Breach of Proper Notice Regarding Arbitrator Appointment or Arbitration Proceedings as Grounds for Refusal of Enforcement Under the New York Convention
Candan Yasan TepetaşThe right to be heard is a fundamental right granted to parties in arbitration proceedings, and a requirement of the right to be heard is that the parties must be adequately and timely informed about the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings. Proper notice ensures the implementation of the right to be heard in arbitration. Thus, notice directly affects the validity and enforcement of arbitral awards. Article V(1)(b) of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention; UN, June 10, 1958) provides that recognition or enforcement of an award may be refused if “the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings.” This study examines what should be understood from the concept of “proper notice” under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and how this concept is elaborated upon in the practice of arbitration. The study in this respect first discusses the right to be heard in arbitration and the relationship between this right and proper notice. The study then goes on to evaluate the elements required for a notice to be deemed proper. Subsequently, the article examines the issues related to the application of Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention, such as applicable law and burden of proof, and finishes up with the conclusion. The facts that notices in arbitration proceedings are not made by official means and that the methods in international agreements are not applied do not cause a notice to be deemed improper. Moreover, not every breach or deficiency in presenting a notice will result in a refusal to enforce an award under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. Under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention, objections regarding violations of the right to be heard due to a lack of proper notice should be interpreted narrowly and should be of a nature that may affect the outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Finally, even if the content of the notice is not written on the tracking documents a courier company issues, these documents should be deemed sufficient to prove that a notice has been made. If the respondent claims that the notices made by cargo or courier are unrelated to the arbitration proceedings, the respondent needs to prove this.
New York Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Bir Tenfiz Engeli Olarak Davalıya Hakem Tayini veya Tahkim Yargılaması Hakkında Usûlüne Uygun Tebligat Yapılmamış Olması
Candan Yasan TepetaşHukukî dinlenilme hakkı, tahkim yargılamasında taraflara tanınmış temel bir haktır. Tarafların hakem tayini ve tahkim yargılaması hakkında yeterli şekilde ve zamanında bilgilendirilmeleri, hukukî dinlenilme hakkının gereğidir. Tebligat, tahkimde bilgilenme hakkının gerçekleşmesini sağlar. Tebligatın, hakem kararının geçerliliği ve icrası üzerinde doğrudan etkileri bulunur. New York Sözleşmesi m. V(1)(b)’de aleyhine hakem kararı verilmiş tarafa, “hakemin tayini veya tahkim yargılaması hakkında usûlüne uygun tebligatın yapılmamış” olması, bir tenfiz engeli olarak düzenlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada, New York Sözleşmesi m. V(1)(b) kapsamında “usûlüne uygun tebligat” kavramından ne anlaşılması gerektiği, bunun uygulamada nasıl ele alındığı incelenmiştir. Buna göre öncelikle tahkimde bilgilenme hakkı ve bu hakkın tebligatla ilişkisi ele alınmıştır. Ardından, tebligatın usûlüne uygun sayılması için aranan unsurlar değerlendirilmiştir. Uygulanacak hukuk ve ispat yükü gibi New York Sözleşmesi Sözleşmesi m. V(1)(b)’nin uygulanması ile ilgili konulardan sonra çalışma sonuç bölümü ile tamamlanmıştır. Tahkimde tebligatların resmî yolla yapılmamış olması ya da milletlerarası anlaşmalardaki yöntemlerin uygulanmamış olması, tebligatların usûlsüz sayılmasına yol açmaz; bu sebeple New York Sözleşmesi m. V(1)(b)’nin ihlali söz konusu olmaz. Ayrıca tebligat usûlüne her aykırılık veya eksiklik, New York Sözleşmesi m. V(1)(b) uyarınca hakem kararının tenfizinin reddi sonucunu doğurmaz. New York Sözleşmesi m. V(1) (b) kapsamında tebligatın usûlüne uygun olmaması sebebiyle hukukî dinlenilme hakkının ihlal edildiğine yönelik itirazlar dar yorumlanmalı, tahkim yargılamasının sonucuna etki edebilecek nitelikte olması aranmalıdır. Nihayet, kargo/kurye şirketlerince düzenlenen gönderi takip belgelerinde tebligatın içeriği yazmıyor olsa bile bu belgeler prensip olarak tebligatın yapıldığını ispata elverişli kabul edilmelidir. Davalı, kargo/kurye vasıtasıyla yapılan tebligatların tahkim yargılaması ile ilgili olmadığını, içeriğinin tahkim dışı belgeler olduğunu iddia ediyorsa bunu ispat etmelidir.
The right to be heard is a fundamental right granted to the parties in arbitration proceedings. One requirement of the right to be heard is that the parties are adequately and timely informed about the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings. Proper notice ensures the implementation of the right to be informed in arbitration. Thus, notice directly affects the validity and enforcement of arbitral awards. Article V(1)(b) of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention; UN, June 10, 1958) provides that recognition or enforcement of an award may be refused if “the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings.” This study examines what should be understood from the concept of “proper notice” as found under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and how this concept is elaborated upon in the practice of arbitration.
According to Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention, a proper notice is one that adequately informs the parties of the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings and that is served properly, in the proper language, in a timely manner, and to the correct addressee and address. For a notice in arbitration to be considered proper, having it be served in an official manner is unnecessary, nor is applying domestic rules regarding service or the methods set forth in bilateral or multilateral international agreements. What is essential in terms of a notice in arbitration proceedings is to ensure that a notification procedure has been applied that will enable the addressee to receive information on the relevant matter and to do so by means that are suitable for proof.
Not every breach or deficiency in the notification procedure shall result in the refusal to enforce an award pursuant to Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The objections under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention should be interpreted narrowly. Accordingly, in order to speak of a violation of the right to be heard as a result of improper service, this breach should be of a nature that may affect the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.
If no doubt exists about the addressee actually being aware of the content of the notice despite a procedural breach regarding the notice, the said procedural breach alone should not lead to the refusal of enforcing an arbitral award. Here, one should examine whether the concerned party had the opportunity to meaningfully exercise its right to be heard as a result of actual knowledge or whether it had been granted such an opportunity, even if it were to have occurred later.
In determining whether the right to be informed has been violated for the purposes of Article V(1)(b) of the New Yok Convention, the laws in the place of enforcement will have practical importance. In any case, an enforcement judge in Türkiye should take into account the minimum standards on the right to be informed under Turkish law, being their own law.
Even if the contents of the notice were not written on the tracking documents issued by the courier company, these documents should, in principle, be deemed sufficient to prove that the notifice was made. A defendant who objects to enforcement with the claims that the notices made to him or her via courier were unrelated to the arbitration proceedings and that the contents of the notice did not include documents related to the arbitration proceedings must prove this fact.
