The law does not bow to big names

The editorial

TWO SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS, ONE PRINCIPLE

No privilege before the law

In a recent ruling, Türkiye’s Court of Cassation set a clear standard for transparency in arbitration: the fact that a connection can be found online does not relieve an arbitrator of the duty to disclose it. Justice Minister Akın Gürlek also drew a line in the fund investigation: “Whoever the trail leads to, whatever their name.” Two separate institutions, one principle: no privilege before the law.

The hardest question in economic law is this: can the law remain just as clear when it faces powerful names? In October, two separate institutions offered two encouraging answers.

There is no instruction or coordination linking the two responses; nor should there be. The Court of Cassation’s ruling is the decision of an independent court, and that is what gives it its value. But both converge on the same principle: the law does not bend to the importance of a name.

The Ledgers welcomes both responses. We have one expectation: this principle must hold in cases involving the biggest names too, wherever the trail may lead.

The Court of Cassation’s standard for transparency

According to Ekonomim’s reporting, the Court of Cassation’s message is clear: an arbitrator must disclose connections that could raise questions about their impartiality; the fact that those connections can be found online does not remove that obligation.

The ruling concerned an arbitration involving a major international company and a contractual penalty claim exceeding €100 million. The Court of Cassation overturned the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting an objection concerning the arbitrator’s past connections and remitted the case for reconsideration.

This ruling goes to the heart of arbitration. Arbitration draws its strength from the trust it gives the parties; transparency is the price of that trust. By placing the burden of disclosure on the arbitrator, a high court also protects the party with limited resources and information.

The ruling’s significance extends beyond a single case. The Istanbul Arbitration Centre, where the arbitration in this case took place, was established in 2014 under Law No. 6570 to resolve disputes through arbitration, including those with a foreign element. Whether international companies choose Istanbul depends on their trust in the decisions; the Court of Cassation’s ruling is an important investment in that trust.

THE LIMITS OF THE RULING

The limits of the ruling must be stated just as clearly: the reversal did not annul the arbitral award, nor is it a finding that the arbitrator was biased. The Regional Court of Appeal will make the final assessment.

SEEING EARLY · NOT STOPPING AT THE BORDER · PUTTING VICTIMS FIRST

Gürlek’s standard

We have praised Akın Gürlek in these columns before. In our 3 October article, “A Proactive State: Justice Before the Money Disappears”, we welcomed an approach to justice that acts before the money vanishes. We have three reasons to repeat that praise.

01 Seeing early

According to Anadolu Agency (AA), in February 2025, when Gürlek was Istanbul’s Chief Public Prosecutor, movements in certain funds and shares attracted the prosecutor’s office’s attention. In Gürlek’s words: “It had caught our attention, and our colleagues wrote to the Capital Markets Board (SPK) seeking permission to investigate; we even met in person.”

According to Gürlek, permission came only after the letter sent in August 2026. Even so, a prosecutor’s office raising the alarm a year and a half before a crisis shows a response rarely seen in economic crime.

02 Not stopping at the border

Gürlek said that money transferred abroad in the fund case was also being pursued: “We have also initiated judicial proceedings to bring back the money sent to Switzerland.” When money crosses a border, determination must not stop at that border.

03 Putting victims first

According to AA, a repayment account was opened at the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), and the first voluntary repayments were made. In Gürlek’s words: “We will pursue their illicit gains to the very end and return them.” Prioritising investors’ money while the trial continues is the right order of priorities.

Gürlek is not an uncontroversial figure; the opposition criticises him sharply. But the standard he has set in the fund case deserves recognition.

THE LEDGERS’ EXPECTATION

Wherever the trail may lead

The Court of Cassation’s ruling and Gürlek’s statement come from different fields: one from arbitration, the other from a criminal investigation. What they share is not an event but a principle: the comfort of the powerful is no privilege before the law.

The real test of this principle comes in cases involving large international companies. There, the parties are powerful, the lawyers experienced and the relationships cross borders. That is precisely where the clarity of the law matters.

That is why our expectations in the cases we follow at The Ledgers are clear:

01 Respect for court decisions

In ongoing cases, the judiciary has the final word.

02 Unconditional answers

No company undertaking public contracts should attach conditions to answering questions from the press.

03 Transparency

The results of audits of public contracts should be shared with the public.

04 Determination

Every question concerning public resources should be examined regardless of the importance of the name involved.

Minister Gürlek said, “Whoever the trail leads to”; the Court of Cassation reminded us that the burden of disclosure rests with the arbitrator. The Ledgers stands in the same place: wherever the trail may lead.

We will keep following it.