be analysed rather than assumed.

A Choice-of-Law Clause Is Not the Same as a Choice-of-Court Clause

This distinction causes frequent confusion.

A contract may say:

“This agreement is governed by Turkish law.”

That does not necessarily mean:

“Only Turkish courts have jurisdiction.”

Likewise, a contract could theoretically choose the courts of one country while another country’s substantive law is relevant.

Applicable law and court jurisdiction are separate private-international-law questions.

Foreign patients should therefore have both clauses reviewed individually.

Can a Private Clinic Force the Patient to Use a Particular Turkish Court?

Domestic Turkish jurisdiction agreements are also subject to restrictions.

Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for jurisdiction agreements between merchants or public legal persons.

Article 18 imposes additional validity conditions.

An ordinary patient purchasing healthcare for personal purposes is generally not acting as a merchant merely by entering into a medical contract.

Accordingly, a standard consumer document stating:

“Only Istanbul courts are competent”

should not automatically be treated as a valid exclusive jurisdiction agreement simply because the patient signed it.

There may nevertheless already be an independent statutory basis for Istanbul jurisdiction if the hospital is domiciled there or treatment took place there.

The distinction matters:

jurisdiction may arise from the law, even if the contractual jurisdiction clause itself is ineffective.

Mandatory Mediation Before a Private Hospital Consumer Lawsuit

Correctly identifying the Consumer Court is not enough.

A further procedural requirement generally applies.

Article 73/A of Consumer Protection Law provides that, subject to statutory exceptions, an application to a mediator must be made before filing a case in Consumer Court.

Therefore, a foreign patient with a high-value private hospital malpractice claim will ordinarily follow this sequence:

formal case preparation,

mandatory consumer mediation,

then Consumer Court litigation if settlement is not achieved.

Filing the Consumer Court case without completing mandatory mediation where it applies can lead to a procedural dismissal.

The foreign nationality of the patient does not itself remove the mediation requirement.

Small Consumer Claims May Go to the Consumer Arbitration Committee Instead

Not every healthcare consumer dispute begins directly in court.

For 2026, disputes valued below 186,000 Turkish lira fall within the mandatory monetary jurisdiction of Consumer Arbitration Committees.

Disputes valued at 186,000 TL or more cannot be decided by those committees; the consumer must instead consider mandatory mediation and Consumer Court proceedings.

Most serious permanent injury or malpractice compensation claims will exceed that figure.

However, smaller disputes involving:

a refund,

unexpected hospital charges,

a limited dental payment,

or another low-value healthcare service

may fall within the Consumer Arbitration Committee route.

The threshold changes annually and must be checked at the time of filing.

Does Mandatory Consumer Mediation Apply to Public Hospital Cases?

No general consumer mediation requirement should be mechanically applied to an administrative full-remedy action.

A public hospital malpractice case follows the administrative procedure governed by Law No. 2577.

The crucial pre-action step is generally the Article 13 administrative application, not the Article 73/A consumer mediation procedure.

This distinction is another reason why determining the legal status of the hospital is the first procedural step.

What If the Foreign Patient Wants to Sue in His or Her Home Country Instead?

Whether a patient can sue a Turkish hospital in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands or another foreign country depends on the jurisdiction rules of that country.

Turkish law cannot determine whether an English or German court has jurisdiction under its own procedural system.

Even where a foreign court accepts the case, another practical question arises:

Where are the defendant’s assets?

If the hospital, clinic or doctor has assets in Turkey and the patient wants to enforce a foreign judgment against those Turkish assets, the foreign judgment may need to go through Turkish recognition and enforcement — tanıma ve tenfiz — procedures.

MÖHUK Article 50 provides that a final foreign civil judgment generally requires an enforcement decision from a competent Turkish court before it can be enforced in Turkey.

This can make direct proceedings in Turkey strategically attractive where:

the treatment occurred in Turkey,

the evidence is held in Turkey,

the defendants are Turkish,

and the assets to satisfy the judgment are also in Turkey.

That does not mean Turkey is always the only possible forum.

It means forum selection should be made strategically rather than emotionally.

Does the Foreign Patient Have to Travel to Turkey to File the Case?

Not necessarily.

International jurisdiction and physical attendance are separate issues.

A patient can potentially appoint a Turkish lawyer through an appropriate power of attorney while remaining abroad.

Depending on the country and formal requirements, the power of attorney may generally be executed through a Turkish consulate or an appropriate foreign notarial process followed by apostille/legalisation and Turkish translation where required.

The lawyer can then potentially:

obtain medical documentation,

commence mandatory mediation,

submit the administrative preliminary application,

file proceedings,

follow expert examinations,

and handle procedural correspondence.

The patient should not therefore allow a court deadline to expire merely because travelling back to Turkey is inconvenient.

Foreign Plaintiffs Should Also Know About Security for Costs

There is one additional international procedural rule worth knowing.

MÖHUK Article 48 states that foreign natural and legal persons bringing a lawsuit, joining proceedings or commencing enforcement in Turkey may be required to provide security for litigation and enforcement expenses and potential losses of the opposing party.

The same provision allows the court to exempt the foreign claimant from security based on reciprocity.

This is not a rule determining which court has jurisdiction.

However, it is a foreign-patient-specific procedural issue that should be considered when planning litigation.

The applicable treaty framework, reciprocity and claimant status should be checked in the individual case.

Can a Criminal Case and Compensation Case Be Heard by Different Courts?

Yes.

Medical malpractice can potentially have both civil/administrative and criminal consequences.

For example, serious negligence may lead to investigation for negligent injury or negligent homicide.

The criminal investigation is ordinarily conducted through the prosecution system and, where charges are brought, by the competent criminal court.

The compensation case may simultaneously belong to:

the Consumer Court,

or

the Administrative Court.

These proceedings serve different purposes.

A prosecutor investigating possible criminal negligence does not replace the patient’s compensation proceedings.

Likewise, filing a compensation claim does not automatically initiate a criminal prosecution.

What If the Patient Sues the Medical Malpractice Insurer?

Claims involving the healthcare provider’s insurer can introduce another jurisdictional layer.

Insurance disputes may be governed by rules different from the underlying medical consumer relationship.

MÖHUK itself contains a separate international jurisdiction provision for insurance contracts in Article 46.

The Turkish Commercial Code can also affect the subject-matter classification of insurance-related litigation.

Accordingly, a patient should not automatically assume that adding the malpractice insurer as a defendant leaves every jurisdictional issue unchanged.

The structure of the insurance claim should be separately reviewed.

Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Must Be Determined Before the Merits

A common mistake in medical malpractice litigation is beginning immediately with:

“Was the doctor negligent?”

That is obviously important.

But before a Turkish court examines medical negligence, several procedural questions may need to be resolved:

Is this an administrative or private-law dispute?

Is the court a Consumer Court or Administrative Court?

Does Turkey have international jurisdiction?

Is the selected city territorially competent?

Was mandatory mediation required?

Was a prior administrative application required?

Was the correct legal entity sued?

If these questions are answered incorrectly, an otherwise strong malpractice case can lose substantial time before the medical merits are even examined.

Practical Examples

Private Cosmetic Surgery in Istanbul

A French patient travels to Istanbul for rhinoplasty at a private hospital.

The result causes permanent functional and aesthetic problems.

The claim is likely to fall within private consumer jurisdiction.

An Istanbul Consumer Court will commonly be a competent forum because the treatment occurred there and the healthcare defendants are connected to Istanbul.

Mandatory mediation should be assessed before filing.

Private Dental Treatment in Antalya

A German patient receives extensive implant treatment in Antalya.

The dental work is defective and must be corrected in Germany.

A Consumer Court is likely to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the private healthcare dispute.

Antalya has a strong territorial basis because the contractual medical service and alleged negligence occurred there.

The patient’s German residence does not prevent Turkish international jurisdiction.

Medical Negligence in a State Hospital in Izmir

A British tourist receives emergency surgery in a state hospital in Izmir and alleges serious service fault.

This should not ordinarily be filed as a Consumer Court claim against the public physician.

The patient must assess the Article 13 prior administrative application and the full-remedy action in administrative jurisdiction.

Under Article 36, the place where the public healthcare service was provided will normally point toward the Izmir Administrative Court.

Treatment Through a Medical Tourism Agency

A Dutch patient pays a company in Istanbul for a medical package.

The operation occurs at a separate hospital in Antalya.

The patient alleges both misleading sales representations and surgical malpractice.

Before selecting the court, counsel should identify:

the legal intermediary,

the hospital operator,

the surgeon,

the entity receiving each payment,

and the contractual relationship between them.

The final venue may depend on how the interconnected claims are structured.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which court hears a medical malpractice claim against a private hospital in Turkey?

Where a patient purchased private healthcare for personal purposes, the dispute will generally fall within the Consumer Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 73 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. Recent Court of Cassation private-hospital malpractice proceedings confirm the use of Consumer Courts.

Which court hears a claim against a Turkish state hospital?

Medical malpractice claims based on public healthcare service generally proceed as full-remedy actions before the Administrative Courts after compliance with the preliminary administrative application requirements of Article 13.

Which Administrative Court is competent?

For damage arising from public service or administrative conduct, Article 36 generally points to the Administrative Court where the service was performed or the conduct occurred.

Can a foreign patient sue in Turkey even if he or she lives abroad?

Yes, potentially. MÖHUK Article 40 ties Turkish international jurisdiction to Turkish domestic territorial jurisdiction. A Turkish defendant’s domicile, the place where treatment was performed or the place of the alleged medical tort may establish Turkish jurisdiction.

Does the patient have to sue where the operation occurred?

Not always. Several venue rules can coexist. The defendant’s domicile, contractual place of performance and tort venue may point to one or more competent courts.

Can I sue in Istanbul if my surgery was in Antalya?

Possibly, for example if a properly sued defendant is domiciled in Istanbul. However, Antalya may also be competent because the contract was performed and the alleged wrongful medical act occurred there. The actual defendants and contractual structure should be reviewed.

Does Consumer Protection Law allow me to sue where I live?

Article 73(5) allows a consumer case to be filed in the Consumer Court where the consumer resides. This is particularly useful where the consumer resides in Turkey. A foreign residence does not itself create a Turkish court geographically located abroad.

Does MÖHUK Article 45 automatically apply to every medical tourist?

No. Article 45 refers to consumer contracts defined in Article 26, while Article 26(4) excludes certain contracts where the service must be provided outside the consumer’s habitual-residence country. Medical-tourism agreements therefore require a more careful Article 26/45 analysis. Turkish jurisdiction can often be established independently through Article 40 and the domestic venue rules.

Is mediation required before suing a private hospital?

Generally yes where the dispute is one heard by the Consumer Court and no statutory exception applies. Article 73/A makes mediation a condition of action for Consumer Court disputes.

Is mediation required before suing a state hospital?

The public hospital route generally follows administrative law rather than Consumer Court mediation. The critical preliminary procedure is the application to the responsible administration under Article 13 of Law No. 2577.

Can a small medical refund claim go directly to Consumer Court?

Not necessarily. For 2026, consumer disputes below 186,000 TL fall within the mandatory Consumer Arbitration Committee threshold.

What if the medical contract says only foreign courts can hear disputes?

The validity and scope of the jurisdiction clause must be examined under MÖHUK Article 47 and applicable consumer protections. A standard sentence in a clinic contract does not automatically end the Turkish jurisdiction analysis.

Can a Turkish clinic simply choose an exclusive Turkish court in its standard consumer form?

Not necessarily. Domestic jurisdiction agreements under HMK Article 17 are specifically regulated for merchants and public legal persons. An ordinary patient acting as a consumer should not automatically be treated as a merchant for this purpose.

Can I sue a Turkish hospital in my home country?

Possibly, if that country’s jurisdiction rules permit the action. Turkish law cannot determine whether a foreign court will accept jurisdiction. If the resulting foreign judgment must later be enforced against assets in Turkey, Turkish recognition and enforcement procedures may be required.

Do I have to return to Turkey to file the malpractice case?

Not necessarily. Many proceedings can potentially be initiated and followed through appropriately authorised Turkish counsel.

Conclusion: The Correct Court Depends First on the Status of the Healthcare Provider

For a foreign patient, determining the correct court in a Turkish medical malpractice case requires more than identifying the country in which the patient lives.

The most important starting question is:

Who provided the healthcare service?

If treatment was supplied by a private hospital, private clinic or private healthcare professional within a consumer relationship, the claim will generally fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court.

Consumer Protection Law Article 73 expressly gives Consumer Courts jurisdiction over disputes arising from consumer transactions. Recent Court of Cassation decisions involving private hospitals and cosmetic procedures confirm that malpractice claims against private healthcare providers are actively litigated through this court structure.

If treatment was supplied as part of a public healthcare service, the legal framework changes.

A malpractice claim arising from a state hospital or public university hospital will generally be pursued through a full-remedy action before the Administrative Court after the required prior application to the administration.

Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law imposes the preliminary administrative application, while Article 36 generally identifies the court where the relevant public service was performed as the territorially competent Administrative Court.

Once the court type has been identified, the foreign element must be considered.

MÖHUK Article 40 provides the fundamental rule that the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is determined through Turkey’s domestic territorial jurisdiction rules.

For a private medical-tourism claim, those rules commonly create several Turkish connections.

Under HMK Article 6, the defendant’s domicile can establish jurisdiction.

Under HMK Article 10, a contractual claim may also be filed at the place where the contract was performed.

Under HMK Article 16, a tort action can be filed where the wrongful act occurred or where damage occurred or may occur.

These rules explain why Turkish courts can frequently hear malpractice claims brought by patients living abroad.

A patient who underwent surgery in Istanbul does not need to become a Turkish resident before an Istanbul court can have jurisdiction.

The medical treatment itself creates a substantial Turkish connection.

Foreign patients should nevertheless be careful with generic statements about consumer international jurisdiction.

MÖHUK Article 45 does contain a special jurisdiction rule for qualifying consumer contracts, but it refers to Article 26, whose fourth paragraph excludes certain services that must necessarily be performed outside the consumer’s habitual-residence country. Medical tourism can fall into this difficult area because the patient intentionally travels to Turkey to receive treatment there.

Accordingly, Turkish international jurisdiction in a medical-tourism malpractice claim should ordinarily be analysed first through the reliable connections created by Article 40 and the HMK rules rather than assuming Article 45 automatically decides every case.

Contractual jurisdiction clauses also require careful examination.

MÖHUK Article 47 permits foreign jurisdiction agreements in certain foreign-element obligation disputes but establishes legal conditions and limits. It also protects the special jurisdiction rules in Articles 44–46 from contractual exclusion where they apply.

A sentence hidden in a clinic’s standard terms therefore should not automatically be treated as proof that the patient has lost every right to sue in Turkey.

The distinction between jurisdiction and applicable law must also be remembered.

A contract choosing Turkish law does not automatically choose Turkish courts.

A contract mentioning foreign law does not necessarily remove Turkish jurisdiction.

Each question must be analysed separately.

Private healthcare claims also normally involve one more procedural step before the Consumer Court.

Under Article 73/A, mandatory mediation is generally a condition of action for Consumer Court disputes unless a statutory exception applies.

Lower-value disputes require additional care.

For 2026, consumer disputes below 186,000 TL generally belong first before the Consumer Arbitration Committees, while higher-value claims proceed through mandatory mediation and then Consumer Court litigation where settlement is not reached.

Public-hospital cases should not follow this private consumer route.

The prior administrative application required by Article 13 and the subsequent Administrative Court proceedings constitute a different procedural system.

Finally, foreign patients should not confuse jurisdiction with the need to travel.

A person living in London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris or another foreign city may potentially appoint Turkish counsel and conduct substantial parts of the legal process from abroad.

The lawyer can identify the healthcare provider, determine the competent court, obtain the medical file, complete the necessary preliminary process and commence the malpractice claim.

For that reason, the correct sequence in an international medical malpractice case should be:

identify the exact healthcare provider,

determine whether the relationship is private or public,

identify the correct judicial branch,

establish Turkish international jurisdiction,

select the territorially competent court,

complete any mandatory mediation or administrative application,

and only then

file the compensation claim.

A patient should not simply select a court because the operation took place nearby or because the clinic’s contract names a particular city.

If you received treatment in Turkey and now live abroad, the fact that you are a foreign patient does not normally prevent Turkish courts from hearing a medical malpractice claim. The decisive questions are who provided the healthcare service, where the treatment occurred, which defendants are responsible and whether the case belongs to consumer or administrative jurisdiction.

Legal Disclaimer

This article provides general information concerning Turkish court jurisdiction in medical malpractice disputes involving foreign patients as of September 2026. It does not constitute legal advice concerning any particular case.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, international jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction can depend on the legal status of the hospital, identity of the defendants, contractual arrangements, place of treatment, consumer classification, jurisdiction clauses, medical-tourism intermediary structure and public or private nature of the healthcare service.

Foundation university hospitals, mixed public-private healthcare structures, claims against insurers and cases involving multiple defendants can require additional jurisdictional analysis.

Each foreign-patient malpractice claim should therefore be classified individually before mediation, administrative application or litigation is commenced.