Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010    Full Text (PDF)

Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law

Vildan Peksöz

Unregistered (ordinary) partnerships do not have legal status under Turkish law. That’s why these partnerships are not entitled to undoubtedly have the capacity to be a party at court; however, there are some developments in Germany related to the legal capacity of unregistered partnerships. According to the German Supreme Court, these partnerships are able to have rights and obligations, and these partnerships can be parties at courts. It means that they can implement the action of suing another party, or in turn be brought an action against. In this article, the question needs to be answered if it is at all possible to accept the decision of the German Supreme Court in Turkey or not. To typically acquire elucidation to this question, Turkish and German doctrine and court decisions compared and the reasons for the Court’s decision are assessed. Furthermore, fundamental doctrine, as well as court decisions in Switzerland, is analyzed to decide Turkish Law. At the ultimate end of this informative article, a new model is conclusively suggested for Turkey.

Keywords: Unregistered Partnerships, Legal Person, Legal Capacity
DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010    Full Text (PDF)

Parteifähigkeit der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts: Eine vergleichende Studie zum deutschen, schweizerischen und türkischen Recht

Vildan Peksöz

Im türkischen und schweizerischen Recht hat die einfache Gesellschaft keine Rechtspersönlichkeit. Deswegen ist diese Gesellschaft nicht rechts-und parteifähig. Aber in Deutschland gibt es diesbezüglich wichtige Entwicklungen. In Deutschland, in der Schweiz und in der Türkei hat die Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts die gleichen Wurzeln. In diesem Beitrag wird die Frage nach dem Stand der Lehre und Rechtsprechung in der Schweiz und in der Türkei beantwortet. Dann gilt es zu entscheiden, ob die deutsche Lehre und die Entscheidung des BGH auf die türkische Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts übertragen werden kann und soll. Am Ende wird eine Übertragung des Modells, wie es in Deutschland und der Schweiz existiert, auf das türkische Recht vorgeschlagen.

Keywords: Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts, Juristische Person, Partiefähigkeit
DOI :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010   IUP :10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010    Full Text (PDF)

Adi Ortaklığın Taraf Ehliyeti: Alman, İsviçre ve Türk Hukuku Bakımından Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Vildan Peksöz

Türk hukukunda ve İsviçre hukukunda adi ortaklıkların taraf ehliyeti yoktur. Bu yüzden adi ortaklıklar davacı ve davalı olamaz. Buna karşın Alman hukukunda adi ortaklıkların taraf ehliyetiyle ilgili birtakım gelişmeler yaşanmıştır. Alman Federal Mahkemesinin 29.01.2001 tarihinde verdiği karara göre adi ortaklıklar haklara ve borçlara sahip olabilir. Ayrıca söz konusu kararda adi ortaklıkların taraf ehliyetine sahip olduğu kabul edilmiştir. Bu makalede Alman Federal Mahkemesinin kararının Türk hukukunda kabul edilmesinin mümkün olup olmadığı tartışılmaktadır. Bu anlamda Türk hukuku ve Alman hukuku karşılaştırılmış; Alman Federal Mahkemesinin kararındaki gerekçeler değerlendirilmiştir. İsviçre öğretisi ve mahkeme kararları, Türk hukukuna ilişkin değerlendirme yapılırken ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda Türkiye için yeni bir model önerilmiştir.

Keywords: Adi Ortaklık, Tüzel Kişilik, Taraf Ehliyeti

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


A partnership established under private law is a relationship set up by contract between two or more persons to meet a common goal by mutual efforts and means. These partnerships do not have legal status and can not be a party in courts under Turkish law. It typically means that these partnerships are not able to file a suit. Moreover, it is not possible to file a suit against them. The capacity to have rights and obligations of unregistered partnerships is not accepted under Swiss Law. So they are not able to be parties in judicial courts. The German Supreme Court accepted on 29.01.2001 that unregistered partnerships can have rights and obligations although they retain no legal personality. Also, the Court accepted standing to sue of the unregistered partnerships without having legal personality. That’s why in German Courts unregistered partnerships have an active and passive capacity of being subject to a lawsuit.

A partnership established under private law is a relationship set up by contract between two or more persons to meet a common goal by mutual efforts and means. These partnerships do not have legal status and can not be a party in courts under Turkish law. It typically means that these partnerships are not able to file a suit. Moreover, it is not possible to file a suit against them. The capacity to have rights and obligations of unregistered partnerships is not accepted under Swiss Law. So they are not able to be parties in judicial courts. The German Supreme Court accepted on 29.01.2001 that unregistered partnerships can have rights and obligations although they retain no legal personality. Also, the Court accepted standing to sue of the unregistered partnerships without having legal personality. That’s why in German Courts unregistered partnerships have an active and passive capacity of being subject to a lawsuit.

The German Supreme Court promptly decided that there is a gap in German law related to unregistered partnerships and the judge has to address this gap. However, according to the opinion which is defended in this article, there is not a gap in the Turkish Civil Code and Civil Procedure Code about the legal nature of these partnerships. Under Turkish codes, the generating capacity of unregistered partnerships is not regulated. However, by being quiet, lawmakers regulate that these partnerships do not possess a legal capacity. That is why it really is not the duty of the judge to regulate the capacity of unregistered partnerships, but it is the duty of lawmakers. De lege ferenda, the partnerships may be promptly accepted as utilising the capacity to possess rights, obligations, and standing to sue under Turkish law. Due to this, in this article, an innovative model is suggested, related to these partnerships. According to this model, unregistered partnerships can sue and be sued in some aspects.

Under German and Swiss law a Partnership that uses a common firm-name and business corporation becomes automatically a general/registered partnership (Kollektivgesellschaft) and is ruled by the special provisions of the Code. These partnerships undoubtedly have to be properly registered. They are allowed to use a firm-name. But different from Turkish law, in Germany and Switzerland, they are not recognised as legal personalities. In Turkey, a considerable number of registered partnerships are very small because of the standard procedure to intentionally set up such a beneficial partnership. In addition, just real persons are able to be partners of these partnerships. It means that legal persons are not able to be partners of these partnerships. Different from registered partnerships, it is easy to establish unregistered partnerships. Because there is not an official procedure for the establishment, also for legal persons, there are not any limitations to being partners of unregistered partnerships. Therefore, these responsible persons typically choose to establish unregistered partnerships and this situation makes unregistered partnerships very popular in Turkey. The Turkish Supreme Court however rejects many specific cases concerning unregistered partnerships because of not having the legal capacity. Taking the example of registered partnerships, this article suggests an alternative model of unregistered partnerships under Turkish law which has the legal capacity to sue and be sued. This model should be capable of retaining a firm name and being registered.


PDF View

References

  • Ansay T, ‘Adi Şirket Bir Tüzel Kişi Midir?’ Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Moroğlu’na 65. Yaş Günü Armağanı (2001) 1. google scholar
  • Ansay T, Adi Şirket Dernek ve Ticaret Şirketleri (Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü 1967). google scholar
  • Arslan R/Yılmaz E/Taşpınar Ayvaz S/Hanağası E, Medenî Usul Hukuku (Yetkin 2020). google scholar
  • Atalı M/Ermenek İ/Erdoğan E, Medenî Usûl Hukuku (Yetkin 2020). google scholar
  • Barlas N, Adi Ortaklık Temeline Dayalı Sözleşme İlişkileri (Vedat 2016). google scholar
  • Blomeyer J, ‘Die Rechtsnatur der Gesamthand’ (1971) 10 Juristische Rundschau 397. google scholar
  • Cordes A, ‘Die Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts auf dem Weg zur juristischen Person?’ (1998) 11 JZ 545. google scholar
  • Dauner-Lieb B, ‘Ein neues Fundament für die BGB-Gesellschaft’ (2001) DStR 356. google scholar
  • Derleder P, ‘Die Aufgabe der monistischen Struktur der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts durch Verleihung der Rechtsfâhigkeit’ (2001) 49 BB 2485. google scholar
  • Duursma D/Duursma-Keeplinger H C/Roth M, Handbuch zum Gesellschaftsrecht (LexisNexis 2007). google scholar
  • Emmenegger S/Tschentscher A, Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, Einleitung und Personenrecht (Stâmpfli 2012). google scholar
  • Erişir E, Medeni Usûl Hukukunda Taraf Ehliyeti (Güncel 2007). google scholar
  • Fabricius F, Relativitat der Rechtsfahigkeit (C.H. Beck’sche 1963). google scholar
  • Fellmann W/Müller K, Berner Kommentar, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Privatrecht, das Obligationenrecht, Bd. VI, 2 Abteilung, Die Einzelnen Vertragsverhâltnisse, Die Einfache Gesellschaft, 8. Teilband, Art 530-544 OR (Stâmpfli 2006). google scholar
  • Flume W, ‘Gesellschaft und Gesamthand’ (1972) 136 ZHR 177. google scholar
  • Furrer M, Der gemeinsame Zweck als Grundbegriff und Abgrenzungskriterium im Recht der einfachen Gesellschaft (Schulthess Polygraphischer 1996). google scholar
  • von Gierke O, Deutsches Privatrecht (Duncker&Humblot 1936). google scholar
  • Göckeler S, Die Stellung der Gesellschaft des bürgerlichen Rechts im Erkenntnis-, Vollstreckungs und Konkursverfahren (Duncker &Humboldt 1992). google scholar
  • Hâfliger R, Die Parteifahigkeit im Zivilprozess (Schulthess Polygraphischer 1987). google scholar
  • Heller R, Der Zivilprozess der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Recht (Carl Heymann 1989). google scholar
  • Hess B, ‘Grundfragen und Entwicklungen der Parteifâhigkeit’ (2004) 117/3 ZZP 267. google scholar
  • Honsell H, Basler Kommentar (Helbing Lichtenhahn 2014). google scholar
  • Kale S, Medeni Yargılamada Taraf Ehliyeti (On İki Levha 2010). google scholar
  • Kırca Ç, ‘Örtülü (Gizli) Boşluk Ve Bu Boşluğun Doldurulması Yöntemi Olarak Amaca Uygun Sınırlama (Teleologische Reduktion)’ (2001) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. google scholar
  • Kuru B, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü, C. I (Demir Demir 2001). google scholar
  • Maass O/Siems M, ‘Die Rechtsfâhigkeit der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts in Deutschland -Ein Vorbild für Österreich?’ (2002) 4 wbl 149. google scholar
  • Morawietz M, Die rechts-und parteifahige Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts im Zivilprozess (Nomos 2011). google scholar
  • Müller K, Die Übertragung der Mitgliedschaft bei der einfachen Gesellschaft (Schulthess Juristische Medien 2003). google scholar
  • Peifer K H, ‘Rechtsfâhigkeit und Rechtssubjektivitât der Gesamthand -die GbR als OHG?’ google scholar
  • (2001) NZG 296. google scholar
  • Pekcanıtez H/Taş Korkmaz H, Pekcanıtez Usûl Medeni Usûl Hukuku (On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Peksöz V, Medenî Usûl Hukuku Açısından Adi Ortaklık İlişkileri (On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Pohlmann P, ‘Anmerkung zu BGH, Urt. v. 21. 9. 2001 - II ZR 331/00, (Rechts- und Parteifahigkeit der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts)’ (2002) 28 ZZP 103. google scholar
  • Prütting H, ‘Die Parteifahigkeit der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts als Methodenproblem’, Festschrift für Herbert Wiedemann zum 70. Geburtstag (C.H. Beck 2002). google scholar
  • Raster N, Die Verselbstandigung der Gesellschaft des bürgerlichen Rechts (S. Roderer 2001). google scholar
  • Reichert E, Die BGB-Gesellschaft im Zivilprozess (Peter Lang 1988). google scholar
  • Seiferlein S, Die Rechtsfahigkeit der BGB-Aussengesellschaft unter Betrachtung ausgewahlter Folgeprobleme (Josef Eul 2004). google scholar
  • Siegwart A, Das Obligationenrecht, 4. Teil, Die Personengesellschaften, Art 530-619 (Schulthess&Co. 1938). google scholar
  • von Steiger W, Schweizerisches Privatrecht, Handelsrecht, Band VIII/1 (Helbing und Lichtenhahn 1976). google scholar
  • Sutter-SommT/HasenböhlerF/LeuenbergerC, Kommentarzur Schweizerischen Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) (Schulthess 2016). google scholar
  • Şener O H, Adi Ortaklık (Yetkin 2008). google scholar
  • Tanrıver S, Medeni Usul Hukuku (Yetkin 2020). google scholar
  • Taormina A, Innenansprüche in der einfachen Gesellschaft und deren Durchsetzung (Universitatsverlag 2003). google scholar
  • Ulmer P, ‘Die höchstrichterlich ‘entratselte Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts’’ (2001) 14 ZIP 585. google scholar
  • Üstündağ S, Medeni Yargılama Hukuku (Nesil 2000). google scholar
  • Vonzun R, Rechtsnatur und Haftung der Personengesellschaften (Helbing&Lichtenhahn 2000). google scholar
  • Weiss M K, Rechtsfahigkeit, Parteifahigkeit und Haftungsordnung der BGB-Gesellschaft nach dem Grundlagenurteil des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 29.01.2001 (Ergon 2005). google scholar
  • Wertenbruch J, Die Haftung von Gesellschaften und Gesellschaftsanteilen in der Zwangsvollstreckung (Dr. Otto Schmidt 2000). google scholar
  • Wertenbruch J, ‘Die Parteifahigkeit der GbR-die Ânderungen für die Gerichts-und Vollstreckungspraxis’ (2002) NJW 324. google scholar
  • Wiegand W, ‘ ‘Weisses Ross’ -Ein trojanisches Pferd vor Schweizer Mauern?’, Neuere Tendenzen im Gesellschaftsrecht, (2003) Festschrift für Peter Forstmoser zum 60. Geburtstag 33. google scholar
  • Timm W, Die Rechtsfahigkeit der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts und ihre Haftungsverfassung (1995) NJW 3209. google scholar
  • Zöllner W, ‘Rechtssubjektivitat von Personengesellschaften’ (1993) Festschrift für Joachim Gernhuber zum 70. Geburtstag 563. google scholar

Citations

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


EXPORT



APA

Peksöz, V. (2020). Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(69), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


AMA

Peksöz V. Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2020;0(69):263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


ABNT

Peksöz, V. Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 69, p. 263-276, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Peksöz, Vildan,. 2020. “Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 69: 263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


Chicago: Humanities Style

Peksöz, Vildan,. “Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 69 (May. 2024): 263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


Harvard: Australian Style

Peksöz, V 2020, 'Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law', Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 69, pp. 263-276, viewed 6 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Peksöz, V. (2020) ‘Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(69), pp. 263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010 (6 May. 2024).


MLA

Peksöz, Vildan,. “Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 69, 2020, pp. 263-276. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


Vancouver

Peksöz V. Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul [Internet]. 6 May. 2024 [cited 6 May. 2024];0(69):263-276. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010 doi: 10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010


ISNAD

Peksöz, Vildan. “Capacity to Become Party of Unregistered (Ordinary) Partnerships: A Comparative Study of German, Swiss and Turkish Law”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0/69 (May. 2024): 263-276. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2020.69.0010



TIMELINE


Submitted31.05.2020
Accepted07.11.2020

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.