What this guide covers

Topic-specific conditions and document preparation.

A short questionnaire explains which records may matter and produces a document checklist. It does not assess eligibility or predict a case outcome.

Documents discussed in this guide
  • Signed contract, covenant and agreed annexes
  • Working arrangements and allegedly protected information records
  • Duration, territory, work type and any counter-performance records
  • Termination notice and supporting reasons
  • New-project scope and demand correspondence
  • Payment order, claim/injunction and service records

Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

A clause stating that an actor may not work with another producer for two years after leaving is not enforceable in every situation merely because it appears in the agreement. Equally, believing the contract has ended does not establish that every obligation has disappeared. First identify the working relationship, the period covered and the interest protected. Personal acting ability, protectable information learned from an employer and a production’s confidential material raise different legal issues.

1. Distinguish the continuing contract from the period after it ends

Work on another project during filming, scheduling conflicts, advertising-category exclusivity and loyalty during employment differ from the post-contract restriction addressed here. Article 396 of the Turkish Code of Obligations regulates disloyal third-party service and competition during employment. Articles 444–447 concern an agreed non-compete applying after the employment contract ends. Provisions bearing the same heading may concern different periods.

Whether an actor works as a dependent employee or under an independent arrangement is not determined by the agreement’s title alone. Instructions, working arrangements, supervision, payment and actual performance require examination together. The employee-specific two-year measure cannot automatically be imported into independent acting, contracts for work or management arrangements; contractual terms and the limits in Articles 26–27 require separate assessment. Being an actor does not itself settle the governing regime.

2. Is a written clause sufficient?

For employment relationships, Article 444 requires a written undertaking and capacity to act. In addition, the relationship must give access to clientele, production secrets or information about the employer’s operations, and use of that information must be capable of causing significant harm to the employer. General professional knowledge available across productions must be distinguished from protectable information acquired from the particular employer. Signature does not replace these substantive requirements.

An actor’s reputation, acting skill or experience developed over years is not by itself the producer’s secret. Unannounced operational information may, however, require separate examination. Signing with another producer should not automatically be treated as breach without considering which information might be used and how. Conversely, a different project name does not itself eliminate the possibility of competition.

3. How can an older judgment inform an actor’s review?

The Ninth Civil Chamber’s judgment dated 28 March 2013, E.2010/25792, K.2013/10539 concerned a technical-service employee, not an actor. The Chamber reversed after examining the writing requirement and rules contained in a subsequently notified internal regulation. Its reasoning also distinguished competition based on personal capability and experience from the risk arising through use of the employer’s information.

It would be inaccurate to report this as a ruling that actors cannot be subject to non-competes. The facts belonged to the former Code of Obligations period; present assessment proceeds under Articles 444–447. The useful points are to distinguish skill and experience from business-specific information and to examine the text actually signed. The involvement of a labour court in that case does not settle present jurisdiction for post-employment non-compete disputes.

4. Two years does not validate every restriction

Article 445 requires appropriate limits concerning place, time and type of work, without unfairly jeopardising the worker’s economic future. The duration may not exceed two years except in special circumstances. A two-year term therefore does not itself establish validity: territory, type of work, competitive field and the employer’s protectable interest must be examined together. The court may restrict an excessive covenant’s scope or duration; total invalidity is not the automatic result in every case.

Expressions covering every producer, medium or country should be compared with the actual business field. Any counter-performance undertaken by the producer also matters under Article 445. Signing a standard form does not remove the need to examine scope. Before accepting another project, review of the complete contract and annexes is more useful than reassurance based on a single sentence.

5. Ending the restriction differs from confidentiality

Under Article 447, the restriction ends where the employer no longer has a genuine interest in maintaining it. It also ends where the employer terminates without just cause or the employee terminates for a reason attributable to the employer. The actual reason and supporting records matter alongside who terminated. Not every resignation, payment dispute or contractual ending automatically produces that result.

Even if the non-compete is invalid or has ended, disclosure of a confidential script, unauthorised use of recordings or confidentiality duties may require separate assessment. Article 396 preserves secrecy after the relationship to the extent necessary to protect legitimate interests. Defending the freedom to work in another production does not create a right to give the former production’s documents to the new party. Gather evidence for review without unnecessarily disseminating personal information or trade secrets.

6. Where payment or cessation is demanded

Article 446 governs damages and any contractual penalty following breach of a valid covenant. Release from the non-compete by paying the penalty depends on the absence of a contrary contractual provision; excess loss may also arise. A demand to cease the prohibited activity requires examination of an express written reservation and the statutory interest/conduct conditions. Avoid assuming either that paying the penalty always permits the new project or that the employer can seek a penalty only.

Obtain the demand, contractual clause, actual scope of the new project, termination notice and service records together. An objection to a payment order in ordinary non-judgment enforcement has seven days from service; this differs from a response period stated in a demand. A claim form, interim injunction or other decision requires its own deadline check. The guide does not determine an individual last day or grant permission to join a new production.

7. Current jurisdiction, mediation and limitation

The Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Judgments held on 13 June 2025, E.2023/1, K.2025/3 that commercial courts have jurisdiction over actions for breach of non-compete obligations under Articles 444–447. The ruling appeared in Official Gazette No. 33015 of 12 September 2025. It cannot automatically be extended to loyalty breaches during employment, independent contracts, remuneration or intellectual-property claims; identify the basis of the dispute first.

Check Article 5/A for commercial monetary, compensation, negative-declaratory or objection-annulment proceedings. Territorial jurisdiction engages Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and, for contractual claims, Article 10, together with any valid jurisdiction clause. An employee actor cannot simply be presumed a trader to enforce every jurisdiction clause. The covenant’s duration is not litigation limitation. Absent a shorter applicable rule, consider the general ten years in Article 146 and maturity under Article 149, while verifying the particular claim’s nature. The one year for objection-annulment proceedings is separate, starting upon service of the objection on the creditor.

Sources

General information; individual documents, facts and procedures need separate review.

All guides · Türkçe · Return to article

An actor’s post-contract non-compete: review guide

Answer the topic-specific questions, select your records, then view your tailored preparation summary and office-branded PDF.