NON-COMPETE CLAUSES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TURKISH LABOR LAW

By NAZALI_SocialMakale
Çağatay ŞENOCAK Managing AttorneyDoğa KARATOSUN Trainee Lawyer

ABSTRACT Non-compete agreements are contracts that impose serious financial obligations, which, although accepted within legal limits due to restricting the employee’s freedom to work in their professional life following the termination of the employment contract, must be carefully evaluated by both the regulating and accepting parties. Non-compete agreements, which have special regulations under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, may also be limited at the discretion of the judge. This article examines non-compete clauses and the limits of such prohibitions in terms of their general characteristics.

Keywords: Non-Compete Clause, Employee, Employer, Penalty Clause, Non-Compete Agreement.

INTRODUCTION In Turkish labor law, non-compete clauses constitute an important regulation imposing certain restrictions on employees with the aim of protecting the employer’s commercial interests. The purpose of this prohibition is to ensure that the employee refrains from competing with their former employer in the same field following the termination of the employment contract. However, in order not to excessively restrict the employee’s freedom, the boundaries of this prohibition have been drawn based on specific conditions and legal frameworks. This article will address the general framework of non-compete clauses in Turkish labor law, the conditions for their applicability, and their role in the legal relationships between employee and employer.

• Competition and Non-Compete Clause The concept of competition has been defined in Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition. According to the relevant Law, competition is defined as the rivalry that enables enterprises in goods and services markets to make economic decisions freely. In Turkish Law, competition is protected through various regulations. The protection of competition is important both in terms of individual and social interests. In this context, competition creates an obligation for individuals, businesses, and the state to establish a fair competitive environment in the markets. The provision in Article 48 of the Constitution stating “Everyone has the freedom to work and contract in any field they wish” emphasizes that competition is simultaneously a right. A non-compete clause refers to a prohibition on engaging in activities in a specific subject and field. Although competition is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, in certain circumstances the exercise of this right may be limited and prohibited.¹ Non-compete clauses, particularly in labor law, constitute a regulation aimed at preventing the misuse of confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships obtained by the employer in the employment relationship. Essentially, it is the avoidance of competition by the employee with their former employer either during the continuation of the employment contract or following its termination. The employee, within the framework of the duty of loyalty towards their employer, is obliged not to carry out certain activities even after the termination of the employment contract. This regulation is explicitly stated in Article 396 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and expresses that the employee must not disclose trade secrets learned during the employment relationship. However, with the non-compete clause contained in the employment contract, the employee is obliged to fulfill not only the duty of loyalty but also the obligation not to compete with the employer. This type of non-compete clause prohibits the employee from competing with the employer’s activities for a certain period after leaving the job.² A non-compete clause expresses the employee’s obligation not to compete with their former employer following the termination of the employment contract. Article 396 of the Turkish Code of Obligations imposes a duty of loyalty on the employee, and within the scope of this duty, it is stated that the employee must not disclose the employer’s trade secrets and customer information. This obligation may continue even after the termination of the employment contract. For a non-compete clause to be valid, a written contract is required, and the employee enters into an obligation not to compete with the employer in the same sector or geographical region for a certain period under this contract. A non-compete clause should not excessively restrict the employee’s freedom to work while protecting the employer’s commercial interests. This regulation is considered a critical measure to protect the employer’s confidential information and competitive advantages. However, for the validity of this prohibition, the employee must be clearly informed and the agreement must be made transparently. The fact that the non-compete clause is limited only to provisions in favor of the employee is subject to significant supervision by the legislator in order not to endanger the employee’s economic future. In this way, while the employer’s interests are protected, the employee’s rights are also taken into consideration.

• Interests Protected by Non-Compete Clauses In Turkish labor law, non-compete agreements aim to protect the employer’s legitimate interests while being regulated with certain limits in order to ensure the balance between the employee’s freedom to work and the economic market. In this context, there are three fundamental interests intended to be protected by non-compete clauses: the employer’s legitimate interest, the employee’s freedom to work, and the protection of the economic market. First, the employer’s interest is the primary purpose of the non-compete clause. The employer wishes to protect their trade secrets, customer portfolio, production methods, and strategic information such as know-how. Such information constitutes elements that determine the employer’s competitive power, and non-compete clauses are resorted to in order to prevent such information from being used by competitors. Additionally, the protection of the employer’s R&D investments is also an important justification for this prohibition. Thanks to the non-compete clause, the employer’s intangible assets and business processes are protected, thus ensuring the continuity of commercial activities.³ Second, the employee’s freedom to work is also an interest that must be protected. Non-compete clauses may limit employees’ rights to find employment and work within the framework of a free market economy. Considering the freedom to work right specified in the Constitution, the aim is to protect the employee from excessive and arbitrary non-compete clauses. Prevention of prohibitions applied in a manner that would endanger the employee’s economic future is ensured through legal supervision.⁴ Therefore, the limits of the non-compete clause are kept limited to the duration of the employee’s employment relationship and the workplace where they worked. Finally, the protection of the economic market also emerges as another important purpose of non-compete clauses. Competition is a fundamental element for the healthy functioning of a free market economy, and preventing employees from competing enables products and services to be offered to consumers at higher quality and more affordable prices. The non-compete clause allows the economic market to function in accordance with honesty rules and ensures market balance in a manner that will increase the general welfare of society.⁵ By establishing a balance among these three interests, the legal limits of non-compete clauses have been determined, and the rights of each party have been intended to be protected. In order to protect the employer’s commercial interests, not impose excessive restrictions on the employee’s freedom to work, and ensure the regular functioning of the economic market, limitations have been introduced through imperative provisions in non-compete agreements. Thus, in Turkish labor law, it is ensured that non-compete clauses are applied while maintaining a fair balance between the parties.

• Non-Competition Within the Scope of Employment Contract and Non-Competition Agreements Within the scope of Turkish labor law, the employee’s obligation not to compete is evaluated under separate regulations both during the continuation of the employment contract and following the termination of the contract. The source of the employee’s obligation not to compete, for the duration of the contract’s existence, is the duty of loyalty that the employee holds towards the employer. For the period following the termination of the employment contract, however, a non-compete clause becomes possible only through a written agreement or a provision placed in the employment contract.⁶ During the employment contract, the employee is obliged to refrain from activities constituting competition with the employer as a requirement of the duty of loyalty. Within this scope, the employee cannot open a business competing with the employer on their own behalf, cannot work in another business competing with the employer, or cannot enter into a partnership relationship with competing companies.⁷ After the employment contract terminates, however, the non-compete obligation has been regulated in a limited and clear manner since it may give rise to consequences restricting the employee’s economic future. Article 444 of the Turkish Code of Obligations has listed the activities subject to non-compete clauses through an exemplification method, and opening a competing business on the employee’s own behalf, working in a competing business, or entering into other types of benefit relationships with a competing business have been included within the scope of the non-compete clause.⁸ The Employee Opening a Competing Business on Their Own Behalf: The employee opening a competing business on their own name and account constitutes direct competition and is prohibited. Here, not only acting directly on their own account but also the employee acting on another’s account but in their own name should be considered as a violation of the prohibition. Such a situation is interpreted as circumvention of the prohibition, and the judge should make an assessment that the non-compete clause has been violated according to the characteristics of the concrete case.⁹ The Employee Working in a Competing Business: The situation of the employee working in a competing business after the employment contract terminates is a frequently encountered form of violation. The concept of “working” should not be limited only to employment contracts but should be interpreted broadly to cover all activities that could benefit the employer, such as agency, consultancy.¹⁰ However, assistance provided for a short period as a favor falls outside this prohibition; here, the duration of the activity, the compensation situation, and the impact on the former employer’s business should be used as evaluation criteria.¹¹ The Employee Entering into Other Types of Benefit Relationships with a Competing Business: Within this scope, what is important is the possibility of the employee being able to influence the activities of the competing business directly or indirectly. Activities such as sharing in profits and losses, coming to a position in the company where trade secrets can be used, financially supporting the company, or providing consultancy on technical matters are evaluated within the scope of violation of the prohibition.¹² This issue has also been addressed in Court of Cassation precedents. The employee working in a competing company found in the former employer’s customer portfolio has been evaluated as a non-compete clause violation, and the direct impact of this situation on the employer’s economic interests has been emphasized.¹³ The Employee Being a Partner or Related to a Competing Enterprise in Another Capacity: Being a partner in a competing business or being related in another capacity means violation of the prohibition in situations where the business’s activities can be influenced. Merely owning shares in the business does not fall within the scope of the non-compete clause; however, if the shareholding creates a situation of influencing the company’s management, it falls within the scope of the prohibition.¹⁴ Additionally, the employee providing consultancy through technical knowledge transfer or know-how agreements is also prohibited within this scope.¹⁵ In summary, non-compete agreements should not excessively restrict the employee’s freedom to work while protecting the employer’s commercial interests; the prohibition must be regulated in a clear, specific, and proportionate manner. In line with these principles, the scope of the prohibition must be determined and interpreted.

• Validity Conditions Within the scope of Turkish labor law, non-competition agreements arranged to prevent competition with the former employer while the employment relationship continues and after the employment contract terminates carry the aim of both protecting the employer’s economic interests and securing the employee’s freedom to work. The validity of these agreements has been subject to certain conditions by the legislator. While the employment relationship continues, the non-compete clause is an obligation arising from the employee’s duty of loyalty and accepted as a direct part of the employment contract. During this period, the employee cannot engage in competition in the fields where the employer operates on their own name or on behalf of third parties; otherwise, the employer may terminate the employment contract for just cause and demand compensation for damages incurred (TCO Art.396/3). For the non-compete clause after the employment contract terminates, however, a separate non-competition agreement must be made. For this agreement to be valid, it must first be made in written form (Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) Art.444/1). The formality requirement is ordinary written form, and the parties’ obligations and the scope of the agreement must be clearly specified.¹⁶ For the non-compete agreement to be valid, it is required that the employee possesses legal capacity; the employee must have the power of discernment at the time of the contract, be of age, and not be under guardianship.¹⁷ Another important condition for validity is that the non-compete agreement places the employee in a position where they could cause significant damage to the employer by using the customer environment acquired during the employment relationship, the employer’s production secrets, or information regarding the nature of the work (TCO Art.444/2). According to Court of Cassation decisions, it is not necessary for the damage to have occurred; the probability of occurrence is sufficient.¹⁸ The employee’s job description and position in the enterprise play a critical role in this evaluation. The non-compete agreement must not unfairly restrict the employee’s economic future; it must be reasonable and proportionate in terms of scope, duration, and geographical limits (TCO Art.445). Generally, the duration of the prohibition should not exceed two years and should be limited to a specific geographical region.¹⁹ The Court of Cassation emphasizes that the duration and geographical limit of the non-compete clause should be determined according to the characteristics of the concrete case and sector conditions.²⁰ The employee’s working life before the contract, professional knowledge accumulation, and future job-finding opportunities should also be taken into account when evaluating the proportionality of the prohibition. Within this scope, the employee’s ability to perform similar jobs elsewhere using their previous experience and competencies should not be restricted; otherwise, the contract is considered disproportionate and deemed invalid.²¹ Additionally, appropriate economic benefit may need to be provided to the employee in return for the non-compete clause. This is particularly the case when the prohibition is long or broad in scope. If no consideration is given to the employee, the probability of the contract being deemed invalid increases. If the employment contract is invalid, the non-compete agreement also generally becomes invalid. The reason for this is the necessity of a valid employment relationship existing at the foundation of the non-compete agreement. Therefore, if the employment contract is void from the beginning, the non-compete agreement also loses its validity.²²

• Limitation of Non-Compete Clauses Non-compete agreements restrict the employee’s freedom to work and contract protected by the Constitution and simultaneously affect their economic future. Due to the existence of the employer’s interest requiring protection, the necessities of competition prohibitions should not restrict the employee’s interests disproportionately and unnecessarily. Undoubtedly, while the parties may determine the conditions regarding the non-compete clause through freedom of contract, due to the employee’s position against the employer and the limited negotiation opportunity, TCO Art.445 has introduced regulations in the nature of upper limits of the non-compete clause.

∘ In Terms of Duration Non-compete agreements that give employers the opportunity to intervene in the subsequent working lives of employees whose employment relationship has terminated may cause the economic ruin of the employee if not limited in terms of duration. At the same time, an understanding of non-compete clauses that will be considered valid with long periods, besides preventing the right to work, will also be contrary to equity.²³ In the Code of Obligations No. 818, no duration limit was regulated in non-compete agreements, but nevertheless, a duration limit regarding non-compete clauses was attempted to be introduced through judicial decisions.²⁴ According to Article 445/I of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, the non-compete clause shall not exceed two years except in special circumstances and conditions. In doctrine, it is discussed that even the two-year period specified in the law may be reduced according to the situation of the concrete case.²⁵ Additionally, it should be noted that for situations exceeding the two-year period, the law provides that non-compete clause regulation is possible in special circumstances and conditions. However, there is no clear expression in the law regarding what should be understood by special circumstances and conditions. In case of dispute, it will be necessary for the judiciary to use its discretion regarding what constitutes special circumstances and conditions. Indeed, in doctrine, it is also discussed that for senior executives, a non-compete clause regulation for a period exceeding two years may be required according to the concrete situation. Nevertheless, it must be stated that this situation is of an exceptional nature and that the conditions regarding special circumstances and conditions must be proven by the person advancing this claim.

∘ In Terms of Location Limiting the non-compete clause in terms of location means preventing work geographically. It is not possible to accept that there is an interest worthy of protection outside the area and region where the employer operates.²⁶ While the area to be indicated as a limit in terms of location varies according to the employer’s field of activity and the nature of the work being conducted, it would be appropriate to set limits as determinable areas such as region, province, district.²⁷ At this point, it is necessary to evaluate the limitation in terms of location not merely as writing the name of the geographical region but in terms of whether it is of a nature that does not restrict the employee’s interest. Indeed, the Court of Cassation has not accepted the place where the non-compete clause will be valid being indicated as “Republic of Turkey” and has accepted this regulation as an excessive non-compete clause.²⁸ However, the Court of Cassation exceptionally accepts that determining the non-compete clause with a country limit for foreign employees who spend most of their working life abroad is possible.²⁹ In doctrine, there are views that in cases where the employer’s activity exceeds the country limit and the field of activity is at an international level, the non-compete clause may also be made outside the country limit.³⁰

∘ In Terms of Subject Matter The activity that may be prohibited by the non-compete clause must be a field of work falling within the employer’s field of business in terms of subject matter.³¹ Otherwise, it cannot be accepted that the employer has an interest in signing a non-compete agreement. In cases where the employer has multiple fields of business, it should not be forgotten that prohibiting the employee from all fields of activity in an indefinite manner would again mean the employee’s freedom to work being disproportionately restricted.³²

• The Judge’s Discretionary Power Regarding Limits in Non-Compete Clauses In case of behavior contrary to the limitations set forth in TCO Art.445, it cannot be directly stated that the non-compete clause is invalid. Since according to TCO Art. 445/2 “The judge may limit the non-compete clause that is excessive in nature, by freely evaluating all circumstances and conditions and also taking into account the counter-performance that the employer may have undertaken in a manner appropriate to equity, in terms of scope or duration.” It must be expressed that the paragraph regulating the judge’s discretionary power has been introduced regarding excessive non-compete clauses, and it is not possible for violations of the general characteristics of the non-compete clause to be completed through judicial intervention. Again, in practice, the judiciary reducing the penal amount agreed upon in the non-compete clause is also a frequently encountered situation.

• Violation of Non-Compete Clauses The first of the sanctions for violation regulated in TCO Art. 446 is the compensation of the employer’s damage. At the point where the employer proves that the employee has acted contrary to the non-compete clause and damage has occurred as a result, they will have the right to demand compensation for the damage incurred.³³ It must be expressed that at points where proof of damage is not possible or is difficult, the employer may also demand the penalty clause if present in the contract according to TCO Art. 446/2. At this point, for the penalty clause to be demandable by the employer, proof of behavior contrary to the non-compete clause is sufficient, and any proof of damage is not important. Provisions regarding excessive benefit concerning the penalty clause may be reduced at the judge’s discretion according to TCO Art.182/3. Another route the employer may resort to in case of violation of the non-compete clause is the right to demand cessation of the behavior contrary to the prohibition according to TCO Art.446/3.³⁴

• Termination of Non-Compete Agreements Since agreements regarding non-compete clauses are, by their nature, contracts subject to general provisions within the meaning of the TCO, they may terminate according to general contract termination provisions. At this point, it is accepted that the non-compete clause terminates in cases of the employer waiving the contract, the expiration of the contract period, or the parties terminating the contract through their mutual wills. Additionally, due to its specific nature, Article 447 of the TCO regulates special termination situations of non-compete agreements. According to the relevant regulation, it has been regulated that the non-compete agreement will also terminate in cases where the employer no longer has a real benefit in maintaining this prohibition or the employment contract is terminated by the employer without a just cause or by the employee for a reason attributable to the employer.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, in Turkish labor law, the non-compete clause is both a sensitive balance mechanism protecting the employer’s legitimate commercial interests and considering the employee’s constitutional freedom to work. The purpose of this prohibition, framed by the principles of written form, duration, geographical limit, and proportionality in terms of subject matter, is to ensure that both parties are protected in a manner appropriate to equity even after the employee-employer relationship terminates. As revealed in the article, non-compete agreements should secure the employer’s confidential information, customer environment, and competitive advantage while also limiting the employee’s economic future in a reasonable manner. Disproportionate or vague prohibitions may be narrowed through judicial intervention; when the employer’s interest worthy of protection no longer remains, the prohibition itself may terminate automatically. Thus, the non-compete clause transforms into a functional legal institution that balances the rights and interests of the parties and contributes to the free market functioning in accordance with the rule of honesty.

  1. DEMİR A., Legal Terms Dictionary, Ankara, Astana Publications, 2017, p. 963.
  2. SÜZEK S., “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations”, İÜHFM, Vol. LXXII, No. 2, 2014, p. 457-468.
  3. ALTAY S., Non-Compete Agreement Made Between Employee and Employer According to the Provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, MÜHF Law Research Journal Vol.14 No.3 2008 p.171; BAŞKAN Ş. Esra, “Non-Compete Agreement Within the Framework of the Provisions of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098”, Hacettepe University Faculty of Law Journal, No.2(2), (2012), p. 117.
  4. UŞAN, M. F., Protection of Trade Secrets in Labor Law, Ankara, 2003, p.235 (Trade Secret)
  5. YENİSEY K., ‘The Employee’s Obligation to Keep Commercial Secrets Confidential After Contract’, Tribute to Prof. Dr. Devrim Ulucan, Istanbul: Legal Bookstore, 2008, p.404.
  6. SÜZEK, S “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations, p.457-467
  7. MOLLAMAHMUTOĞLU, Hamdi/ASTARLI, Muhittin/ BAYSAL, Ulaş Labor Law Textbook, Volume 1: Individual Labor Law, Ankara Revised 3rd Edition, 2012, p.368; UŞAN, M. F., Protection of Trade Secrets in Labor Law, Ankara, 2003, p.45. (Trade Secret)
  8. SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.29 (Non-Compete)
  9. ALTAY, S., Non-Compete Agreement Made Between Employee and Employer According to the Provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, MÜHF Law Research Journal Volume:14 Number:3, Istanbul, 2008, p.194; UŞAN, M. F., Protection of Trade Secrets in Labor Law, Ankara, 2003, p.235 (Trade Secret); DOĞAN S., Employee’s Non-Compete Clause-Protection of Trade Secrets, Expanded 2nd Edition, Ankara, 2019, p.134).
  10. SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.32 (Non-Compete); UŞAN, M. F., Protection of Trade Secrets in Labor Law, Ankara, 2003, p.235 (Trade Secret)
  11. SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.32 (Non-Compete)
  12. ALTAY, S., Non-Compete Agreement Made Between Employee and Employer According to the Provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, MÜHF Law Research Journal Volume:14 Number:3, Istanbul, 2008, p.196
  13. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, 13.10.2011, 40014/37170 (Online), https://www.sinerjimevzuat.com.tr, 20.08.2016.
  14. DOĞAN S., Employee’s Non-Compete Clause-Protection of Trade Secrets, Expanded 2nd Edition, Ankara 2019. p.24; SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.29-31 (Non-Compete); ALTAY, S., Non-Compete Agreement Made Between Employee and Employer According to the Provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, MÜHF Law Research Journal Volume:14 Number:3, Istanbul, 2008, p.195
  15. SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.19-20, p.32 (Non-Compete); UŞAN, M. F., Protection of Trade Secrets in Labor Law, Ankara, 2003, p.255, (Trade Secret)
  16. SÜZEK, S., “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations”, İÜHFM, Vol. LXXII, No. 2, 2014, p.457-468
  17. TUNCAY, A. Can, “Validity Conditions of Non-Compete Agreement (On a Court of Cassation Decision)”, Tribute to Prof. Dr. Turhan Esener Volume 1, İKÜHFD Special Issue, Vol.15, No.11, Ankara, 2016, p.483 (Non-Compete); SOYER, M. P., Non-Compete Agreement, Ankara, 1994, p.44 (Non-Compete)
  18. Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, 04.10.2018, 2016/14678 E., 2018/6032 K.
  19. SULU, Muhammed, “Non-Compete Agreements”, MÜHF – HAD, Vol.22, No.2, Istanbul, 2016, p.583; SÜZEK, S., “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations”, İÜHFM, Vol. LXXII, No. 2, 2014, p.460
  20. Court of Cassation 11th CD. 30.03.2016, E.2015/8396, K.2016/3470, www.lexpera.com, access date:09.01.2020. In the same direction see Court of Cassation 11th CD. 22.02.2016, E.2015/7354, K.2016/1838, www.lexpera.com, access date:09.01.2020. In a recent local court decision, however, “…the non-compete clause in the contract does not impose a limitation on the employee (defendant) in terms of location. As a rule, the non-compete agreement must be established in a manner limited to a certain geographical area. Here, the aim is not to endanger the employee’s economic future. However, the sanction for the non-compete agreement not containing a limitation in terms of location is not that the contract is deemed invalid. By virtue of the authority granted to the Judge with TCO Art.445/2, instead of such clauses being deemed invalid, it is possible for them to be applied in a limited manner. Both workplaces where the defendant worked are within the same provincial boundaries. … even though the non-compete agreement does not contain a limitation in terms of location, it is not found appropriate according to the rule of honesty regulated in TMK Art.2 for the defendant who has worked in two workplaces this close to each other to claim the invalidity of the non-compete agreement on the grounds that there is no limitation in terms of location in the contract.” With this rationale, it has been ruled that the relevant non-compete agreement is valid. See Istanbul Anadolu 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance, 26.09.2019, E.2015/1091 K.2019/978, www.lexpera.com, access date:15.08.2020. Compare Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 28th Civil Chamber, 08.02.2018, E.2017/2046, K.2018/192, www.lexpera.com, access date:17.08.2020.
  21. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, 28.03.2013, 2010/25792 E., 2013/10539 K.
  22. SÜZEK S., “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations”, p.465
  23. ÇELİK, N. CANİKLİOĞLU, N. CANBOLAT, T. ÖZKARACA, E. Labor Law Lectures. p. 330.
  24. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E: 2009/1286, K: 2011/3918, T: 18.2.2011 “Regarding duration, a non-compete clause may be foreseen in a manner not exceeding one or a few years at most. Otherwise, it may cause economic ruin for the employee.”
  25. EKMEKÇİ, Ö. YİĞİT, E.. Individual Labor Law, Updated 5th Edition, Istanbul, Oniki Levha Publications, 2023, p.397
  26. ÇELİK, N. CANİKLİOĞLU, N. CANBOLAT, T. ÖZKARACA, E., op.cit, p. 329
  27. EKMEKÇİ, Ö. YİĞİT, E. op.cit, p. 397; ÇELİK, N. CANİKLİOĞLU, N. CANBOLAT, T. ÖZKARACA, E.op.cit p.. 329; TAŞKENT, S., KABAKCI, M., Non-Compete Agreement. Sicil Labor Law Journal, 2009, 16 p.31
  28. Court of Cassation 11th CD. D. 03.12.2020, E. 2019/2082, K. 2020/5672; Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E: 1999/8262, K: 1999/12073, D: 06.7.1999 kazanci.com.tr A.D. 21.04.2025
  29. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E: 2011/20759, K: 2013/19695, D: 26.6.2013 (kazanci.com.tr A.D. 21.04.2025
  30. ÖKTEM S. “Non-Compete Agreement”, Maltepe University Faculty of Law Journal, p.167-195
  31. ÇELİK, N. CANİKLİOĞLU, N. CANBOLAT, T. ÖZKARACA, E. op.cit,, p. 331
  32. ÇELİK, N. CANİKLİOĞLU, N. CANBOLAT, T. ÖZKARACA, E. op.cit, p. 331;
  33. EKMEKÇİ, Ö. YİĞİT, E.. op.cit, p. 402
  34. SÜZEK, S., “The Employee’s Obligation Not to Compete Within the Framework of the New Turkish Code of Obligations” p. 358