Frequently Asked Questions

The head office of our firm is located in İzmir. However, through our cooperating lawyers we provide our services throughout Türkiye, in particular in cities such as İstanbul, İzmir, Ankara and Antalya. This allows us to deliver our services nationwide without interruption.

The services listed on the website represent the focus areas and practice areas of our firm. If you require information on other legal services, please contact us directly.

Every document submitted in a foreign language must be translated into Turkish. In this matter, our sworn translators in our office will be pleased to assist you.

Following a consultation with our firm, you will be asked to issue a power of attorney covering the legal proceedings to be pursued by our firm. In Türkiye, save in the case of consultancy services, it is not possible to instruct a lawyer without issuing an official power of attorney.

In Türkiye

If the power of attorney is drawn up in Türkiye, a visit to a notary is required. Turkish nationals can have a power of attorney drawn up at the notary by presenting their identity card or their “Mavi Kart” (the Turkish residence-rights identity card).

For foreign clients, it is necessary to attend the notary with the passport. The passport must first be translated into Turkish, after which the power of attorney is drawn up in the presence of a sworn translator.

Please do not forget to contact our firm before commencing these steps. We will be pleased to assist you.

Abroad

Turkish nationals or holders of a “Mavi Kart” living abroad can have a power of attorney drawn up either directly through the Turkish consulates or before a notary abroad followed by an apostille.

Foreign clients must have the power of attorney drawn up by a notary in their home country. After our firm has provided a bilingual template of the power of attorney, the document must first be signed before a notary. The notary certifies both the document and the signature. After the power of attorney has been notarised, an apostille certification must be obtained. This apostille is issued by the competent state authority of the country in which the power of attorney was signed. Powers of attorney from abroad without an apostille have no validity in Türkiye and cannot be submitted to courts or other authorities.

Please do not forget to contact our firm before commencing these steps. We will be pleased to assist you.

Save in cases where you must make a statement before the court as a defendant, your personal attendance at court hearings is not required. Your lawyer will represent you. However, it is possible that the Institute of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp Kurumu) may summon you for an examination in connection with your injury or disability (please see the following question and answer).

Before legal proceedings begin and during their course, you will be asked to submit up-to-date medical certificates and all medical documents relating to your state of health. Some courts and the Institute of Forensic Medicine (Adli Tıp) regard these documents as sufficient. Sometimes it is enough to have certain examinations carried out at hospitals in your country and to send us the results. In some cases, however, the court or the Institute of Forensic Medicine may summon you to Türkiye for examination.

Here too we will assist you organisationally.

Yes. If your loss arose in Euros, bringing a case in Türkiye does not mean you are obliged to claim your compensation in Turkish Lira.

Under the principle of actual loss adopted by the Yargıtay (Turkish Court of Cassation), the aim is to compensate the injured party’s real economic loss. Therefore, your loss of earnings obtained in Euros in Germany, or the treatment, care, rehabilitation and similar expenses you had to incur in Euros, can be taken into account in calculating the compensation.

In short, the fact that the incident occurred in Türkiye does not mean you must give up the loss that arose in Euros. What matters is that your actual loss is properly documented and claimed.

You can execute a power of attorney without travelling to Türkiye.

Turkish citizens and Blue Card holders can obtain a power of attorney from the Turkish Consulates in Germany. Persons who have renounced Turkish citizenship and do not hold a Blue Card, as well as foreign nationals, must execute their power of attorney before a notary in the country where they reside.

The content of the power of attorney may vary depending on the type of file, and certain actions may require special authority. For this reason, before starting work we send you a draft power of attorney suited to your file and explain step by step which actions are required.

In most cases, no. After your power of attorney is executed, we follow your legal process in Türkiye on your behalf and represent you at the hearings.

However, there may be exceptions. In particular, where a person must be heard in person in certain criminal proceedings, or where the court requires a medical examination in personal-injury and compensation files, you may need to come to Türkiye.

All other cases, hearings, correspondence and official procedures are conducted by us under the power of attorney, so you do not need to travel to Türkiye for every step.

If a matter requiring your personal attendance arises, we inform you in advance and plan your trip to Türkiye solely for the step that is genuinely necessary.

No. The first consultation with our firm and the preliminary assessment of your file are free of charge.

Especially after an accident, a faulty medical intervention or another injury, it is not always easy at the outset to know whether a person actually has a right to compensation, and in which country and by which legal route they may proceed.

For this reason, in the first stage we listen to your case, assess your existing documents and inform you about the legal routes available in Türkiye.

If it is decided to take on your file, you are clearly informed, before any action is taken, about the subsequent process, the necessary power of attorney, possible costs and any legal-expenses insurance options.

In most cases it can. However, this requires an assessment of your insurance policy and the scope of the dispute that has arisen.

Caner Law Firm’s experience in files connected with Germany goes back to 1992. The firm’s founder, Attorney Mustafa Ülkü Caner, has been dealing with legal disputes between Germany and Türkiye for over thirty years and has extensive experience with German legal-expenses insurers and with processes conducted with law firms in Germany.

Therefore, if you have legal-expenses insurance, it is enough to tell us so at the first consultation. Depending on the nature of the file, we guide you in assessing the scope of cover and carrying out the necessary steps.

No. The fact that you signed numerous documents before the operation, or that a long list of complications is written on the form, does not by itself remove the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic.

What matters here is not merely the question “Did you sign?”. The real question is: were the significant risks that could befall you genuinely explained to you in a way you could understand, and did you decide to have the operation knowing this information?

Ask yourself a simple question:

“If I had known this was a real risk that could happen to me, would I still have had this operation?”

If your answer is “No, I would not have if I had known”, then it must be examined whether the documents you were made to sign genuinely provided adequate information.

Because informed consent does not consist of placing pages of documents before the patient a few minutes before the operation and obtaining a signature. The patient must be able to decide understanding the nature of the intervention, its significant risks, possible complications, alternatives and consequences.

For example, if the doctor or clinic now tells you “This complication can occur in these operations anyway”, the following question becomes important: was this risk explained to you before the operation clearly enough to affect your decision?

Moreover, even if the patient has accepted the known medical risks, they are not deemed to have accepted the doctor’s faulty practice, careless conduct or the mismanagement of a complication that arises.

Therefore, an explanation such as “You signed the form, you waived all your rights” is not legally sufficient on its own. The content of the signed documents, when and under what circumstances they were signed, and how the patient was genuinely informed must be assessed on the facts of the specific case.

The fact that a risk is a medically known complication does not mean the patient did not need to be told about it before the operation.

On the contrary, the patient must be informed before the intervention, especially about significant risks that could affect their decision whether or not to have the operation.

Here you can ask yourself the following question:

“If the doctor had clearly told me before the operation that the outcome I am now experiencing could genuinely happen to me, would I still have accepted the operation?”

If your answer is “No”, then whether the information given was adequate must be examined separately.

The doctor, hospital or clinic saying “These things happen” after the complication has arisen does not replace the information that was owed before the operation.

Moreover, the examination is not limited to the information given. Whether the outcome was truly an unavoidable complication, and whether it was noticed in time and correctly managed after it arose, is also assessed separately.

In short, the sentence “This is a known complication” is not the end of the file but often the beginning of the examination.

Yes, you can. And to be able to claim compensation for aesthetic operations, a classic “medical error” need not be present in every case.

Certain medical interventions carried out purely for aesthetic purposes may, under Turkish law, be assessed not only as treatment activity but within legal relationships in which the achievement of a particular result is undertaken. Therefore, the failure to achieve the promised or agreed aesthetic result may, depending on the circumstances of the specific case, give rise to the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic.

For example, where marked asymmetry, deformation, unexpected distortion, an obvious aesthetic defect or an appearance significantly different from the agreed result arises after the operation, the defence “the operation was carried out in accordance with the medical rules” may not remove liability in every case.

That said, not every unsatisfactory result automatically gives rise to a right to compensation. The purpose of the intervention, the result agreed or promised before the operation, the patient’s condition, the medical records, photographs, information and consent documents, and the result that arose must be assessed together by professionals.

If the conditions for liability are met, a revision operation and other treatment costs, loss of earnings, permanent bodily harm and non-pecuniary damages may be claimed from the doctor, hospital or clinic.

Yes, it may be possible. In aesthetic operations, the dispute is not always limited only to whether the doctor made a technical error during the operation.

Especially in interventions carried out purely for aesthetic purposes, where a particular aesthetic result is undertaken, the fact that the operation was performed in accordance with medical technique may not be sufficient on its own. Whether the result agreed with or promised to the patient was achieved may also be significant for legal liability.

Therefore, the assessment “there is no medical error in the operation” does not mean “you have no right to compensation”. Pre-operation photographs, WhatsApp and e-mail correspondence with the doctor or clinic, advertising and promotions, records of consultations, consent documents, post-operation images and medical reports must be assessed together.

In disputes arising from aesthetic operations, it is therefore important to carry out a legal examination not only from a medical standpoint but also as to what result the doctor, hospital or clinic undertook towards the patient.

No. Describing an outcome as a “complication” does not mean the doctor, hospital or clinic are automatically released from liability.

The occurrence of a risk accepted as a medical complication may in some cases be unavoidable. However, the legal assessment does not end here. First, it must be examined whether the patient was adequately and understandably informed about this risk before the operation, and whether the complication was noticed in time and correctly managed after it arose.

For example, if the late detection of a complication that initially arose unavoidably, the failure to carry out necessary examinations, a delay in intervention or the failure to apply appropriate treatment caused the harm to worsen, liability may again come into question.

Especially in aesthetic operations, the nature of the intervention and the result promised to the patient must also be assessed.

The word “complication” is therefore not a legal answer on its own. The medical records and the incident must be examined both medically and legally.

Yes. The fact that you signed a consent form before the operation does not mean the doctor, hospital or clinic are exempt in advance from liability for any outcome.

For valid informed consent, it is not enough merely to give the patient a standard document to sign. The patient must have been informed, in a way they can understand, about the intervention to be carried out, the significant risks, the likely outcomes and the appropriate alternatives.

Moreover, the patient’s acceptance of certain risks does not mean they have accepted faulty medical practice. A patient may accept certain risks that can arise even where an operation is properly performed; they are not deemed to have consented in advance to the doctor’s or the institution’s careless or faulty practice.

In a dispute, therefore, regard must be had not only to whether your signature appears at the bottom of the form, but also to what information was actually given to you, when and how.

No. The fact that the first operation was performed in Türkiye does not mean that the revision operation required to remedy the harm must also necessarily be performed in Türkiye or by the same doctor, hospital or clinic.

Especially after a faulty or unsuccessful intervention, it is understandable that the patient loses trust in the same doctor or health institution. In addition, it may be necessary for medical and practical reasons for a patient living in Germany to continue treatment in their country of residence.

If the revision operation is medically necessary to remedy the harm that has arisen, the reasonable treatment and operation costs to be incurred in Germany may also, depending on the circumstances of the specific case, be claimed within the scope of compensation.

The clinic’s offer “We will correct it free of charge, come back to Türkiye” therefore does not mean an offer the patient is obliged to accept or one that prevents a loss of rights.

Yes. The fact that the revision operation has not yet been performed does not mean this cost cannot be claimed.

The treatment and revision costs that will be necessary in the future to remedy the consequences of a faulty or unsuccessful medical intervention may also be the subject of assessment within the scope of bodily harm.

What matters here is that the revision operation is necessary. For while in aesthetic operations the main motive driving a person to have the operation is the desire to become more attractive, in treatment contracts it is the hope of recovery. Accordingly, after an unsuccessful aesthetic operation or treatment, the expenses to be incurred for correction or recovery may be claimed to the extent the conditions are met.

Yes. Doctor’s reports, medical findings, discharge summaries, imaging results and treatment documents issued in Germany can be extremely important for the legal process to be conducted in Türkiye.

In particular, if the person returned to Germany immediately after the operation performed in Türkiye and the complication or faulty result was detected by the doctors in Germany, these records can show the development of the harm and the subsequent treatment process.

That said, a foreign doctor’s assessment that “there is malpractice” is not, on its own, a final decision binding on the Turkish court. Where necessary, an expert examination may additionally be carried out in Türkiye.

For this reason, it is important to keep all medical records, photographs, examinations and doctors’ assessments from Germany.

Being unable to access your medical records is not an insurmountable obstacle to pursuing your rights.

For the patient, records such as the operation report, discharge summary, examinations, images, prescriptions, anaesthesia records and consent and information documents are among the most important pieces of evidence in a possible dispute over medical practice.

For this reason, when the possibility of a dispute arises, it is important to preserve the medical file and other evidence as early as possible. Because these are specially protected data, a special authority is required in the power of attorney, and this is taken into account by our firm.

In addition, the photographs, WhatsApp and e-mail correspondence, payment documents, prescriptions and records relating to treatment continuing in Germany that the patient holds also play an important role in clarifying the events.

One should therefore not give up pursuing one’s rights with the thought “They won’t release my file, I can’t prove anything”.

Yes, they can. Especially in aesthetic operations, written and digital communication can become extremely important in determining what result was promised to the patient before the operation.

WhatsApp conversations with the doctor or clinic, e-mails, sample photographs sent to the patient, pre-operation drawings and simulations, and promotional and informational content connected with the specific case are significant in the legal assessment.

For example, if a particular appearance or result was expressly promised to the patient before the operation, but a significantly different result arose after the operation, these communication records may become important in determining the legal relationship and the undertaking between the parties.

For this reason, when a dispute arises, it is important not to delete the correspondence and, where possible, to preserve it in full together with date and sender information.

Yes; where the conditions are met, the loss of earnings arising in Germany is also part of the compensation claim.

If, because of the faulty medical intervention in Türkiye, the patient cannot work after returning to Germany, their working capacity is reduced, or they can no longer carry on their profession as before, an economic loss may arise.

The fact that the patient works in Germany rather than in Türkiye does not result in the loss being disregarded. The patient’s actual economic situation, income, the period of incapacity, their profession and any permanent loss of working capacity must be assessed on the basis of concrete documents.

Pay slips, employer certificates, tax and income records and incapacity-for-work certificates issued in Germany are therefore important.

In addition to the temporary loss of earnings, where the person’s future working and earning capacity is affected due to a permanent bodily harm, future economic losses may also arise separately.

Yes. The fact that a person can continue to work does not mean they have no right to compensation for permanent bodily harm.

If, as a result of the faulty medical intervention, a permanent scar, asymmetry, deformation, loss of sensation, loss of function or other permanent effects have arisen, their consequences for the person’s life and working capacity must be assessed separately.

In particular, the fact that a person continues their profession with the same income does not, on its own, show that there is no harm where, because of the bodily harm, they now perform their daily and professional activities with greater effort. This is a misconception we encounter very often. In fact, a person is entitled to compensation even if, after the harmful procedure, they continue their work with the same income or have no income at all.

Furthermore, the effects of a permanent impairment of the aesthetic appearance on the person’s social and personal life, and its non-pecuniary consequences, are a separate matter of compensation.

Yes. The harm of a medical intervention is not limited to the physical consequences in the operated area.

Especially after aesthetic interventions that directly affect the appearance of the face, breast, hair, teeth or body, the permanent deformations that arise can seriously affect the person’s self-confidence, social life, private life and psychological state.

If psychological or psychiatric treatment was required after the faulty intervention, these treatment costs and the other harm that has arisen may be assessed within the scope of the specific case. The severity of the physical and psychological process experienced may also be significant in assessing non-pecuniary damages.

For this reason, psychologist or psychiatrist records, the medication used, the duration of treatment and the changes in the person’s daily life may also be important parts of the harm file.

Yes. If the breathing function is impaired after a nose operation carried out for aesthetic purposes, not only an aesthetic but also a functional harm may arise.

If, after the rhinoplasty, collapse of the nose, serious asymmetry, septum problems, narrowing of the airway or difficulty breathing have arisen, the planning and performance of the operation, the pre-existing condition before the operation and the post-operation follow-up process must be examined together.

In particular, if the patient could breathe normally before the operation and began to experience a permanent respiratory problem after it, the resulting loss of function must be assessed separately.

Where the conditions are met, in addition to a revision operation and other treatment costs, temporary or permanent losses of working capacity and non-pecuniary damages may also be among the claims that can be asserted against the doctor, hospital or clinic.

For this reason, a problem experienced after rhinoplasty should not be assessed merely as “My nose did not turn out as I wanted”; aesthetic and functional harm must be examined separately.

Yes. If, after breast augmentation, reduction or lift operations, a marked asymmetry, displacement of the implant, deformation or an aesthetically unacceptable result arises, the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic may come into question.

In the assessment, regard must be had not only to whether there is a medical error, but also to the planning of the operation, the method used, the patient’s anatomical condition before the operation, the result promised to them, the follow-up process and the patient’s satisfaction.

If, to correct the result that has arisen, removal or replacement of the implants, a further breast lift or another revision operation is required, the costs of these procedures may also be assessed within the scope of compensation, to the extent the conditions are met.

In addition, permanent scars and deformations and the effects on the person’s social, private and psychological life are also significant in the assessment of compensation.

You may. In operations such as tummy tuck and liposuction, which directly aim to change the aesthetic appearance, the result that arises must be assessed together with the result agreed before the operation and reasonably to be expected.

Where there are marked depressions, irregular contours, serious asymmetry, unexpected deformations or scars of a kind that cannot be regarded as ordinary, the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic may come into question.

An important point here is also that the patient was kept waiting for a long time after the operation with the words “It will improve over time.” When the problem was noticed, how the doctor or clinic responded to the patient’s complaints and whether the necessary intervention was carried out in time must also be examined separately.

If new operations or treatments are required for correction, their costs and the other material and non-pecuniary harm that has arisen may also be assessed within the scope of compensation.

Yes, depending on the circumstances of the specific case it may be possible. Because the hair transplant is carried out for aesthetic purposes, what result was promised to the patient before the operation is particularly important.

If the transplanted hair does not grow to a significant extent, an unnatural hairline or one different from what was agreed is created, permanent harm arises in the donor area, or marked scars or other aesthetic defects appear, the procedure must be examined professionally.

Who carried out the procedure is also important. The fact that some stages of the hair transplant were performed by persons other than the doctor must be assessed separately in terms of the institution’s organisation and the lawfulness of the procedure.

Advertisements before the operation, the promised number of grafts, photographs, WhatsApp conversations and payment records may be among the important pieces of evidence in such disputes.

Yes. If, because the implant, veneer, crown, bridge or other dental treatments carried out in Türkiye are faulty, re-treatment becomes necessary in Germany, the costs of the corrective treatment may, where the conditions are met, be claimed from the responsible doctor, hospital or clinic. In addition, it is possible to claim the expenses and payments you made in Türkiye as well.

For example, incorrect positioning of implants, functional bite problems, constant pain, infection, the unusability of the veneers made, or the need to remove and redo existing work may cause significant harm.

The report of the dentist in Germany explaining why the existing work must be changed, together with X-rays and imaging and the treatment plan to be prepared, are important pieces of evidence in this respect.

If the patient no longer trusts the doctor or clinic that carried out the faulty treatment, they cannot be said to be obliged to accept the offer “Come back to Türkiye, we will redo it free of charge.”

The extent of the harm that has arisen and of the necessary corrective treatment must be assessed on the facts of the specific case.

Not in every case. The failure of an implant may be due to various medical causes; however, explaining the outcome merely as “your body did not accept it” is not sufficient for a legal assessment.

Whether the necessary examinations and imaging were carried out before the implant, the suitability of the patient’s bone structure, the correct positioning of the implant, the material used, infection control and the post-treatment follow-up must be assessed together.

Even if the situation that arose is truly an unavoidable complication, it is also important whether the patient was sufficiently informed about this risk in advance and whether the complication was appropriately managed after it arose.

The loss of the implant therefore does not, on its own, show that the doctor was at fault, nor does the explanation “the implant did not take, there is nothing to be done” on its own remove the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic.

A leak or infection after a gastric sleeve operation may be among the medically known risks. However, the fact that a risk is a known complication does not mean the doctor, hospital or clinic will not be liable under any circumstances. For if, had you known this risk, it makes you say “I would not have had this operation”, it is often possible to say that the patient was not informed and that liability therefore comes into question. Accordingly, in such situations always ask whether there are gaps where the doctor tells you “these things happen” but you say “yet had I known this, I would not have had the procedure”. Indeed, in almost all processes where you think this way, it is possible to say that the management of the process was not correct.

First, it must be examined whether the operation was carried out in accordance with medical standards. In addition, whether the complication was noticed in time, whether the patient’s complaints were taken into account, whether the necessary examinations were carried out in time and whether the appropriate intervention was delayed is of great importance.

For example, a complication that initially arose unavoidably may, because of late diagnosis or inadequate intervention, turn into a much more serious harm. In such a case, legal liability may arise separately.

Therefore, it is not correct to close the file by saying “a leak is a known complication”. The hospital records, the operation documents and the management of the complication must be examined by experts.

Yes, it could. The fact that an operation was completed successfully does not mean the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic ends at the door of the operating theatre.

The patient’s clinical condition after the operation must be appropriately monitored, and the discharge decision must be taken having regard to the existing findings.

If, before the patient was discharged, there were signs suggesting serious pain, fever, abnormal laboratory values, bleeding, infection or another complication, and the necessary assessments were not carried out, the harm arising or worsening because of the early discharge may give rise to legal liability.

Likewise, whether the patient was sufficiently told, after discharge, at which signs they must urgently apply to a health institution must also be assessed.

For this reason, the fact that the operation was technically performed correctly, and that a flight clearance was given, does not remove possible errors in the post-operation follow-up and discharge process.

The fact that the complication or harm arises after leaving Türkiye does not, on its own, remove the liability of the doctor, hospital or clinic.

Some medical harm shows symptoms immediately after the operation, while others may be noticed after days, weeks or even longer. What matters is establishing whether there is a causal link between the harm that has arisen and the medical intervention carried out in Türkiye.

For this reason, the records of the hospitals you attended after returning to Germany, doctors’ reports, laboratory results, imaging and the treatments applied are extremely important.

In addition, the WhatsApp and e-mail correspondence you had with the doctor or clinic in Türkiye after the complication arose should also be kept.

However, since the limitation and application periods applicable in medical disputes may vary according to the legal nature of the case, it is important to have the file assessed without delay after the harm is noticed.