Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Turkey: Optional Choice of Court Agreements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 37))

  • 723 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses choice of court agreements under Turkish private international law. Turkish private international law recognizes the freedom of the parties to conclude an agreement which designates Turkish courts and/or foreign courts as having jurisdiction for the resolution of their existing or future legal disputes under certain conditions. In this chapter first, agreements granting jurisdiction to foreign courts are examined, mainly through the requirements and consequences of forming such an agreement. Next, rules governing agreements granting jurisdiction to Turkish courts are explained. Following this, asymmetrical jurisdiction agreements are discussed. Subsequently, the requirements for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by a court designated through a jurisdiction agreement are explained. Finally, discussions regarding co-existing jurisdiction and arbitration clauses are assessed. Notwithstanding the need to reform particular aspects of Turkish law in relation to jurisdiction agreements, it is concluded that the Turkish legal framework in this area is sufficient for both Turkish and foreign parties to securely conclude choice of court agreements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, “choice of court agreement” is used interchangeably with “jurisdiction agreement”.

  2. 2.

    For further information on Turkish law see: Ansay and Wallace (2011).

  3. 3.

    Law No. 5718. Official Gazette 12.12.2007/26728.

  4. 4.

    Law No. 6100. Official Gazette 04.02.2011/27836.

  5. 5.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 392–393; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 338–339; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 481–482.

  6. 6.

    Law No. 2709. Official Gazette 09.11.1982/17863.

  7. 7.

    For the whole list of conventions see: http://www.uhdigm.adalet.gov.tr/sozlesmeler/coktaraflisoz/lahey.html.

  8. 8.

    Law no. 3731. Official Gazette no. 21.05.1991/20877.

  9. 9.

    For further information on Turkish law of procedure and court structure see: Budak et al. (2011), pp. 213–236.

  10. 10.

    For further information on sources of Turkish law see: Güriz (2011), pp. 1–18.

  11. 11.

    Nomer (2017), p. 491; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 413; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 616.

  12. 12.

    In one of its decisions, the Civil General Assembly of Court of Cassation examined a choice of court agreement under a credit contract involving a foreign element: Case no. 1998/12-287, Decision no. 1998/325, Date 06.05.1998 (www.kazanci.com). In another decision, the Court of Cassation decided on the presence of a foreign element due to the fact that the company where the claimant was working was registered in a foreign state. 9th Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/28517, Decision no. 2016/20723, Date 24.11.2016 (www.kanunum.com).

  13. 13.

    Nomer (2017), p. 490.

  14. 14.

    Nomer (2017), p. 486; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 618; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 417–419 and 534–535. For exemplary decisions supporting this finding see: 23th Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation, Case no. 2015/8353, Decision no. 2017/2320 Date 21.09.2017; General Assembly of Court of Cassation, Case no. 2015/894, Decision no. 2013/18-1628, Date 04.03.2015 (www.kazanci.com).

  15. 15.

    Nomer (2017), p. 485; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 417, fn 172; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 583 and 617–618.

  16. 16.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 485–486; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 417–419; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 583–588.

  17. 17.

    Nomer (2017), p. 491; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 413; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 618. In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation explicitly explains the requirements of a valid jurisdiction agreement under Art. 47 of the PIL Code and in carrying out this evaluation examines the agreement to understand if it is rooted in a contractual relationship: 11th Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation, Case no. 2015/7244, Decision no. 2016/1657, Date 17.02.2016 (www.kanunum.com).

  18. 18.

    Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 588.

  19. 19.

    Nomer (2017), p. 490; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 421, fn 179; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 621.

  20. 20.

    Nomer (2017), p. 491; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 589; Sargın (1996), p. 171.

  21. 21.

    Ekşi (1998), p. 873; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 414; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 619.

  22. 22.

    11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2006/8585, Decision no. 2006/12877, Date 07.12.2006 (www.kazanci.com).

  23. 23.

    11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2008/10853, Decision no. 2010/1688, Date 15.02.2010 (www.kazanci.com).

  24. 24.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 415, fn 166; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 619.

  25. 25.

    Nomer (2017), p. 490; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 415. For an illustrative decision supporting this view see: Civil General Assembly of Court of Cassation, Case no. 1998/12-287, Decision no. 1998/325, Date 06.05.1998 (www.kazanci.com).

  26. 26.

    Nomer (2017), p. 490.

  27. 27.

    For further information on international jurisdiction of Turkish courts regarding disputes arising from employment contracts and employment relations see Çörtoğlu Koca (2016).

  28. 28.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 420–421; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 626–627.

  29. 29.

    9th Chamber of Court of Cassation Case no: 2010/7381, Decision no: 2010/16168, Date 03.06.2010. For the decision see Ekşi (2016), pp. 123–129. 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation Case no: 2007/12043, Decision no. 2007/17765 Date 04.06.2007 (www.kazanci.com). Nomer’s view is parallel to the interpretation of the Court of Cassation: Nomer (2017), p. 492, fn 212.

  30. 30.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 424–425; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 615–616; Civil General Assembly of Court of Cassation Case no. 1998/12-287, Decision no. 1998/325, Date 06.05.1998 (www.kazanci.com).

  31. 31.

    Civil General Assembly of Court of Cassation Case no. 1988/11-246, Decision no. 1998/476, Date 15.06.1988 (www.kazanci.com); 19th Chamber of Court of Cassation Case no. 1995/1632, Decision no. 1995/9151, Date 02.11.1995. For further information on the evolution of case law regarding this issue see: Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 423; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 622–625.

  32. 32.

    In the case where there is a valid jurisdiction agreement authorizing foreign courts, Art. 31 of the former code no. 2675 stipulated that “Turkish courts shall have jurisdiction if the foreign court decides that it has no jurisdiction”. On the other hand, the relevant wording under Art. 47 of the PIL Code is as follows: “The competent Turkish court shall have jurisdiction only if the foreign court decides that it has no jurisdiction”.

  33. 33.

    Nomer (2017), p. 486; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 426; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 625.

  34. 34.

    Nomer (2017), p. 489; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 427; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 617.

  35. 35.

    The doctrine of forum non conveniens originated from the Scottish law and is currently applied in the United States of America, England, and other common law countries. According to this doctrine, a court which has jurisdiction to hear a case may decide not to hear the case, if there is another court which is more closely related to the dispute and so is capable to render a better judgment. See: Nomer (2017), p. 495; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 368–369.

  36. 36.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 431.

  37. 37.

    Nomer (2017), p. 494.

  38. 38.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 431.

  39. 39.

    Nomer (2017) p. 489; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 338–339 and 369; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 481–482.

  40. 40.

    Nomer (2017), p. 482; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 432; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 624.

  41. 41.

    Nomer (2017), p. 485; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 427 and 432; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 624.

  42. 42.

    Nomer (2017), p. 493, fn 215; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 427–428; 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2008/5454, Decision no: 2009/2604, Date 06.03.2009; 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2015/9758, Decision no. 2016/4646, Date 25.04.2016; 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 015/11534, Decision no. 2016/8512, Date 31.10.2016, and 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2015/5517 Decision no. 2015/12591, Date 25.11.2015 (www.kazanci.com).

  43. 43.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 428; Esen (2001), p. 203.

  44. 44.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 434; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 589–591. For exemplary decisions supporting this finding see: 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2013/219, Decision no. 2013/10820, Date 10.07.2013; 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2007/12254, Decision no. 2009/1912, Date 20.02.2009 (www.kazanci.com).

  45. 45.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 492–493; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 438–439; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 596. For further information see: Bayraktaroğlu Özçelik (2016/2017), pp. 393–422.

  46. 46.

    For a decision supporting this view see: 11th Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/4200, Decision no. 2016/5291, Date 11.5.2016 (www.kazanci.com). On the other hand, there is an opposing view within academic commentary with regards to the process of raising the plea of lis alibi pendens. Accordingly, the plea of lis alibi pendens shall be raised as a primary objection for the reason that a Turkish judge may not be able to examine whether there is an ongoing action in a foreign forum. Authors argue that this rule under the CCP was stipulated for domestic cases where it is convenient for the Turkish judge to examine ex officio whether there is an ongoing action before another Turkish court. For this view see: Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 640.

  47. 47.

    Nomer (2017), p. 487; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 501; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 627–629.

  48. 48.

    The Turkish courts’ approach in relation to grant interim measures where the parties have authorized a foreign court through a jurisdiction agreement contrasts with the view of the doctrine. In a dispute where the parties had signed an arbitration clause and the arbitral process had begun, one of the parties wanted to obtain an interim measure. First Instance Civil Court of Şanlıurfa (which is a city in south eastern Turkey) decided that due to the arbitration agreement between the parties authorizing International Cotton Association Arbitration as the competent authority to decide on the merits of the case, Turkish courts did not have jurisdiction to render interim measures (Case no. 2012/190 Decision no. 2012/189 Date 9.11.2012). The case is not published. For further information on this case see: Arslan (2016), pp. 691–727.

  49. 49.

    Nomer (2017), p. 487; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 494; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 627–628.

  50. 50.

    Nomer (2017), p. 487; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 629.

  51. 51.

    Nomer (2017), p. 488.

  52. 52.

    Nomer (2017), p. 483; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 406; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 632. For illustrative decisions applying this rule see: 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/22765, Decision no. 2017/14559, Date 23.11.2017; 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/21765, Decision no. 2017/13784, Date 8.11.2017.

  53. 53.

    Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 408; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 633.

  54. 54.

    Nomer (2017), p. 483; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 409; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 633.

  55. 55.

    Kuru et al. (2014), p. 115.

  56. 56.

    Nomer (2017), p. 484; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 409–410.

  57. 57.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 484–485; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 410.

  58. 58.

    Nomer (2017), p. 490; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 620–621.

  59. 59.

    11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2015/9758, Decision no. 2016/4646; Date 25.04.2016 (www.kazanci.com).

  60. 60.

    Nomer (2017), p. 489; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 617.

  61. 61.

    For further information on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Turkey see: Süral and Tarman (2013/2014), pp. 485–508.

  62. 62.

    Nomer (2017), p. 516; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 511–512; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 690.

  63. 63.

    2nd Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2008/5111, Decision no. 2008/8673, Date 16.06.2008 (www.legalbank.net).

  64. 64.

    Nomer (2017), p. 509; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 517; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 685.

  65. 65.

    Nomer (2017), p. 510; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 518; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 685–686.

  66. 66.

    Nomer (2017), p. 508; Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 513–515; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 685–686. 8th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2017/6212, Decision no. 2017/13546, Date 24.10.2017 (www.kanunum.com).

  67. 67.

    There are certain exceptions to this requirement stipulated under international conventions to which Turkey is a party or domestic laws. The exceptions are regarding the recognition of decisions pertaining to maintenance obligations, adoption and divorce. For further information see: Süral and Tarman (2013/2014), p. 220.

  68. 68.

    2nd Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 3612, Decision no.4567, Date 13.4.1995 (www.kazanci.com).

  69. 69.

    Official Gazette 06.11.1980/17152.

  70. 70.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 513–514; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 519; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 687–689. For exemplary decisions regarding this requirement under the PIL Code Art. 50 see 3rd Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/9464, Decision no. 2016/12221, Date 27.10.2016; 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2015/1049, Decision no. 2015/2238, Date 19.02.2015 (www.kazanci.com).

  71. 71.

    For illustrative decisions regarding this requirement under Art. 54 of the PIL Code see: 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2014/4148, Decision no. 2014/10274, Date 02.06.2014; 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2013/17269, Decision no. 2014/1375, Date 22.01.2014; 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2010/11237, Decision no. 2011/2718, Date 16.02.2011; 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2003/1872, Decision no. 2003/7813, Date 15.09.2003 (www.kanunum.com).

  72. 72.

    Nomer (2017), p. 520; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 529, fn 375; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 705–707.

  73. 73.

    Nomer (2017), p. 519; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 533; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 710. For a decision supporting this view see: 11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2008/1284, Decision no. 2009/980, Date 30.01.2009 (www.kazanci.com).

  74. 74.

    Nomer (2017), p. 519; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 535; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 714–719. For illustrative decisions regarding this requirement under Art. 54 of the PIL Code see: 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2017/6212, Decision no. 2017/13546, Date 24.10.2017; 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/4772, Decision no. 2016/5813, Date 30.03.2016 (www.kanunum.com).

  75. 75.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 519–520; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 673; Sarıöz Büyükalp (2018), p. 162.

  76. 76.

    Nomer (2017), p. 520; Sargın (2008), p. 355; Sakmar (1990), p. 399; Ekşi (2013), p. 174.

  77. 77.

    Nomer (2017), p. 519; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 526.

  78. 78.

    Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 705; Güven (2013), p. 86.

  79. 79.

    Nomer (2017), p. 521; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 535; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 714–719. For illustrative decisions regarding this requirement under Art. 54 of the PIL Code see: 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2017/6212, Decision no. 2017/13546, Date 24.10.2017; 8th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/4772, Decision no. 2016/5813, Date 30.03.2016 (www.kanunum.com).

  80. 80.

    Nomer (2017), pp. 524–527; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 541; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), pp. 719–722.

  81. 81.

    Nomer (2017), p. 527; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 542; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 722.

  82. 82.

    Nomer (2017), p. 528.

  83. 83.

    Foreign court decisions regarding guardianship used to be categorically regarded as an issue of Turkish public policy. See: Civil General Assembly of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2009/2-557, Decision no. 2009/527, Date 18.11.2009; Civil General Assembly of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2009/2-280, Decision No 2009/326, Date 08.07.2009 (www.kazanci.com). The Turkish Court of Cassation has changed its view regarding this issue.

  84. 84.

    2nd Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2003/3784, Decision no. 2003/4670, Date 02.04.2003 (www.kazanci.com). For a criticism of this judgement see Şanlı et al. (2018), pp. 553–554.

  85. 85.

    18th Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2012/12365, Decision no. 2013/483, Date 17.01.2013. For further information on the relationship between recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Turkey with the right to fair trial pursuant Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights see Sarıöz Büyükalp (2018), pp. 123–205.

  86. 86.

    On the other hand, decisions on the administration of guardianship cannot be enforced in Turkey as they cannot realize the prerequisite that foreign judgement subjected to enforcement shall be on a civil or commercial matter. Civil General Assembly of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2013/18-1628, Decision no. 2015/894, Date 04.03.2015; 18th Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2015/5194, Decision no. 2015/18432, Date 14.12.2015; 18th Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2013/16914, Decision no. 2014/5145, Date 20.03.2014; 18th Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/3763, Decision no. 2016/6542, Date 25.04.2016 (www.kazanci.com).

  87. 87.

    2nd Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation, Case no. 2016/15771, Decision no. 2017/1737, Date 20.02.2017 (www.kazanci.com).

  88. 88.

    Nomer (2017), p. 439; Şanlı et al. (2018), p. 557, fn 426; Çelikel and Erdem (2017), p. 740.

  89. 89.

    Law No. 4686. Official Gazette no. 05.07.2001/24453.

  90. 90.

    Law No. 3460 of 27 May 1988. Official Gazette 02.06.1988/19830.

  91. 91.

    Law No. 3731 of 8 May 1991. Official Gazette 21.05.1991/20877.

  92. 92.

    Law No. 3730 of 8 May 1991. Official Gazette 21.05.1991/20877.

  93. 93.

    Akıncı (2016), p. 98. For further information on Turkish arbitration law see Tarman (2014), pp. 245–255.

  94. 94.

    9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2013/1773, Decision no. 2013/6664, Date 25.02.2013; 15th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2007/2680, Decision no. 2007/4137, Date 18.06.2007 (www.kazanci.com).

  95. 95.

    See the dissenting opinion in 15th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2014/3330, Decision no. 2014/4607, Date 01.07.2014 (emsal.yargitay.gov.tr).

  96. 96.

    15th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2009/1438, Decision no. 2013/2153, Date 13.04.2009 (www.kazanci.com).

  97. 97.

    15th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2015/2198, Decision no. 2015/2758, Date 22.05.2015 (www.kazanci.com).

  98. 98.

    11th Chamber of the Court of Cassation Case no. 2009/3257, Decision no. 2011/1675, Date 15.02.2011 (www.kazanci.com). For further analysis on this decision see: Esen (2010), pp. 145–155.

  99. 99.

    For further information on Turkish case law regarding coexisting arbitration and jurisdiction agreements see: Kocasakal (2017), pp. 509–535; Özçelik (2016), pp. 53–81.

  100. 100.

    Where the place of arbitration is Turkey and the dispute involves a foreign element, the Turkish International Arbitration Act determines the validity of an arbitration agreement. According to Art. 4 of the Turkish International Arbitration Act, the validity of an arbitration agreement is determined in line with the chosen law by the parties to apply to the arbitration agreement or where there is no such choice made, by Turkish law.

References

  • Akıncı Z (2016) Milletlerarası tahkim (International arbitration). Vedat Yayıncılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansay T, Wallace D (eds) (2011) Introduction to Turkish law. Wolters Kluwer, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Arslan İ (2016) Milletlerarasi ticari tahkimde Türk mahkemelerinin ihtiyati tedbir ve ihtiyati haciz kararı verme yetkisi. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 7(27):691–727

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktaroğlu Özçelik (2016/2017) International Lis Pendens as a contemporary problem of Turkish international civil procedure. Yearb Private Int Law 18:393–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Budak AC, Kuru B, Ansay T, Konuralp H (2011) Law of procedure. In: Ansay T, Wallace D (eds) Introduction to Turkish law, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Ankara, pp 213–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelikel A, Erdem B (2017) Milletlerarası özel hukuk (International private law). Beta Yayıncılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Çörtoğlu Koca S (2016) Zayıf tarafın korunduğu sözleşmelerde mahkemelerin milletlerarası yetkisi (International jurisdiction of courts regarding contracts that protect the weaker party). Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekşi N (1998) Uluslararası ticarete ilişkin iki güncel sorun: sözleşme bedelinin yabancı para olarak ödenmesi ve yabancı mahkemenin yetkisinin tesisi (Two current issues regarding international trade: payment of the consideration through foreign currency and granting jurisdiction to a foreign court). İstanbul Barosu Dergisi 72(10-11-12):864–882

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekşi N (2013) Yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizi (Recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions). Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekşi N (2016) Milletlerarası özel hukuk I pratik çalışma kitabı: kanunlar ihtilâfı kurallarına ve milletlerarası usul hukukuna ilişkin seçilmiş mahkeme kararları (International private law I practice questions: chosen court decisions on conflict of laws rules and international procedural law). Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Esen E (2001) Yabancı mahkeme lehine yapılan yetki anlaşmasına dayanan yetki itirazının değerlendirilmesinde dürüstlük kuralının etkisi ve Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesinin 6.3.2009 tarihli içtihadının eleşitirisi (The effect of the principle of good faith in evaluating the opposition to jurisdiction based on a jurisdiction agreement designating a foreign court and a critique of the Decision dated 6.3.2009 by the Court of Cassation). Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 31(1):191–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Esen E (2010) Taraflardan sadece birine tahkime müracaat hakkı tanıyan tahkim anlaşmalarının ve özellikle Kıyı Emniyeti Genel Müdürlüğü’nün Kurtarma Yardım Sözleşmesi’nde yer alan tahkim şartının geçerliliği (Validity of arbitration clauses that grant only one of the parties the right to apply to arbitration: in particular the validity of the arbitration clause under the General Directorate of Coastal Safety Rescue Assistance Contract). İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 9(2):145–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Güriz A (2011) Sources of Turkish law. In: Ansay T, Wallace D (eds) Introduction to Turkish law, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Ankara, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Güven P (2013) Tanıma-tenfiz: yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizi (Recognition-enforcement: recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions). Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocasakal HÖ (2017) Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi’nin bir kararı çerçevesinde mahkemelere de yetki veren tahkim anlaşmalarının geçerliliği ve bu geçerliliğin tespitinin mahkemeler tarafından yapılıp yapılamayacağı (In the framework of a decision by the 15th Chamber of the Court of Cassation the validity of arbitration agreements that also grant jurisdiction to national courts and whether this validity assessment shall be made by national courts). In: Erdem E et al (eds) Prof. Dr. Hamdi Yasaman’a Armağan, 1st edn. On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, pp 509–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuru B, Arslan R, Yılmaz E (2014) Medeni usul hukuku (Civil procedural law). Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomer E (2017) Devletler hususi hukuku (International private law). Beta Yayıncılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Özçelik NŞ (2016) Resmi yargı ve tahkimin ayrı ayrı ve birlikte yetkilendirildiği anlaşmaların geçerliliği (Validity of arbitration agreements in which arbitration and national courts are jointly or separately designated). Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 36(2):53–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakmar A (1990) Le nouveau droit international privé turc (The new Turkish private international law). Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 223:315–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Şanlı C, Esen E, Ataman-Figanmeşe İ (2018) Milletlerarası özel hukuk (International private law). Vedat Kitapçılık, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargın F (1996) Milletlerarası usul hukukunda yetki anlaşmaları (Jurisdiction agreements in international procedural law). Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargın F (2008) A critical analysis of the requirements of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under Turkish law. IPRax-Hafts 4:354–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarıöz Büyükalp İ (2018) Adil yargılanma hakkının Türk tanıma ve tenfiz hukukuna etkileri (Effects of right to a fair trial on the Turkish recognition and enforcement law). In: Tarman ZD (ed) Genç milletlerarası özel hukukçular konferansı II (Young international private law academics Conference II). On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Süral C, Tarman ZD (2013/2014) Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Turkey. Yearb Private Int Law 15:218–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarman ZD (2014) International commercial arbitration in Turkey. In: Ansay T, Schneider EC (eds) Introduction to Turkish business law, 2nd edn. Wolters Kluwer, Ankara, pp 245–255

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private International Law, Koç University Law School, Istanbul, Turkey

    Zeynep Derya Tarman & Meltem Ece Oba

Authors
  1. Zeynep Derya Tarman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meltem Ece Oba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Derya Tarman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Mary Keyes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tarman, Z.D., Oba, M.E. (2020). Turkey: Optional Choice of Court Agreements. In: Keyes, M. (eds) Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation