Force Majeure Events Affecting the Check Presentation: Evaluation of Article 811 TCC Using the Example of COVID-19 Pandemic
Koray DemirForce majeure events affecting the presentation of a check are regulated by Article 811 TCC. Force majeure events can generally be defined as events that (temporarily) make it impossible to fulfill any obligations, and thus, the obligations pend during the force majeure events. Article 811 TCC stipulates that the holder of a check affected by a force majeure event may present the check later without losing any of his or her rights. It reflects the general understanding of the force majeure institution and has been exercised in a few cases until now. Therefore, some questions, such as which events shall be deemed to be a force majeure event under the terms of Article 811 TCC, whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic hinders the holders of a check to present it, and whether the notification and recording obligation of the holder as it is foreseen in the second paragraph of Article 811 TCC is absolute, are still unaddressed. The relation of Article 811 TCC with the interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226 with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic also needs to be highlighted. Against this background, this paper deals with the aforementioned questions and comes inter alia to the following conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic is a force majeure event in terms of Article 811 TCC. Article 811 TCC should be applied in the cases of the delays of check presentation instead of the interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226. The interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226 can however be used to interpret and complement Article 811 TCC. Finally, the notification and recording obligation of the holder as it is foreseen in the second paragraph of Article 811 TCC are not absolute.
Çekin İbrazında Mücbir Sebepler: COVID-19 Salgını Örneğinde TK M 811 Hükmünün Değerlendirilmesi
Koray DemirÇekin ibrazında mücbir sebepler meselesi Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun (“TK”) 811. maddesinde düzenlenmiştir. Mücbir sebep, niteliği itibariyle kişinin mücbir sebep süresince yükümlülüklerinin ifasını imkânsız hale getirmekte ve bu mükellefiyetlerinden geçici süreyle kurtulması sonucunu doğurmaktadır. Bu manada TK m 811 hükmünün özü, hamilin ibraz süresi içerisinde muhatap bankaya ödeme talebi ile başvuramamış olmasının bir mücbir sebebe dayanması halinde anılan sürelerin mücbir sebep ortadan kalkıncaya kadar uzayacağını öngörmekten ibarettir. Ancak tahlile konu hüküm şimdiye kadar yeterli uygulama alanı bulamamıştır; hükümde geçtiği haliyle hangi vakaların mücbir sebep olarak kabul edilebileceği, güncel COVID-19 salgınının bu kapsamda mücbir sebep olarak görülüp görülemeyeceği ve hükmün ikinci fıkrasında öngörülen ihbar ve kayıt şartının mutlak olup olmadığı gibi soruların cevaplanması gerekmektedir. Aynı şekilde COVID-19 salgını özelinde TK m 811 hükmünün 7226 sayılı Kanun’un Geçici 1. maddesi ile ilişkisinin de incelenmesi icap edecektir. Burada temsil olunan görüş uyarınca, güncel COVID-19 salgını TK m 811 hükmü anlamında bir mücbir sebeptir. Salgın nedeniyle çekin ibrazında yaşanabilecek gecikmeler dolayısıyla TK m 811 hükmünün uygulanması gerekir. 7226 sayılı Kanun’un Geçici 1. maddesi anılan hükmün yorumu ve tamamlanmasında kullanılabilir. TK m 811/2 hükmünde geçtiği haliyle ihbar ve kayıt şartı da mutlak değildir.
The holder of a check is obliged to present it at the addressee bank and ask for the payment within a general period of 10 days; if not, he or she inter alia loses his or her regress rights. However, the holder may have to hold back from presenting the check due to the occurrence of an event that was not in his or her control that may be deemed to be a force majeure event. In such cases, Article 811 TCC stipulates that without losing any rights, the holder of a check affected by a force majeure event may present the check after its extinction. Hence, Article 811 TCC reflects the general understanding of the force majeure institution, that is, the obligation to present a check at the addressee bank and ask for the payment pends during a force majeure event.
However, Article 811 TCC needs to be highlighted in many ways because it could not be exercised sufficiently until now. For instance, some questions still seem to be unaddressed, such as which event shall be deemed to be a force majeure event under the terms of Article 811 TCC, whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic hinders the holders of a check to present it, and whether the notification and recording obligation of the holders as it is foreseen in the second paragraph of Article 811 TCC are absolute. The relation of Article 811 TCC with the interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226 with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic also needs to be highlighted.
In our opinion, the COVID-19 pandemic shall be deemed to be a force majeure event in terms of Article 811 TCC. Some may doubt this opinion because the banks were open during the pandemic. However, we believe that a force majeure event is not an absolute hindrance that cannot come to an end at any cost. Hence, the holders of a check might have brought it to the addressee bank. However, we should ask the question “at what cost?” to evaluate such a case and come to a general conclusion that banks being operational should not hinder us from marking the pandemic as a force majeure event because the law shall not ask its addressees to risk their lives merely not to lose any of their rights. Comparative studies in German law also support this viewpoint.
Furthermore, in our opinion, the notification and recording obligation of the holder as it is foreseen in the second paragraph of Article 811 TCC are not absolute because this paragraph is a contradiction in itself. Due to the force majeure event, the lawmaker excuses the holders of a check to present it at the addressee bank. However, the same lawmaker asks them to visit a notary public during the pandemic to notify the force majeure event. In addition, comparative studies reveal that in cases of an unknown event, the said notification requirement was just deemed to be necessary. We may thus agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is known by the others involved in the check relation.
Finally, because Article 811 TCC is a special norm in comparison to the interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226, we believe that the former should be applied to the cases of the delays of check presentation and not the latter. As may be known, special norms always take precedence and can be applied even when they are old. However, the interim Article 1 of Law Nr 7226, on which the holders of a check may lean, contains for instance the dates of the pandemic; thus, it may be used to interpret and complement Article 811 TCC in this sense.
