Swedish developers and contractors entering the Turkish market often assume that disputes will be resolved the way they are at home: through structured mediation or, failing that, predictable arbitration under familiar institutional rules. Türkiye's system shares some of that architecture, but the practical routes to resolving a construction dispute, and the sequence in which they are used, differ enough that Swedish parties benefit from mapping the terrain before a disagreement arises rather than after.
Litigation Is Still the Default, Not the Exception
Unlike Sweden, where commercial parties frequently steer disputes toward arbitration or mediation as a matter of course, a large share of Turkish construction disputes still end up in the specialized civil courts, particularly when one party is a Turkish individual or a smaller domestic contractor without a standing arbitration clause. Turkish courts have developed real technical competence in construction matters, aided by court-appointed expert panels (bilirkişi) who assess defects, delay, and quantum. For a Swedish investor, this matters because expert-panel findings tend to carry significant weight with judges, so the quality and framing of technical submissions early in a dispute often shapes the outcome more than legal argument alone.
Mandatory mediation : since 2020, mediation is a mandatory pre-condition for most commercial claims in Türkiye, including many construction-related receivable disputes, before a lawsuit can even be filed. This is a procedural filter, not a voluntary alternative dispute resolution choice. Parties attend at least one session with a registered mediator; if no settlement is reached, a certificate is issued permitting the case to proceed to court. Swedish parties sometimes treat this stage as a formality, but a well-prepared mediation session, with cost and delay exposure clearly quantified, resolves a meaningful share of disputes before litigation costs accumulate.
Arbitration Clauses Remain the Strongest Safeguard
For contracts of any material size, particularly those following FIDIC-based templates common in cross-border construction work, a well-drafted arbitration clause remains the most reliable route to a predictable outcome. Türkiye is a party to the New York Convention, so arbitral awards seated in Türkiye or abroad are generally enforceable against Turkish assets, subject to the usual public policy exceptions. Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC) has become a credible seat for construction disputes with international parties, offering rules and case management comparable to European institutional standards, and it is worth Swedish counsel comparing ISTAC clauses against ICC or SCC alternatives at the contract-drafting stage rather than defaulting to a foreign seat by habit.
Practical tip : seat, language, and governing law should be fixed explicitly in the contract. Silence on any of these invites jurisdictional arguments that can add a year or more to a dispute before the substantive issues are even reached.
Dispute Boards and Adjudication Are Underused but Available
FIDIC-style dispute adjudication boards, standing or ad hoc, are permitted under Turkish contract law and increasingly appear in larger infrastructure and mixed-use development contracts involving foreign sponsors. They are far less common than in Northern European markets, so Swedish parties should not assume a Turkish counterparty or contractor will propose one; it typically needs to be requested and built into the contract structure from the outset. Where a project timeline is sensitive to ongoing payment or variation disputes, a standing dispute board can prevent disagreements from escalating into project-halting litigation.
What This Means in Practice
For a Swedish investor or developer, the sequence that tends to work best is: a clearly drafted arbitration or dispute board clause at signing, disciplined use of the mandatory mediation stage as a genuine settlement opportunity rather than a checkbox, and early engagement of technical experts whose reports will carry weight regardless of which forum the dispute ultimately reaches. Advisory support familiar with both the Turkish court-expert culture and international arbitration practice is often the difference between a dispute resolved in months and one that drags on for years.
Eurasia Experts advises Swedish clients on structuring construction and development contracts in Türkiye to reduce dispute exposure and to select the resolution mechanism best suited to project size and counterparty profile.