Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts to Grant Interim Measures Regarding Disputes with Foreign Element
Bilgin TiryakioğluThe power of Turkish courts to grant interim measures in disputes containing foreign elements has received critical discussion among scholars. In our view, the lack of any special provision in the Act on Private International and Procedural Law (PIPL) giving Turkish courts power in this matter does not in itself lead to any problem in arbitration. This is because, under the International Arbitration Act, Turkish courts have the power to grant interim measures, irrespective of whether the arbitration takes place in Turkey or in a foreign country. However, there are important factors to consider in regard to the question whether Turkish courts have the power to issue interim measures in relation to disputes with foreign elements that are brought before state courts. The power of the Turkish courts to grant interim measures in relation to disputes that are brought before them or before foreign courts is currently being considered within the scope of the domestic jurisdiction rules in PIPL. Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Law, which is regulates the competency of the court to hear interim measure applications, is insufficient for this purpose, as it was drafted with regard only to matters of domestic law. The best way to reduce the problems caused here is adding a provision to PIPL that regulates the power of the Turkish courts to rule on interim measures.
Yabancı Unsurlu Uyuşmazlıklarda Türk Mahkemelerinin İhtiyati Tedbir Kararı Alma Yetkisi
Bilgin TiryakioğluTürk mahkemelerinin yabancı unsurlu uyuşmazlıklarda ihtiyati tedbir kararı alma yetkisi ile ilgili doktrinde tartışmalar yaşanmaktadır. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanunda (MÖHUK) Türk mahkemelerinin bu husustaki yetkisini belirleyen özel bir düzenlemenin bulunmaması kanımızca tahkim yargısı bakımından bir sıkıntı yaratmamaktadır. Çünkü Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu, tahkim yargılaması ister Türkiye’de yapılsın ister yabancı bir ülkede yapılsın Türk mahkemelerine ihtiyati tedbir kararı alma yetkisini vermektedir. Buna karşılık, devlet yargısında görülen yabancı unsurlu uyuşmazlıklar bakımından Türk mahkemelerinin ihtiyati tedbir kararı alma yetkisinin olup olmadığına ilişkin tartışmaların haklı nedenleri bulunmaktadır. Türk mahkemelerinde veya yabancı devlet mahkemelerinde görülen veya görülecek olan uyuşmazlıklarla ilgili olarak Türk mahkemelerinin ihtiyati tedbir kararı alma yetkisi hali hazırda MÖHUK’dan hareketle iç hukukun yer itibariyle yetki kuralları kapsamında tartışılmaktadır. İç hukukumuzda konuyu düzenleyen Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun (HMK) ihtiyati tedbir kararı almaya yetkili mahkemeyi düzenleyen 390. maddesi ise iç hukuk ilişkileri gözetilerek kaleme alındığından yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu durumun yarattığı sıkıntıları gidermenin en iyi yolu, Türk mahkemelerinin ihtiyati tedbir kararı almasına ilişkin olarak MÖHUK’a bir madde eklenmesidir.
The lack of a special provision in the Act on PIPL that regulates the power of the Turkish courts to grant interim measures in disputes containing foreign elements has led to discussion in terms of both arbitration and court proceedings.
Whether Turkish courts have the power to grant interim measures should be considered a separate question in relation to disputes brought before arbitration tribunals and before national courts.
The power of Turkish courts to grant interim measures must be settled within the provisions of International Arbitration Act (IAA). We believe that the joint consideration of Articles 3 and 6 of the IAA should put an end to all discussions on this subject. Article 6 of the Act indicates that seeking an interim measure before the courts does not constitute a breach of the arbitration agreement, Article 3, which determines the competent court, with the reference made to a court in IAA, indicates what court is to be considered competent to issue an interim measure.
Because granting an interim measure in accordance with Article 6 is asserted to be among the “works specified to be undertaken by the courts,” it is necessary to conclude that a competent Turkish court having international jurisdiction must exist in any event.
However, regarding the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts to issue interim measures on disputes brought before Turkish or foreign courts, the starting point should be the provisions of the PIPL. Because no special provision exists in PIPL, the rules that are to be applied to designate the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts are simply those that relate to domestic jurisdiction in accordance with the reference made in Article 40. Therefore, to designate the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts for hearing applications for interim measures, the rules on the domestic jurisdiction of the Turkish courts in the Civil Procedural Law (CPL) regarding interim reliefs should be adopted. Article 390 of the CPL states that “an interim measure can be sought from the court, which has the jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case, if such interim measure is requested prior to the initiation of a lawsuit; and the court that actually hears the case, if such interim measure is sought after the initiation of a lawsuit.” Because the drafting of Article 390 of the CPL only took domestic disputes into account, it is insufficient to cover disputes and relationships containing foreign elements, as Turkish courts have no jurisdiction to hear the merits of such cases. This is because, in situations of this type, it is not possible to litigate the existence of a competent court to grant an interim measure.
