Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001    Full Text (PDF)

The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts

İpek Betül Aldemir Toprak

In the Turkish legal system, the contractual relationship whereby the agent undertakes to conduct a particular business or provide certain services of the principal is known as an “agency contract” {Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO) art. 502}. The definition, scope, and obligations of the parties and the contract’s termination are expressly regulated in our law. Under this contract, legislators have given the parties the right to revoke with a unilateral declaration of will without reason (TCO art. 512). This provision is one of the most prominent and ambiguous provisions of both the TCO and the agency contract. It has been the topic of much discussion in legal doctrine and court decisions of Turkish and Swiss law. These debates are concerned with the scope of the revocation right and whether the right is of an imperative or regulatory nature. Provisions about contracts in the codes have proven insufficient to meet the new conditions in real life over time. For this reason, contractual parties have tried to meet their needs by concluding innominate contracts based on the principle of freedom of contract. The agency contract is general contracts for the management of another’s affairs (TCO art. 502/2). Therefore, it is noted that the provisions of the agency contract apply to an innominate contract for the management of the affairs of another, insofar as this provision is also suitable for their nature (TCO art. 502/2). This article has attempted to determine the legal nature of the revocation right, which is the specific means for termination of an agency contract, and whether it will apply to innominate contracts.

Keywords: Revocation Right, Agency Contract, Innominate Contract, Imperative Nature, and Regulatory Nature
DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Die Natur des den Auftragsvertrag Einseitig Beendigenden Rechts und die Frage Nach Dessen Anwendung auf die Innominatverträge

İpek Betül Aldemir Toprak

Die Vertragsverhältnisse, in denen der Beauftragte die Vornahme der Geschäftsbesorgung oder die Erbringung von Diensten des Auftraggebers übernimmt, werden im türkischen Recht als Auftragsvertrag bezeichnet (Art. 512 TOR). Die Definition, der Umfang, die Pflichten der Parteien und die Beendigung des Auftragsvertrags sind in unserem Gesetz ausdrücklich geregelt. Im Auftragsvertrag billigt der Gesetzgeber den Parteien das Recht zu, den Vertrag ohne Grund mit einer einseitigen Erklärung zu beenden (Art. 512 TOR). Diese Bestimmung ist eine der Bestimmungen des türkischen Obligationenrechts und des Auftragsvertrags, die sehr oft in Frage gestellt wird. Im türkischen und schweizerischen Recht, in der Lehre und in Gerichtsentscheidungen gibt es viele Diskussionen über diese Bestimmung. Diese Diskussionen beziehen sich darauf, ob einseitiges Beendigungsrecht zwingender oder dispositiver Natur ist und in welcher Tragweite dieses Recht ausgeübt wird. Mit Laufe der Zeit reichen die im Gesetz geregelten Verträge nicht aus, wechselnden Bedürfnissen gerecht zu werden. Infolgedessen stellen die Parteien die Rechtsverhältnisse, die sie brauchen, im Rahmen der Vertragsfreiheit her, indem sie Innominatverträge schließen. Der Auftragsvertrag ist ein Sammelbecken für die Geschäftsbesorgungverträgen (Art. 502/2 TOR). Aus diesem Grund wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Bestimmungen zum Auftragsverhältnis für innominate Geschäftsbesorgungsverträge gelten, soweit diese Bestimmung sich auch für ihre Natur eignet (Art. 502/2 TOR). In dieser Studie wurde bestimmt, was die Rechtsnatur des einseitigen Beendigungsrechts ist und ob es für Innominatverträge gilt.

Keywords: Einseitiges Beendigungsrecht, der Auftragsvertrag, Innominater Vertrag, Zwingende Natur, Dispositive Natur
DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Vekalet Sözleşmesini Tek Taraflı Sona Erdirme Hakkının Hukuki Niteliği ve İsimsiz Sözleşmelere Uygulanması Sorunu

İpek Betül Aldemir Toprak

Hukukumuzda vekilin, vekâlet verenin bir işini görmeyi veya işlemini yapmayı üstlendiği sözleşme ilişkileri, vekâlet sözleşmesi olarak adlandırılmaktadır (TBK m. 502). Vekâlet sözleşmesinin tanımı, kapsamı, tarafların borçları ve sona ermesi kanunumuzda açıkça düzenlenmektedir. Vekâlet sözleşmesinde kanun koyucu taraflara sözleşmeyi tek taraflı irade beyanıyla sebep göstermeksizin sona erdirme hakkı tanımaktadır (TBK m. 512). Söz konusu bu hüküm, gerek Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun gerekse de vekâlet sözleşmesinin en bilindik ve problemli hükümlerindendir. Türk ve İsviçre hukukunda, doktrinde ve mahkeme kararlarında, bu hükme ilişkin birçok tartışma bulunmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar tek taraflı sona erdirme hakkının emredici veya düzenleyici nitelikte olup olmadığına ve bu hakkın kapsamına ilişkindir. Zamanla kanunda yer alan sözleşmeler değişen ihtiyaçları karşılamakta yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bunun bir sonucu olarak da taraflar, ihtiyaç duydukları hukuki ilişkileri sözleşme özgürlüğü kapsamında isimsiz sözleşmeler yaparak sağlamaktadırlar. Vekâlet sözleşmesi torba bir iş görme sözleşmesidir (TBK m. 502/2). Bu sebeple, vekâlet sözleşmesine ilişkin hükümlerin, niteliklerine uygun düştüğü ölçüde, isimsiz iş görme sözleşmelerine de uygulanacağı ifade edilmektedir (TBK m. 502/2). Bu çalışmada ise vekâlet sözleşmesine özgü sona erme sebebi olan tek taraflı sona erdirme hakkının hukukî niteliği ve isimsiz sözleşmelere uygulanıp uygulanmayacağı belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır.

Keywords: Tek Taraflı Sona Erdirme Hakkı, Vekâlet Sözleşmesi, İsimsiz Sözleşme, Emredici Nitelik, Düzenleyici Nitelik

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Contractual relationships in which the agent undertakes to conduct a particular business or provide certain services of the principal are known as “agency contracts” (TCO art. 502). The agency contract is a nominate contract under the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO art. 502–504). The definition, scope, and obligations of the parties and the termination of the agency contract are expressly regulated in our law. Under this contract, the agent is obliged to conduct a certain business or provide certain services of the principal. However, the principal shall pay for the uses and expenses that the agent provides for the fulfillment of the order. If the contracting parties decide on remuneration or if there is a custom, it shall be added to the fee. When such general reasons for termination as performance or impossibility occur, the agency contract comes to an end. However, the reasons for the termination of the agency contract are not limited to these grounds. In the case of the contract section of the TCO alone, the characteristic grounds for termination of the agency contract are also regulated. Art. 512, which determines unilateral revocation right, is one of the best-known provisions of the TCO. Under this provision, the contracting parties are granted the right to terminate the agency contract at any time and without giving any reason. However, the second sentence of the provision imposes a time limit on the contracting parties. Accordingly, the contracting party that terminates the contract at any time is obliged to compensate the other party for damages because of the termination.

Art. 512 of the TCO is considered a problematic regulation in the field of agency law because this provision has led to many discussions in legal doctrine and court decisions of Turkish and Swiss law. The first of these discussions concerns whether the provision is of an imperative or regulatory nature. If it is concluded that the provision is imperative, it is not possible for the parties to regulate the unilateral revocation right by contract and to condition the exercise of this right under some conditions. Conversely, if one concludes that TCO art. 512 is of a regulatory nature, the contracting parties may restrict or completely revoke the exercise of the unilateral revocation right.

The second issue that is controversial and needs to be determined concerns the scope of the unilateral revocation right. Because of economic and technological developments or changes in the purposes of contracting parties, the parties choose to conclude the various contracts that are not regulated by law. Hence, according to the principle of freedom of contract (CRT art. 48, TCO art. 26), innominate contracts may arise that are not included in our law. The agency contract is general contracts for the management of another’s affairs. For this reason, it is pointed out that the provisions of the agency contract apply to innominate contracts for the management of the affairs of another, insofar as this provision is also suitable for their nature (TCO art. 502/2). The question whether art. 512 of the Turkish Code of Obligations applies only to simple agency contracts within the meaning of TCO art. 502 or to what extent it also includes innominate contracts for the management of the affairs of another must be answered.

In this article, priority shall be given to innominate contracts in general and the relationship between innominate contracts and agency contracts. Then, in order to clarify the above two questions, the idea of the appropriate legislator to regulate TCO art. 512 has to be dealt with. Subsequently, by evaluating the expression and content of the provision of TCO art. 512, the discussions about its legal nature should be examined on the basis of legal doctrine and court decisions. Eventually, the legal nature of the unilateral revocation right and the question of its application to innominate contracts is to be assessed under a separate heading. The results achieved are generally to be discussed in the final section.


PDF View

References

  • Akipek, Şebnem Alt Vekâlet, (2003). google scholar
  • Aldemir Toprak, İpek Betül Anahtar Teslim İnşaat Sözleşmesi, (2020). google scholar
  • Altop, Atilla Yönetim Danışmanlığı Sözleşmesi, (2003). google scholar
  • Amstutz, Marc / Morin, Ariane Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, Art. 1-529 OR, Einl. vor Art. 184 ff, (Hrsg. Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand), (6. Aufl., 2015). google scholar
  • Antalya, Gökhan Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler C. V/1, 1, Temel Kavramlar, Sözleşmeden Doğan Borç İlişkileri, (Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı, 2019). google scholar
  • Antalya, Gökhan (Editör)/ Topuz, Murat Medenî Hukuk (Giriş, Temel Kavramlar, Başlangıç Hükümleri), C. I, (Genişletilmiş 3. Baskı, 2019). google scholar
  • Arat, Ayşe “İsimsiz Sözleşmelerin Tamamlanması“, (2006) EÜHFD, C. I, Sa. 2, 239-249. google scholar
  • Aydoğdu, Murat/ Kahveci, Nalan Türk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri (Sözleşmeler Hukuku), (Gözden Geçirilmiş, Yenilenmiş ve Dipnotlu 4. Bası, 2019). google scholar
  • Başpınar, Veysel Vekilin (Avukatın, Hekimin, Mimarın, Bankanın) Özen Borcundan Doğan Sorumluluğu, (2004). google scholar
  • Becker, Herman İsviçre Borçlar Kanunu Şerhi, İkinci Bölüm, Çeşitli Sözleşme İlişkileri Madde: 184-551, (Çeviren: Suat Dura), (1934). google scholar
  • Buff, Felix/ von der Crone, Hans Caspar “Zwingende Natur von Art. 404 OR”, (2014) SZW Heft, 3, 332-343. google scholar
  • Burri, Christof Tendenzen zur Stabilisierung des Schuldvertrags Regeln und Entwicklungen, die das Zustandekommen, die Gültigkeit und die Fortdauer des Vertrags begünstigen, AISUF -Arbeiten aus dem Juristischen Seminar der Universitat Freiburg Schweiz Bd./Nr. 298, (Hrsg. Peter Gauch), (2010). google scholar
  • Bühler, Ronald OR Kommentar Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, OFK - Orell Füssli Kommentar (Navigator.ch), (Hrsg. Jolanta Kren Kostkiewicz, Stephan Wolf, Marc Amstutz, Roland Fankhauser), (3., überarbeitete Aufl., 2016). google scholar
  • Cordey Gehrer Carole/ Giger, Gion Vertragsverhaltnisse Teil 2: Arbeitsvertrag, Werkvertrag, Auftrag, GoA, Bürgschaft Art. 319-529 OR, CHK- Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, (Hrsg. Markus Müller-Chen, Claire Huguenin), (3. Aufl., 2016). google scholar
  • Dünnweber, Inge Vertrag zur Erstellung einer schlüsselfertigen Industrieanlage im internationalen Wirtschaftsverkehr, (1984). google scholar
  • Eren, Fikret “İsimsiz Sözleşmelere İlişkin Bazı Sorunlar”, (2008), Prof. Dr. Turgut Akıntürk’e Armağan, 85-111. google scholar
  • Eren, Fikret Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, (2019). (Özel Hükümler) google scholar
  • Erman, Walter Alexander Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, (Hrsg. Harm Peter Westermann/ Barbara Grunewald/ Georg Maier-Reimer), (13., neu bearbeitete Aufl., 2011). google scholar
  • Fellmann, Walter Der einfache Auftrag, Art. 394-406 OR Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch, Das Obligationenrecht, Die einzelnen Vertragsverhaltnisse, BK- Berner Kommentar Band/Nr. VI/2/4, (Hrsg. Heinz Hausheer), (1992). google scholar
  • Gauch, Peter “Art. 404 OR- Sein Inhalt, seine Rechtfertigung und die Frage seines zwingenden Charakters”, (1992), Recht, 9-22. google scholar
  • Gauch, Peter “Der Auftrag, der Dauervertrag und Art. 404 OR Ein Kurzbeitrag zur Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts”, (2005), SJZ, 520-525. (Auftrag) google scholar
  • Gautschi, Georg Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Bd. VI: Obligationenrecht, 2. Abteilung: Die einzelnen Vertragsverhaltnisse, 4. Teilband: Der einfache Auftrag, (1971). google scholar
  • Graham-Siegenthaler, Barbara Haftpflichtkommentar Kommentar zu den schweizerischen Haftpflichtbestimmungen, (Hrsg. Willi Fischer, Thierry Luterbacher), (2016). google scholar
  • Guhl, Theo Das Schweizerische Obligationenrecht mit Einschlufi des Handels-, Wechsel- und Versicherungsvertragsrechtes, (Neunte Aufl., 2000). google scholar
  • Gümüş, Mustafa Alper Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Cilt I, (3. Bası, 2013). (C. I) google scholar
  • Gümüş, Mustafa Alper Borçlar Hukuku Özel Hükümler, Cilt II, (3. Bası, 2014). (C.II) google scholar
  • Huguenin, Claire Obligationenrecht - Allgemeiner und Besonderer Teil, (2012). google scholar
  • Huguenin, Claire/ Purtschert, Tina Vertragsverhaltnisse Teil 1: Innominatkontrakte, Kauf, Tausch, Schenkung, Miete, Leihe Art. 184 - 318 OR, CHK - Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, (Hrsg. Markus Müller-Chen, Claire Huguenin), (3. Aufl., 2016). google scholar
  • Karabağ Bulut, Nil Medenî Kanunun 23. Maddesi Kapsamında Kişilik Hakkının Sözleşme Özgürlüğüne Etkisi, (2014). google scholar
  • Kikinis, Michael Kurzkommentar OR Art. 1-529, Art. 184-191 (Hrsg. Heinrich Honsell), (2008). google scholar
  • Krauskopf, Frederic “Die Kündigung von Bauvertragen und die Folgen”, Schweizerische Baurechtstagung 2007 ... für alle, die bauen, (Hrsg. Institut für Schweizerisches und Internationales Baurecht), (2007), 29-66. (Kündigung) google scholar
  • Krauskopf, Frederic Prajudizienbuch OR, Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts (1875-2015), (Hrsg. Peter Gauch, Viktor Aepli, Hubert Stöckli), (neunte, nachgeführte und erweiterte Aufl., 2016). google scholar
  • Kuntalp, Erden Karışık Muhtevalı Akit (Karma Sözleşmeler), (2013). google scholar
  • Larenz, Karl Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, Zweiter Band, Besonderer Teil, 1. Halbband, (13. völlig neubearbeitete Aufl., 1986). google scholar
  • Martinek, Michael Moderne Vertragstypen Bd. I: Leasing und Factoring, (1991). google scholar
  • Martinek, Michael Moderne Vertragstypen Bd. III: Computervertrage, Kreditkartenvertrage sowie sonstige moderne Vertragstypen, (1993). (Bd. III) google scholar
  • Medicus, Dieter/ Lorenz, Stephan Schuldrecht II, Besonderer Teil, (2014). google scholar
  • Merz, Hans “Die Privatrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts im Jahre 1990 -Obligationenrecht”, (Hrsg. Jörg Schmid, Frederic Krauskopf), (1992), ZBJV, Heft 4, 202-220. google scholar
  • Mondini, Andrea/ Liatowitsch, Manuel “Jederzeitige Kündbarkeit von Auftrâgen schadet dem Dienstleistungsstandort Schweiz Zeit für eine Praxisanderung zu Art. 404 OR”, (2009), AJP, 294-300. google scholar
  • Münch, Peter “Die jederzeitige Auflösbarkeit des Auftrags bleibt zwingend”, (Hrsg. Jörg Schmid, Frederic Krauskopf), (1997) ZBJV, Heft 5, 333-334. google scholar
  • Oğuzman, M. Kemal / Barlas, Nami Medenî Hukuk Giriş, Kaynaklar, Temel Kavramlar, (25. Bası, 2019). google scholar
  • Oğuzman, M. Kemal/ Öz, M. Turgut Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, C. I, (Güncellenip Genişletilmiş, 17. Bası, 2019). google scholar
  • Oktay, Saibe “İsimsiz Sözleşmelerin Geçerliliği, Yorumu ve Boşlukların Tamamlanması“, (1996), İÜHFM, C. LV, 263-296. google scholar
  • Peyer, Jürg Die Widerruf im schweizerischen Auftragsrecht, (1974). google scholar
  • Sarı, Suat Vekâlet Sözleşmesinin Tek Taraflı Olarak Sona Erdirilmesi, (2004). google scholar
  • Schönle Herbert Zürcher Kommentar Bd./Nr. V/2a, Kauf und Schenkung, Erste Lieferung, Art. 184191 OR Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Obligationenrecht, Kommentar zur 1. und 2. Abteilung (Art. 1-529 OR), Vorbemerkungen zur Zweiten Abteilung (Art. 184-551), (Hrsg. Peter Gauch), (Dritte, völlig neu bearbeitete Aufl., 1993). google scholar
  • Seçer, Öz “Vekâlet, Sözleşmesinin Vekâlete Özgü Sebeplerle Sona Ermesi”, (2015), İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Özel Sayı C. 2, 877-944. google scholar
  • Serozan, Rona Sözleşmeden Dönme, (Gözden Geçirilmiş 2. Bası, 2007). google scholar
  • Stöckli, Hubert “Art. 404 OR ist zwingend, was sich aber nicht immer auswirkt - Entscheid des Bundesgerichts vom 10. Februar 2009 (4A_437/2008)”, (2010), BR, Heft 4, 178-179. google scholar
  • Tandoğan, Haluk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, C. I/1, (Tümü Yeniden İşlenmiş ve Genişletilmiş Beşinci Basım’dan Altıncı Tıpkı Basım, 2008). (C. I/1) google scholar
  • Tandoğan, Haluk Borçlar Hukuku Özel Borç İlişkileri, C. II, (1989 yılı Dördüncü Tıpkı Basım’dan Beşinci Tıpkı Basım, 2010). (C.II) google scholar
  • Weber, Rolf H. Kurzkommentar OR Art. 1-529, Art. 394-406 (Hrsg. Heinrich Honsell), (2008). (KUKO OR) google scholar
  • Weber, Rolf H. Basler Kommentar, Obligationenrecht I, Art. 1-529 OR, Art. 394-406 (Hrsg. google scholar
  • Heinrich Honsell, Nedim Peter Vogt, Wolfgang Wiegand), (6. Aufl., 2015). (BSK OR) google scholar
  • Yavuz, Cevdet Borçlar Hukuku Dersleri, Özel Hükümler, (Yenilenmiş 15. Baskı, 2018). google scholar
  • Yücer Aktürk, İpek İsimsiz Sözleşme Genel Teorisi ve Uzaktan Öğretim Sözleşmesi, (2016). google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Aldemir Toprak, İ.B. (2020). The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(69), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


AMA

Aldemir Toprak İ B. The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2020;0(69):1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


ABNT

Aldemir Toprak, İ.B. The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 69, p. 1-36, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aldemir Toprak, İpek Betül,. 2020. “The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 69: 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aldemir Toprak, İpek Betül,. “The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 69 (May. 2024): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


Harvard: Australian Style

Aldemir Toprak, İB 2020, 'The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts', Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 69, pp. 1-36, viewed 9 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aldemir Toprak, İ.B. (2020) ‘The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(69), pp. 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001 (9 May. 2024).


MLA

Aldemir Toprak, İpek Betül,. “The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 69, 2020, pp. 1-36. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


Vancouver

Aldemir Toprak İB. The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul [Internet]. 9 May. 2024 [cited 9 May. 2024];0(69):1-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001 doi: 10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001


ISNAD

Aldemir Toprak, İpekBetül. “The Nature of The Revocation Right the Agency Contract and the Question of its Application to the Innominate Contracts”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0/69 (May. 2024): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0001



TIMELINE


Submitted10.10.2020
Accepted24.11.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.