Turkey

In a globalizing world, the value of branding has been increasing day by day. In the face of the increasing value of branding, trademark registration has been of great importance in order to prevent third parties from claiming rights about your brand and to prevent third parties from using a similar or identical trademark in a way that may confuse the name or offering similar goods and services as your brand. Within the scope of this study, the trademark registration process and stages have been examined. The application process for trademark registration consists of the following stages, respectively: 1) Procedural review of the application, 2) Examination of the application within the framework of absolute grounds for refusal, 3) Appeal against the decision and the publication, 4) Examination of the opinions and objections of third parties, 5) Registration of the application Procedural Examination of the Application: The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter referred to as "The Office") shall formally examine the conformity of the application with Articles 3 and 11 of 6769 Industrial Property Code If it is determined that there are no deficiencies, the application will be considered approved on the day, time, and minute that it was received. The applicant will be given two months to correct any deficiencies in the application if there are any. Applications that still need to be corrected before the deadline will be rejected. After all, if an application is filed for goods or services that fall under more than one class and the fee-related classes are not paid within the allotted time, the application will be evaluated for the class or classes covered by the paid fee. Examination of the application within the framework of absolute grounds for refusal: The application, which is finalized after the procedural examination is completed, is subjected to an ex officio examination by the experts within the framework of the reasons as absolute grounds for refusal, taking into consideration the goods and services requested to be registered. In the presence of one of the reasons listed as absolute grounds for refusal, the application is rejected for all or part of the goods and services for which registration is requested. A trademark application that complies with the requirements for submission and is not denied for one of the absolute grounds for denial shall be published in the Official Trademark Bulletin (hereinafter referred to as “the Bulletin”). Appeal against the decision and the publication: Against the decisions of the institution, those who are harmed by the said decision may appeal in writing and with reasons within two months following the notification of the decision. Appeals against the decision submitted to the Authority shall be examined by the Re-Examination and Evaluation Department (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). As a result of the examination and evaluation, the Board shall make a final decision for the Office. The decisions of the Board shall be the final decisions of the Authority, and these decisions cannot be appealed again before the Authority. But a legal proceeding may be filed against the final decisions of the Board at the Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights within two months following the notification of the decision. 4: Examination of the opinions and oppositions of third parties Oppositions that the trademark applied for after the publication of the trademark application should not be registered within the framework of absolute and relative grounds for refusal shall be made by the relevant persons within two months from the publication of the trademark application. In the absence of opposition within the aforementioned time limit, the application shall be registered in the Trademark Register and published in the Official Trademark Bulletin. If the application is rejected entirely or partially during the first examination, the applicant has two months to file an appeal with the Office. The application in this instance needs to be reviewed in light of the appeal. If the appeal is upheld, the application will either be entirely or partially published in the Bulletin, which indicates that it may face further denial after an objection. The applicant shall be asked by the Office to provide his comments regarding the opposition within the allotted time. Upon request from the applicant, the opponent must provide proof that he used his trademark on the goods and services related to the opposition during the five years before the date of application or the date of priority of the application for which the opposition is filed, provided that the trademark, which is the basis for the opposition, has been registered for at least five years at the date of application or the date of priority of the application for which the opposition is filed. The opposition shall be rejected if the opponent is unable to substantiate the aforementioned. If it is established that the trademark, which is the basis for the opposition, has only been used for some of the goods or services that are covered by the registration,  the opposition shall be evaluated taking into account the goods or services whose use is proven. Registration of the application In the event that a complete or corrected trademark application is not objected to within the legal time limits or the objections made are definitively rejected and the required fee is paid, the application shall be registered, recorded in the registry, and published in the Bulletin. The maximum protection for a registered trademark is ten years from the date of application. This term shall be renewed for periods of ten years. In conclusion,  After a trademark application is filed, the Office examines the application in five stages.   The procedural examination is an inspection to examine the conformity of the application. If no formal deficiencies result from this examination, the Office examines the  application Within the absolute grounds for refusal framework under Article 5 of 6769 Industrial Property Code. If there are no absolute grounds for refusal, the application is published in the Bulletin After the application is published in the Bulletin, third parties may appeal within two months Following the notification of the decision. The next stage is the examination of the opinions and oppositions of third parties. If the third parties do not  object within the legal time limits or the objections are rejected definitively, the application is registered, recorded in the registry, and published in the Bulletin.  

Authors: Gizem Ak Yürek   In today's world, where economic and commercial life is built on liberal and global principles, "competition" is one of the concepts valued for ensuring the vibrancy and efficiency of economic life. While it is essential for actors in economic and commercial life to engage in "competition", limitations have also been imposed on activities aimed at competition to prevent actors from engaging in business, transactions and actions that violate the principle of good faith. In this legal brief, the matters defined as "unfair competition" in the relevant legislation and the legal actions that can be taken in cases constituting "unfair competition" are summarized and submitted for your information. What is Unfair Competition? Unfair competition is regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 ("TCO"), the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 ("TCC") and in the other legislation not addressed in this legal brief.   Unfair competition, as regulated in TCO, refers to the situation where a person faces a decrease in customers or the risk of losing customers due to the dissemination of false news, advertisements, or other behaviours contrary to the good faith.   In TCC, unfair competition is defined as “behaviours or commercial practises that are deceptive or otherwise contrary to the good faith which affect relationships between competitors or between suppliers and customers”.   While the regulation in TCO is more limited and narrow in scope; in TCC, a more detailed regulation with various provisions on unfair competition is regulated. Cases which constitute “unfair competition” are exemplified in detail, and concrete indicators for determining unfair competition are specified.   Due to the regulation of unfair competition in these 2 (two) different laws, there are various Court of Cassation decisions stating that the regulations in TCC should be taken as the basis for resolving disputes related to unfair competition among merchants, while the regulations in TCO should be taken as the basis for resolving disputes related to unfair competition among non-merchants.   However, there are also opinions arguing that the broad and comprehensive regulations in the TCC should be applied to all disputes related to "unfair competition", regardless of whether the parties are "merchants" or not.   Cases Constituting Unfair Competition   In TCC, while the definition of "unfair competition" is provided, various cases constituting unfair competition are also listed separately.   Some of the cases specified in TCC as constituting "unfair competition" are as follows:   Making false, misleading, or unnecessarily disparaging statements about third parties or their goods, activities, prices, etc. Making false or misleading statements about himself / herself / itself, his / her / its commercial enterprise, products, activities, etc. Attempting to create the impression of having "superior" abilities as if achieving success in this regard, without having received any title, diploma, or award. Taking measures or actions that lead to the confusion of third parties' goods, activities, or businesses with his / her / its own.   The cases specified in TCC are not "limited in number"; they are merely examples of unfair competition that are commonly encountered in everyday life. Therefore, even if not explicitly mentioned in TCC, actions or behaviours that are "deceptive" and/or contrary to the good faith affecting relationships between competitors and/or individuals operating in the market and customers shall constitute "unfair competition".   There are 3 (three) main criteria considered in determining unfair competition. Accordingly, for a case to constitute unfair competition:   There must be an action or activity that affects commercial life. This action or activity must be "deceptive" or “contrary to the good faith”. The related action or activity must affect the relationship between competitors or between suppliers and customers.   In this context, in various decisions of the Court of Cassation it is stated that the following cases constitute "unfair competition":   Selling bread at a price lower than the one determined by the Chambers of Bakers,   “…Considering the costs, it was deemed obligatory for the standard 250-gram white bread to be sold at 0.75 TRY as of the date of the lawsuit. However, it was acknowledged that the defendant sold bread at 0.50 TRY, which was below this price. The defendant also admitted to this fact. Based on these grounds, the lawsuit was accepted, and it was determined that the defendant's actions constituted unfair competition. Accordingly, a decision was made to ascertain the unfair competition and to cease it…”[1]   Unauthorized use of information such as "examination periods," "vaccination days," etc., belonging to a clinic or medical center,   “…It is understood that the business product related to the customer information transferred to the plaintiff company consists of qualified information such as patient names and addresses, examination periods, vaccination days, etc. As stated by the expert committee consulted, the unauthorized use of this information from the plaintiff constitutes unfair competition…”[2]   Importing and selling the originals of the products subject to an exclusive distribution agreement by purchasing them from the third countries.   “…When offering goods brought into the country entirely legally through importation for sale, the defendant must avoid presentations that would create the impression that these goods are from the manufacturer's authorized seller, distributor, or sales center. From this perspective, it can be seen that in the specific case, the defendant used the plaintiff's brand and the word "guide" in its title in a manner that would create the impression that they were in a contractual relationship such as dealership or authorized dealership with the plaintiff.   Accordingly, it is not deemed correct to dismiss the lawsuit in its current written form without considering the aspects mentioned, especially since the actions of the defendant company constitute unfair competition within the meaning of Articles 56 and 57/5 of TCC. Therefore, if the conditions for determining and preventing unfair competition exist, as well as if there are grounds for awarding compensation, the court should have ruled in favor of determining and preventing unfair competition and, if necessary, awarding compensation. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to accept the appeal of the plaintiff's attorney in this regard and to overturn the decision in favour of the plaintiff…”[3]   Within the scope of unfair competition, it should also be noted that for an action or activity to constitute "unfair competition", it is not obligatory that;   There is a “competitive relationship” between the parties; The person taking an action or engaging in an activity constituting unfair competition have gained a benefit; The person taking an action or engaging in an activity constituting unfair competition is faulty and/or; The person subjected to unfair competition have been “damaged".   If the previously mentioned 3 (three) criteria are present, the related action or activity shall constitute "unfair competition".   Legal Actions That Can Be Taken In Case Of Unfair Competition   The legal actions that can be taken by the related persons in case of unfair competition and the issues that can be requested from the relevant court in this regard are as follows:   Determination of unfair competition, Prevention of unfair competition, Reinstatement of the situation resulting from unfair competition, Material compensation, Moral compensation.   3.1.              Determination Of Unfair Competition   In TCC, the first right granted to the related persons within the scope of "unfair competition" is the right to request the determination of unfair competition from the court.   In TCC, with a special lawsuit regulated for “unfair competition” which is a spesific type of lawsuit known as “declaratory lawsuit”, the relevant persons are granted the right to request from the court the determination of whether an existing situation constitutes "unfair competition".   In this regard, it should be noted that with the relevant lawsuit, it is possible to request from the court not only the determination that a situation constitutes "unfair competition" but also the determination that it does not constitute "unfair competition".   3.2.              Prevention Of Unfair Competition   In TCC, the related persons are also granted the right to request from the court the prevention of unfair competition.   Under the scope of "prevention of unfair competition," the court can be requested to cease an action or activity that currently exists and constitutes unfair competition; or to prevent an action or activity that has the potential to cause unfair competition or is likely to recur.   3.3.              Reinstatement Of The Situation Resulting From Unfair Competition   The elimination of the situation resulting from an action or activity constituting unfair competition can be referred to as "reinstatement".   In this regard, if a situation constituting unfair competition already exists the relevant court can be requested to eliminate the situation and/or means constituting unfair competition for the purpose of removing the unfair competition.   3.4.              Material Compensation   It is also possible for persons who has suffered damage from an action or activity constituting "unfair competition" to file a lawsuit claiming "material compensation".   For material compensation to be claimed due to unfair competition:   An action or activity constituting unfair competition must exist, "Damage" must have occurred as a result of this action or activity. The person taking action or engaging in activity which constitutes unfair competition must be "faulty".   In this context, the person who has suffered damage due to unfair competition can claim material compensation proportional to the "benefit" obtained by the person taking action or engaging in activity which constitutes unfair competition.   3.5.               Moral Compensation   In TCC, it is also regulated that moral compensation can be claimed due to "unfair competition".   For real persons, issues such as "honour and dignity," "physical integrity," "privacy of private life," etc., are evaluated within the scope of "personality rights," while for legal persons, issues such as "commercial reputation," etc., are evaluated within the scope of "personality rights".   In this regard, real or legal persons who suffer damage to their "personality rights" as a result of actions or activities constituting "unfair competition" can claim moral compensation from the court.   Conclusion   In economic and commercial life, there are cases that occasionally constitute "unfair competition". These cases are extensively regulated in our legislation and the relevant persons are granted various rights in this context.   The utilization of these rights is important for preventing unfair competition between actors and mitigating potential material and/or moral damages.   If you have any questions regarding “unfair competition” and the legal actions that can be taken in this regard, feel free to contact us anytime. [1] The Decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Numbered 2017/1916 F. and 2018/7379 D., Dated 26.11.2018 [2] The Decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Numbered 2015/4798 F. and 2015/12224 D., Dated 18.11.2015 [3] The Decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Numbered 2007/10509 F. and 2008/13713 D., Dated 01.12.2008  

Authors: Serdarhan Güler New developments are occurring with the gradual prevalence of e-commerce platforms and becoming an inseparable part of life with the pandemic. In proportion to capaciousness of these developments and the number and sequence of the advertisements made by companies the interest of consumers in e-commerce is growing rapidly.  In this context, the use of e-commerce sites is expanding, not only for household goods, garments, cosmetics; but also for kitchen shopping. This intense interest of consumers has led to the formation of tech giants such as Amazon and E-bay internationally and important technology companies such as Trendyol, Çiçeksepeti, Hepsiburada, Getir in our country. Likewise, it is possible to see from the report[1] published by the Ministry of Trade that the ratio of e-commerce to general trade was 17.6% in the first six months of 2021. In this context, features of the economy are changing considerably, and we, as lawyers and legislators, have the obligation to develop rules and research the subject in accordance with the new shopping order. In the Official Gazette dated January 25, 2022, an appeal in favor of the law decision made by  the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated November 15, 2021 and numbered 2021/4000 E., 2021/11403 K., regarding the liability of intermediary service providers that enable electronic commerce due to defective goods was published. We also believe that it would be useful to examine this issue in the context of comparative law, and we hope that the information note titled "The Appearance of the Liability of Intermediary Service Providers Enabling Electronic Commerce Due to Defective Goods Under Different Legal Systems" will be useful to those concerned. First of all, it will be seen when looking at the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2021/4000E. that the defendant (the Consumer) applied to the consumer arbitration committee with the demand for refund of the fee arising from the delivery of defective goods against ÇiçekSepeti (the Claimant) and the demand was accepted, but ÇiçekSepeti demanded the annulment of the transaction, arguing that it had no hostility with the defendant because it was not a supplier. The Local Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claimant was responsible for the defective goods, that the recourse relationship with the supplier company was an internal relationship, and that the consumer was justified in relying on the ÇiçekSepeti brand. Pursuant to Law No. 6502, the Ministry of Justice demanded the appeal in favor of the law on the grounds that the seller, the producer and the importer are jointly liable for defective goods and holding the service provider, who is not one of them, responsible would be contrary to the procedure and the law. By the Court of Cassation; it has been stated that the Claimant Company, which enables e-commerce on the Internet network, is in the position of intermediary service provider and according to the preliminary information form of the distance sales contract between the parties, the seller party is stated as "Duman Pastry Shop", by Article 9 of the Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce and Article 6 of the Regulation on Service Providers and Intermediary Service Providers in Electronic Commerce, it has been stated that the lawsuit should be accepted since the Claimant is not obliged to investigate the content provided and the judgment has been appealed in favor of the law." When the judgment of the Court of Cassation above and legal regulations are investigated, it is possible to say the intermediary service providers are not liable for the defective goods delivered in e-commerce under Turkish law. However when the actions of service providers that organize such large advertising campaigns, make commitments about the reliability of the system, advertise in this direction, and provide incentives for the purchase of the products offered on their platform are examined, it is seen that these advertisements and trust play a major role in the purchases made by consumers. Considering their financial power, it is concluded that by some people believe that it would be fairer that the intermediary service providers to be held responsible. Although the reaction to new cases and situations is slow in countries with a Civil law legal system such as Turkey, in countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal system such as the United States of America, disputes are analyzed "case by case", which increases the speed with which the law keeps pace with new developments.  Furthermore, the European Union's most fundamental regulation regulating liability, the "’The Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC)", was inspired by the decisions of judges in the United States, which were enforced for many years and became established case law. In this scope, we are going to examine first the judgments given regarding this matter in the USA. In light of the above information, in the case of ‘’Oberdorf v. Amazon[2]’’ decided by the United States  Court of Appeals, briefly; a dog collar purchased by the consumer from a third-party seller is broken because of the sudden movement of the dog, and a part of the collar caused a serious, major and permanent damage by striking the left eye of the consumer, afterwards the consumer sued Amazon. Amazon, on the other hand, argued that websites provide a platform where two parties can come together and facilitate transactions, and therefore the company cannot be held liable for this damage.However, the Court stated that holding Amazon liable would stimulate Amazon to investigate the third-party sellers and ensure safety, as Amazon has significant control over third-party sellers and can remove unsafe products from its website altogether. In this context, noting that Amazon's contract with the third party included a clause on compensation that Amazon could recourse the compensation to be paid accordingly, and that Amazon could arrange a risk-based commission with third-party sellers, it was decided that Amazon is a seller and therefore subject to Pennsylvania's strict liability regime. In the case of ‘’Bolger v. Amazon.com,LLC[3]’’ which is another case, the Complaint Angela Bolger, purchased a backup laptop battery sold by Lenoga from an online shopping website operated by, the Defendant Amazon;  the Complaint alleged that Amazon was strictly liable for the defect in the batteries. The Supreme Court recognized the Complaint as right and decided that Amazon should be held liable, considering that Amazon is between the seller who is a third party and the buyer in this transaction and gives confidence to the Consumer and that Amazon can reserve its right of recourse through commercial agreements and thus can easily avoid damages. Although Amazon has been held liable for the decisions above, there have also been decisions[4] in the United States to the contrary and this issue is still up to date and continues to be debated. It wouldn’t seem possible to make a clear determination when the liability of online platform operators under the European Union Law is analyzed. However, there is no binding regulation directly on this issue in the EU Law yet. On the other hand, it is understood that Article 16 of the Discussion Draft Directive on Online Intermediary Platforms[5] prepared by the Digital Services Law Research Group and Article 20 of the Model Rules for Online Platforms ("ELI Model Rules")[6] prepared by the European Law Institute (the "ELI Model Rules") have already examined this issue.[7] First, when the Discussion Draft Directive on Online Intermediary Platforms is analyzed, according to the proposal, it would be said that an online platform operator, that prominently presents itself as an intermediary to customers and suppliers would not be liable for the supplier's failure not to perform its obligation properly under customer contracts. However, according to the proposal, the platform operator may be liable for damages arising from misleading information provided on the platform if the platform operator is informed about content that contains false information but fails to take appropriate precautions to remove or correct such content. Furthermore, if the Consumer reasonably relied on the predominant influence of the online platform on the supplier, it is possible to say that the platform administrator may be jointly liable under this Directive.Assuming the implementation of Article 20 of the ELI Model Rules, if the Customer reasonably relies on the platform operator having a dominant influence on the supplier, then the platform operator may be held liable for non-performance/defective performance of the contract between the supplier and the Customer. It can be said that this rule proposal is similar to the conditions ensured in the Oberdorf Case.[8] CONCLUSION: As a result, neither in Europe nor in the USA is there yet any clear precedent on the extent to which intermediary service providers are liable for defective performance or non-performance of goods ordered through their platforms, and if there is such  liability, whether strict liability provisions or fault-based liability provisions should be applied in terms of this liability.  When it is considered that e-commerce growing every year and is going to expand, it is possible to say that these debates are going to continue in the following years and the countries are going to develop new precedents and regulations on this issue. In this direction, these precedents and regulations are going to be decisive in terms of determining whether the protection of consumers or the protection of intermediary platforms will be emphasized. However, in terms of Turkish law, we would like to state that in the current situation, intermediary service providers are not liable for defective goods. While this issue continues to be discussed worldwide, we will continue to follow and share with you the developments on the subject. [1]https://www.eticaret.gov.tr/dnnqthgzvawtdxraybsaacxtymawm/content/FileManager/Dosyalar/ETI%CC%87CARET%20B%C3%9CLTEN%C4%B0%202021%20%C4%B0lk%206%20ay.pdf. [2] Heather R. Oberdorf and Michael A. Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-1041 (03.07.2019) [3] Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC., Super. Ct. No. 37-2017-00003009-CU-PL-CTL (13.08.2020) [4] Tomás Gabriel García-Micó, Platform Economy and Product Liability: Old Rules for New Markets, IDP Iss. 35, 2021 , s. 8 [5] Bknz. Busch, Dannemann, Schulte-Nölke, Wiewiórowska-Domagalska and Zoll (2016). Discussion Draft of a Directive on Online Intermediary Platforms. [6] Bknz. European Law Institute (2019). Model Rules on Online Platforms. [7] European Parliamentary Research Service, Liability of online platforms, Brüksel, 2021, s. 67-68. [8] Tomás Gabriel García-Micó, Platform Economy and Product Liability: Old Rules for New Markets, IDP Iss. 35, 2021, s. 18.  

Authors: Beyza Büyükağaçcı, Enis Kadıoğlu As a rule, the opportunity for foreigners to work in Turkey under someone or as self-employed is dependent on obtaining a "work permit". The type and scope of work permits are regulated by the International Labour Law (“Law”) No. 6735. According to the Law, the permission for foreigners to work in Turkey is subject to approval by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, unless otherwise stipulated in bilateral or multilateral agreements and legislation. In this paper, we will provide information regarding foreigners' applications for work permits and the related process. According to Article 6 of the relevant Law, persons who are not citizens of the Republic of Turkey are prohibited from working and being employed in Turkey without a work permit. All procedures relating to the receipt, assessment, and completion of applications for work permits, exemption from work permits, and other applications are carried out through an electronic system, and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security evaluates applications according to its discretion within the framework of international labour policy. 1-   Work Permit Application Process For foreigners to be able to apply for a work permit, firstly, an employment contract must be signed between the foreign real person and the employer. The employer or the user of the e-declaration system authorized by the employer must register the workplace with his/her electronic signature in the automation system of foreigners' work permits via e-government (e-devlet). The employer can complete the application by clicking the "Apply" menu on the system, uploading the documents after filling them out with the required information from the "Domestic Application" tab, and signing the application with his/her electronic signature. If the application is assessed positively by the Ministry, the work permit fee and valuable paper costs, which are notified to the foreigner and the employer are deposited separately in the relevant bank accounts. The employer must submit the statement of employment by applying to the Social Security Center to which it is affiliated within 30 days from the date of approval of the work permit belonging to the foreigner. 2-   Necessary Documents For Work Permit Application The Ministry of Labour and Social Security requests the following documents from the foreign real person: an employment contract, biometric photograph, passport, and diploma. Besides, the employer is requested for a tax registration certificate, trade registration gazette, balance sheet, certificate of activity, and pre-permit document. 3-   Types of Work Permit If the application for a work permit is assessed positively by the Ministry, the foreigner is granted one of the types of work permits stated in the Law in accordance with the application made under an employment or service contract. The first type of work permit is the general work permit (temporary work permit). As set out in Article 10 of the Law, a work permit of a maximum of one year is granted to a foreigner on the first application, on the condition that the foreigner will work in a precise job at a certain workplace owned by an individual or legal entity, or a public institution or organization, or at workplaces in the same sector provided that it does not exceed the duration of the employment or service contract According to Law, foreigners have the opportunity to extend their work permits starting from sixty days before the expiration of the work permit duration by applying for an extension in any case before the expiration of the current permit. If the extension application is approved, the foreigner can be granted a work permit for up to two years for the first extension application, and up to three years for subsequent applications, provided they remain employed by the same employer. Another type of employment regulated by Article 10 of the Law is a permanent work permit, which foreigners who have long-term residence permits in Turkey or have had legal work permits for at least eight years can benefit. Such foreigners obtain privileged foreigner status. Foreigners with permanent work permits can benefit from all the rights provided by long-term residence permits. Additionally, except for regulations in special laws, they can enjoy the rights granted to Turkish citizens, subject to the provisions of the relevant legislation regarding social security rights, while preserving acquired rights. However, foreigners with permanent work permits do not have the right to vote, to be elected, to enter public service, or to fulfill military service obligations. In conclusion; As a rule, foreigners are obligated to obtain permission from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in order to be able to work under someone or as self-employed in Turkey. All procedures relating to the receipt, assessment, and completion of applications for work permits and exemptions from work permits are carried out through an electronic system. If the application for a work permit is assessed positively by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the foreigner is granted one of the above-mentioned types of work permit in accordance with the application made under the employment or service contract.