Artificial intelligence is a technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human abilities such as learning, comprehension, problem-solving, decision-making, creativity, and autonomy.
Today, the use of artificial intelligence has become widespread across society, ranging from everyday tasks to the resolution of the most complex problems, and even, at the next agent stage, to the direct execution of actions.
In technical evaluation and problem-solving, setting aside issues such as hallucination and various risks, artificial intelligence has the potential to produce results that are often even more successful than those of an expert in the relevant field. This is because it is nearly impossible for a single expert to simultaneously possess all the information available within the learning model of artificial intelligence and produce a solution accordingly. For artificial intelligence to arrive at a correct solution, however, the path to be followed must be properly determined, and the source information required to reach the desired outcome must be accurately provided. This aspect is particularly significant in terms of prompt engineering.
Given that artificial intelligence has penetrated even daily tasks to such an extent and has taken on a tangible presence within society, it is beyond doubt that the law must also determine in which areas this tool should be utilized. Indeed, pursuant to the principle whose origins date back to the Magna Carta ("To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice") and which is expressed as "Justice delayed is justice denied," justice must not only be established correctly but also without delay. This principle is protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and finds its counterpart in Turkish law under Article 141, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye.
A decision rendered by the İstanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance has marked a milestone in the Turkish judiciary (see İstanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance, decision dated 15.05.2025, numbered 2023/856 E., 2025/415 K.). By explicitly stating that artificial intelligence was used as a tool during the judicial process, the Court delivered its judgment by also addressing the principles governing the context in which artificial intelligence was employed in adjudication. In this decision, the Court utilized artificial intelligence for technical evaluations falling outside the non-delegable elements of the judicial function—namely legal interpretation, the formation of conscientious conviction, and decision-making—within the framework of the Principle Decision of the Ethics Board for Public Officials of the Republic of Türkiye dated 10.09.2024 and numbered 2024/108, titled "Ethical Principles to Be Observed by Public Officials in the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems."
Background of the Case: International Recognition and Enforcement Proceedings
The case concerns a request for the recognition and enforcement in Türkiye of a judgment rendered by a Dutch court. The claimant is a Netherlands-based healthcare consultancy company which sought the enforcement in Türkiye of a decision rendered by the Amsterdam Court against a Turkish hospital company, concerning receivables that could not be collected in return for consultancy services provided for the establishment of an eye clinic in the Netherlands. The decision included a principal receivable of EUR 150,936 as well as a contractual penalty.
During the proceedings, the Court used artificial intelligence as a tool for the verification and translation of the Dutch court decisions on which the claimant relied for recognition and enforcement.
Unprecedented Transparency: The Court's Disclosure of Its Use of Artificial Intelligence
What truly renders this decision extraordinary is the unprecedented level of transparency demonstrated by the Court regarding its use of artificial intelligence. In its reasoned decision, the Court explicitly stated the following:
"As an explanation regarding the use of technological tools during the judicial process, it is noted that, in the course of preparing this decision, artificial intelligence technology was utilized as a technical tool for the verification of the decisions of the Dutch judiciary relied upon by the claimant party…"
The Court particularly emphasized that this use was carried out in accordance with the principles of procedural law and in line with the Principle Decision of the Ethics Board for Public Officials of the Republic of Türkiye dated 10.09.2024 and numbered 2024/108, titled "Ethical Principles to Be Observed by Public Officials in the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems."
Details of the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Purpose and Scope of Use
As stated in the Court's decision, artificial intelligence technology was used as a technical tool in the following areas:
- Verification of Dutch Judicial Decisions: Checking the accuracy of the Dutch court decisions relied upon by the claimant party
- Translation of Dutch Legal Texts into Turkish: Providing translation support to ensure comprehension of legal documents in a foreign language
- Access to Foreign Legal Sources: Accessing information regarding Dutch law and judicial practice
Principles Relied Upon by the Court Within the Scope of Compliance with Ethical Standards
In evaluating the use of artificial intelligence during the judicial process, the Court explicitly referred to the following principles within the framework of the Principle Decision of the Ethics Board for Public Officials of the Republic of Türkiye dated 10.09.2024 and numbered 2024/108 ("Ethical Principles to Be Observed by Public Officials in the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems"):
Legality and Adherence to Principles of Procedural Law
It was accepted that the use of artificial intelligence was compatible with procedural law principles and that its use as a technical tool for the purpose of verifying foreign court decisions did not constitute unlawfulness.
Principle of Technical Tool Nature
It was stated that utilizing artificial intelligence for access to foreign legal sources and for translation purposes constitutes a legitimate technical support tool, comparable to the use of a calculator, within the scope of the judge's duty to accurately ascertain facts and law.
Principle of Competence
It was expressed that artificial intelligence was used to support cognitive development and enhance public interest awareness; that the system was used with awareness of its potential to produce incomplete or erroneous outputs; that the conditions of use were learned in advance; and that conscious use was ensured.
Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time
It was assessed that utilizing technological tools in researching foreign judicial decisions through the official websites of foreign courts serves the right to a trial within a reasonable time and is therefore lawful.
Principle of Choosing the Most Appropriate Tool (Ethics Board Decision, Article 7)
It was stated that artificial intelligence was preferred because it constituted the most appropriate tool to resolve the issue in the specific case.
Principle of Transparency
It was emphasized that the use of artificial intelligence was explicitly disclosed; that all sources, articles, and links used were recorded; and that, in this manner, an auditable and reviewable structure suitable for appellate review was established.
Principle of Accountability
It was stated that all processes relating to the use of artificial intelligence were recorded, thereby rendering them open to judicial review, and that legal and ethical responsibility for the content used was assumed.
Principle of Integrity – Disclosure
In compliance with the obligation set forth in the Ethics Board Decision to clearly disclose the use of artificial intelligence, it was accepted that such use was explicitly stated in the reasoning of the decision.
Principle of Integrity – Originality
It was emphasized that content generated by artificial intelligence was not presented as if it had been personally created by the judge, and that artificial intelligence was used solely as a research and technical support tool.
Accuracy and Verification Obligation
It was explicitly stated that the accuracy of artificial intelligence outputs was independently verified; however, due to the inability to have the Turkish translations of Dutch legal texts certified by a sworn translator, there remained a risk of potential misunderstandings arising from translation errors. Nevertheless, it was noted that if such errors were to concretely affect the reasoning, they could be subject to legal remedies.
Principle of Confidentiality and Data Protection
It was stated that no personal data were shared during the use of artificial intelligence and that maximum care was exercised regarding the protection of personal data.
Duty of Control and Supervision
It was accepted that all data, content, and outputs generated by artificial intelligence were reviewed by the judge in terms of accuracy and reliability.
Principle of Non-Delegation of Authority
It was emphasized that artificial intelligence was not used in areas falling within the exclusive authority of the judge—such as legal interpretation, evaluation of evidence, formation of conscientious conviction, and determination of final legal conclusions—and that the final decision rested entirely within the judge's discretion.
Principle of Avoiding Decision-Making by Artificial Intelligence in Important Public Matters
As stipulated in the Ethics Board Decision, it was stated that artificial intelligence was never used as a decision-maker, but solely served a research and technical support function.
Principle of Impartiality and Objectivity
It was stated that artificial intelligence data were not used in a manner that would create bias, and that an objective analysis was conducted with due regard to public interest.
Principle of Respect for Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights
It was accepted that methods carrying a risk of plagiarism were avoided in the use of artificial intelligence and that accuracy checks were conducted to prevent misinformation.
Human-Centered Approach
It was explicitly stated that the process was conducted with an understanding that respects human dignity and welfare and human rights, and that artificial intelligence never replaced human will.
Conclusion: A New Era for the Turkish Judiciary
This decision of the İstanbul 14th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 15 May 2025 constitutes a turning point for the Turkish judiciary. The Court explicitly declared its use of artificial intelligence, while fully preserving human judgment, conscientious conviction, and decision-making processes—which form the essence of judicial authority—within the exclusive domain of the judge.
This decision represents a modern reflection of the principle that "justice delayed is justice denied." Artificial intelligence has been positioned not as a substitute for the judiciary, but as a tool that serves the establishment of justice in a faster, more effective, and higher-quality manner.
It is evident that this decision, rendered on the basis of transparency, adherence to ethical principles, and a human-centered approach, will be discussed and referenced for many years by both the Turkish judiciary and the international legal community.
