The Issue of Whether Cases Filed by Commercial Agents or Exclusive Distributors Operating in Turkey Can be Heard by Turkish Courts Despite the Foreign Forum-Selection Clauses
Duygu ErcanDisputes regarding goodwill indemnity and compensation claims stemming from commercial agency or exclusive distributorship contracts are subject to the law chosen by the partiesin accordance with article 24/1 of the Act on Private International and Procedural Law (PIPL) numbered 5718. Also, parties may agree that disputes with a foreign element arising from contracual obligation shall be settled in a foreign state court (PIPL art.47) or by arbitration. In practice, there are cases where the law chosen by the parties does not grant goodwill indemnification or other termination claims or where the waiver in advance of such claims is valid under that law. The countercontracting party aiming to evade the mandatory provisions of Turkish law may unilaterally prepare contract provisions regarding jurisdiction clauses besides choice-of-law. Commercial agencies/exclusive distributors may concede these clauses, since they do not have equal bargaining power as the weaker party. Such choice of law generally serves the purpose of the powerful contracting party to eliminate termination claims of the commercial agents and exclusive distributors. In thisregard, ourstudy is mainly focused on the issue of whether cases regarding termination claims of self-employed commercial agents or exclusive distributors operating in Turkey can be heard by Turkish courts, in cases where the forum-selection clauses may be regarded as a manoeuvre designed to circumvent the mandatory rules of Turkish law on commercial agents.
Türkiye’de Faaliyet Gösteren Acente veya Tek Satıcıların Taraf Oldukları Yabancı Unsurlu Sözleşmelerde Yer Alan Yetki veya Tahkim Şartına Rağmen Açacakları Davaların Türk Mahkemelerinde Görülüp Görülemeyeceği Meselesi
Duygu ErcanAcentelik ve tek satıcılık gibi sözleşme ilişkilerine istinaden ileri sürülen denkleştirme veya tazminat taleplerine ilişkin uyuşmazlıklar, 5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun1 m.24/1 uyarınca, taraflarca seçilen hukuka tabidir. Uygulamada, acentelik veya tek satıcılık gibi sözleşmelere uygulanmak üzere seçilen hukukun, denkleştirme veya tazminat talebine imkân tanımadığı veya bu talep haklarından peşinen feragati geçerli saydığı hâllere rastlanmakta ve bu tercihin, güçlü âkit tarafın, zayıf taraf olan acente ve tek satıcının feshe dayalı taleplerini bertaraf etme amacına hizmet ettiği görülmektedir. Denkleştirme talebinden peşinen feragat edilmesini geçersiz sayan Türk hukukunun emredici hükmünü (TTK m.122/4) dolanmak isteyen karşı âkit taraf, hükmün uygulanmasını kesin bir surette engellemek adına, müesseseyi tanımayan söz konusu devletin hukuk sisteminin seçilmesinin yanında, bu devletin mahkemelerini yetkilendiren bir hükmün de eklendiği sözleşmeyi, zayıf âkit taraf acente veya tek satıcıya -herhangi bir pazarlık imkânı tanımaksızındayatabilir. Zira tarafların, MÖHUK m. 47 hükmü uyarınca akdi borç ilişkisinden doğan denkleştirme talebine ilişkin bu uyuşmazlığın, yabancı bir devlet mahkemesinde görüleceği hususunda anlaşabilme imkânları olduğu gibi,sözleşmeye tahkim şartı koymaları da mümkündür. Bu itibarla, çalışmamızın esas odağı, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren acente ve tek satıcıyı, feshe dayalı talep haklarından mahrum bırakmak adına sözleşmeye yabancı hukuk seçimi hükmü ile birlikte konulan yetki ve tahkim şartına rağmen davanın Türk mahkemelerinde görülüp görülemeyeceği meselesinin mukayeseli hukuk verileri ışığında değerlendirilmesidir.
Goodwill indemnity or compensation claims of the self-employed commercial agents and exclusive distributors operating in Turkey are subject to Turkish law in the absence of choice- -of-law, since they are the debtors of characteristic performance and have a place of business or habitual residence in Turkey. Also, Turkish courts have international jurisdiction over disputes regarding the commercial agency or exclusive distributorship contracts carried out in Turkey. Such contracts are usually contracts in which commercial agents or exclusive distributors have a much smaller business than the counterparty, even if both contracting parties are merchants. Accordingly, most of them are unilaterally prepared and offered on a “take it or leave it basis” to commercial agents.
Since the parties do not have equal bargaining power, there is a danger of abuse of contractual freedom against the commercial agent or the exclusive distributor, which are the weaker contracting parties. The law-maker, aiming to prevent such an intervention, has forbidden the waiver of goodwill indemnity claim in advance by means of the article 122/4 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102. Such regulations protecting commercial agents/exclusive distributors in case of the termination of the contracts, not only serve the protection of the weaker contracting party but also provide realization of objectives regarding economic public policy of Turkey where the agency and distribution operations play an important role.
On the other hand, contractual claims could be subject to foreign law by choiceof-law under article 24 of the PIPL numbered 5718 in order to preclude the protective regime in favor of agents and distributors. If the chosen law does not grant goodwill indemnification and compensation claims, or if the waiver in advance of such claims is valid under that law, Turkish law could be applicable instead of that law by means of article 5 of the PIPL (intervention of public policy) or article 6 of the PIPL (internationally mandatory rules of Turkish law). Since contracts usually include foreign jurisdiction clauses besides the choice of law, Turkish courts dismissed the action without prejudice. Therefore, in this study, rather than addressing this issue in terms of the conflict of laws, the issues of validity and enforceability of the jurisdiction and arbitration clauses that prevent the dispute from being heard before Turkish courts are examined.
In our opinion, in cases where the parties do not have equal bargaining power and the dominant party uses its position to enable agents or distributors to accept the contract including provisions (such as jurisdiction clauses) to be disadvantageous to it, in accordance with the article 27/1 of the Turkish Law of Obligations, such provisions/clauses may be regarded as null and enforceable due to immorality. If the Turkish commercial agent or exclusive distributor may not rely on certain claims before the foreign court or the arbitral tribunal, it can be said that the economically dominant party abuses the right and the weaker party. Also, in the practice of European Union law, the jurisdiction/arbitration clause stipulated in the contract aiming to circumvent the mandatory rules of procedural or substantive law, is deemed to be null and unenforceable. It should be noted that this regime, which protects the commercial agent against the consequences of termination, only covers agents operating within the EU or the state in question.
On the basis of the our current legal regulations, the question of whether the jurisdiction and arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable may only be answered depending on the law to which the contracts are subjected. Taking into consideration all the provisions of the contract, such clauses may be regarded as a manoeuvre designed to circumvent the mandatory rules of the Turkish law on commercial agents. In such cases, forum selection clauses may be exceptionally disregarded as long as it could be reasonably proved by the Turkish commercial agent or exclusive distributor. Yet, that the law-makers set forth the protective rules in favor of Turkish agents and distributors in the field of procedural law would be the most appropriate way. In this regard, an article such as “In disputes arising out of contracts such as commercial agency or exclusive distributorship performed wholly or predominantly in Turkey, international jurisdiction of Turkish courts can not be disposed by means of exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause before the termination of the contract.” can be stipulated.
