

Can a foreign shareholder remove a Turkish business partner from company management? Learn the rules for removing managers and board members, voting requirements, court proceedings, just cause, signature authority and shareholder disputes in Turkey.
Yes, potentially. A foreign shareholder may be able to remove a Turkish business partner from the management of a Turkish company, but the procedure depends heavily on the type of company, shareholding percentages, articles of association, management structure and grounds for removal.
The first distinction is particularly important:
Removing someone from management is not necessarily the same as removing that person as a shareholder.
A Turkish business partner may lose the position of manager or board member while continuing to own shares in the company.
For foreign investors facing a serious shareholder dispute, separating these two issues is essential.
Generally, no.
A foreign shareholder does not receive fewer corporate governance rights merely because the other shareholder is Turkish.
The relevant questions usually concern:
The dispute should therefore be approached primarily as a corporate governance matter rather than a nationality dispute.
The removal mechanism differs significantly depending on company type.
The most common structures for foreign investors are:
The investor should obtain the current:
These documents should be reviewed before any removal decision is attempted.
In a limited liability company, management and representation may be entrusted to one or more shareholders or third parties.
The Turkish Commercial Code provides mechanisms concerning the removal of managers and restriction of their management and representation powers.
The legal position becomes particularly important where the Turkish partner is both:
shareholder + manager.
Removing that person as manager does not automatically terminate their shareholding.
Potentially, yes.
The company’s governance documents and applicable voting rules must be examined.
The foreign shareholder should determine:
A majority shareholder may therefore have a substantially different position from a 50% shareholder.
A foreign shareholder holding 70% may have significant voting power, but share percentage alone should not be treated as the complete answer.
The investor must still check:
If the required corporate majority exists, removal through a corporate resolution may be possible.
This is much more difficult.
For example:
Foreign shareholder: 50%
Turkish shareholder: 50%
Turkish shareholder: Manager
If the Turkish partner can block the corporate resolution required for removal, the company may enter a governance deadlock.
In that situation, judicial remedies may become particularly important.
Potentially.
The Turkish Commercial Code permits shareholders to seek judicial removal of a manager or restriction of the manager’s management and representation powers where just cause exists.
This can be particularly valuable where the shareholder structure prevents removal through ordinary voting.
Whether just cause exists depends on the facts.
Serious circumstances may include allegations such as:
The issue is not simply whether the shareholders dislike each other.
The conduct should be documented.
Not every personal disagreement constitutes sufficient grounds.
However, loss of trust arising from concrete managerial misconduct can become highly relevant.
For example, allegations that a manager:
are substantially different from an ordinary personality conflict.
Useful evidence may include:
The objective should be to prove specific acts rather than making broad allegations such as “my partner is dishonest.”
Potentially.
Suppose the Turkish manager transfers company money to:
The foreign shareholder should investigate:
If there is no legitimate explanation, the transactions may support corporate claims and potentially other legal remedies.
Persistent obstruction of lawful shareholder information and inspection rights can become significant in a management dispute.
The investor should preserve written requests for:
Written evidence is generally more useful than later claiming that verbal requests were repeatedly refused.
Potentially.
Management status and representation/signature authority should both be reviewed.
Removing a manager from office may require corresponding steps concerning:
A foreign investor should not assume that passing an internal resolution immediately eliminates every practical banking or representation authority.
Once a valid corporate change becomes effective and the required registration or documentation steps are completed, relevant banks should be updated promptly.
Otherwise, an outgoing manager may continue appearing in banking systems as an authorized signatory.
The company should review:
Potentially.
The Turkish Commercial Code provides a different structure for joint stock companies.
As a general rule, members of the board of directors may be removed by the general assembly subject to the statutory framework.
Therefore, a foreign shareholder controlling the necessary voting power may potentially cause a Turkish business partner to be removed from the board.
Again, this does not automatically eliminate that person’s shares.
This requires specific review, but being originally appointed or identified through corporate documentation does not necessarily make a board position permanent.
The statutory rules governing appointment and removal must be applied together with the company’s articles.
Depending on the corporate structure and applicable removal mechanism, removal from a joint stock company board does not necessarily require proving that the director committed a criminal offence.
Corporate removal and criminal liability are entirely separate questions.
The company should not turn a governance dispute into an unsupported criminal accusation.
The person may still remain a shareholder.
This means they may continue to possess rights associated with the shares, potentially including:
Management removal therefore does not necessarily solve the underlying shareholder conflict.
That is a different legal question.
Expulsion of a shareholder from a limited company is governed by separate provisions and may require grounds contained in the articles of association or judicial proceedings based on just cause.
The Constitutional Court’s 2025 decision concerning Articles 616 and 621 of the Turkish Commercial Code specifically addressed the statutory framework for general assembly decisions concerning applications to court for a shareholder’s expulsion for just cause.
Accordingly:
Removal from management
and
expulsion from shareholding
should never be treated as the same procedure.
Potentially, but 50/50 structures create difficult procedural issues.
A two-shareholder company can become deadlocked when one shareholder seeks action against the other.
The legal strategy may need to examine:
The exact approach depends on the company’s documents and facts.
In an urgent dispute, interim protection may need to be considered.
For example, the investor may be concerned that the manager will:
The possibility and scope of interim judicial protection depend on the particular claim and evidence.
Potentially.
If there is concrete evidence of imminent misuse, the investor may need to consider urgent protective remedies rather than waiting for final judgment.
Bank statements and transaction histories should be preserved immediately.
The company should map actual financial control.
Identify:
Corporate control can be very different from the formal shareholding percentages.
This is common in shareholder disputes.
The foreign investor should determine where the company’s official books and electronic records are maintained.
Do not rely solely on information voluntarily supplied by the disputed manager.
Preserve lawful access to:
Potentially.
Removal from management and compensation liability are separate issues.
If a manager breaches statutory or contractual duties and causes company loss, a separate liability analysis may be required.
Possible loss may include:
The legal basis of the payment should be examined.
Relevant evidence includes:
An unauthorized payment may create both recovery and management-liability issues.
Document each transaction.
Examples may include:
The accounting characterization should then be compared with the real economic purpose.
Related-party transactions deserve close examination.
The investor should determine:
A legitimate related-party transaction and diversion of company assets are very different matters.
Procedural requirements should be followed carefully.
Improper:
can create a second dispute concerning the validity of the removal itself.
A strong substantive case can be weakened by defective corporate procedure.
Where the corporate structure permits removal through shareholder decision, convening a properly constituted general assembly may be the appropriate first step.
The notice and agenda should clearly address the proposed management change where required.
Non-attendance does not necessarily prevent every corporate decision.
Whether the meeting can proceed depends on applicable meeting and decision quorums and the company’s structure.
Do not assume that a partner can permanently block governance merely by refusing to attend.
The former manager may challenge the validity of the corporate decision.
The company should therefore preserve:
Procedural accuracy becomes extremely important.
Potentially, subject to the company’s articles and applicable corporate decision-making rules.
The transition should address:
Removing the old manager without establishing effective replacement management can create operational paralysis.
Review it immediately.
The agreement may contain:
The statutory corporate-law analysis and contractual analysis should be performed together.
It can create contractual consequences, but its effect must be analyzed together with mandatory Turkish corporate-law rules.
A removal that is valid under corporate law may still potentially create a contractual dispute if it breaches a shareholders’ agreement.
A 50/50 deadlock requires a broader strategy.
Possible routes may include:
The objective should be to resolve both the immediate management problem and the underlying ownership conflict.
That is a commercial option, not an automatic legal requirement.
Before making an offer, determine:
A shareholder dispute is often the worst time to purchase shares without due diligence.
Not simply because the foreign investor wants complete ownership.
Compulsory exit requires a valid statutory, contractual or judicial basis.
The company’s articles and shareholders’ agreement should therefore be reviewed for exit mechanisms.
The same principle applies.
Foreign nationality does not make a shareholder easier to remove.
A Turkish partner must also comply with the applicable corporate-law requirements.
Limited liability or joint stock company?
Obtain current ownership records.
Check management and voting provisions.
Identify nomination, veto and deadlock provisions.
Is the Turkish partner a manager, board member, authorized signatory or all three?
Determine whether removal can be achieved corporately.
Secure banking, accounting and corporate records.
Particularly important in limited companies where just cause exists and voting is blocked.
If company assets face immediate risk.
The business must continue after removal.
Avoid:
Corporate disputes should be resolved through valid governance and judicial mechanisms.
Potentially, yes. The procedure depends on company type, voting rights, articles of association and the manager’s legal status.
No. Management position and share ownership are separate legal matters.
Potentially. Turkish corporate law provides a judicial mechanism for removal or restriction of management and representation powers where just cause exists.
The company may face deadlock. Judicial remedies, contractual deadlock provisions and broader shareholder-dispute strategies may need to be considered.
Potentially. Unauthorized transfers, diversion of assets and serious breaches of managerial duties can be highly relevant. The allegations should be supported by evidence.
Yes. This is frequently the case.
Potentially only through separate statutory, contractual or judicial mechanisms. The rules governing shareholder expulsion are different from management removal. The Constitutional Court addressed aspects of this statutory framework in its 2025 decision concerning limited companies.
Not necessarily. The applicable meeting and decision quorums must be examined.
Potentially, particularly where there is concrete risk that company assets, bank accounts or corporate rights will be irreversibly affected.
Obtain the company’s articles, shareholding records, management records, signature authorities and shareholders’ agreement before taking action.
Removing a Turkish business partner from company management can be possible, but the strategy should begin by separating management control from share ownership.
For a limited liability company, judicial removal or restriction of a manager’s authority can become particularly important where just cause exists and the shareholding structure prevents an ordinary corporate solution.
For a joint stock company, the board-removal framework, general assembly voting power and corporate documents must be examined.
In a 50/50 company, removing one manager may solve only part of the problem. A broader strategy may also need to address deadlock, bank control, related-party transactions, shareholder loans, valuation, share transfer and eventual exit from the business relationship.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors and shareholders with Turkish company management disputes, director and manager removal, 50/50 shareholder deadlocks, misuse of company assets, signature-authority disputes and shareholder exit proceedings.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing corporate governance documents, protecting company assets, pursuing management changes and developing litigation or negotiated exit strategies for foreign shareholders in Turkey.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey
This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The appropriate procedure depends on the company’s legal form, articles of association, voting structure, shareholders’ agreement, management appointments and the specific facts of the dispute.