Alacağın Devri veya Borcun Üstlenilmesinin Cezaî Şarta Etkisi
İrem Yayvak NamlıCezai şart, uygulamada birçok sözleşmede yer almakla birlikte, gerek doktrinde gerekse yargı kararlarında halen çözümlenmeyi bekleyen birçok tartışmalı konu içermektedir. Bu konulardan biri ise alacağın devri veya borcun üstlenilmesi halinde cezai şartın akıbetidir. Çalışmamızda öncelikle cezai şartın fer’i niteliği ele alınacak olup, daha sonra Türk, İsviçre ve Alman doktrininde konu hakkında ileri sürülen görüşlere yer verilecektir. En son olarak ise tartışmalı hususlarda cezai şartın fer’i niteliğinin odak alındığı kanaatimiz belirtilecektir.
Die Auswirkung der Forderungsabtretung oder der Schuldübernahme auf die Konventionalstrafe
İrem Yayvak NamlıObwohl die Konventionalstrafe in vielen Konventionen in der Praxis enthalten ist, enthält sie viele kontroverse Fragen, die sowohl in der Lehre als auch in den Gerichtsentscheidungen noch zu klären sind. Eines dieser Probleme ist das Schicksal der Konventionalstrafe im Falle der Forderungsabtretung oder Schuldübernahme. In dieser Studie wird zunächst das Prinzip der Akzessorietät der Konventionalstrafe erörtert und anschließend die in der türkischen, schweizerischen und deutschen Lehre vertretenen Meinungen einbezogen. Abschließend möchten wir darauf hinweisen, dass die akzessorische Natur der Konventionalstrafe die kontroversen Themen in den Mittelpunkt stellt.
The Effect of the Transfer of Receivables or Assumption of Debt to the Penalty Clause
İrem Yayvak NamlıAlthough the penalty clause is included in many contracts in practice today, it contains several controversial issues that are still waiting to be resolved both in the doctrine and judicial decisions. One of these issues is the consequence of the penalty clause in the event of the transfer of the receivables or in case the debt is assumed. In our study, first, the accessory nature of the penalty clause will be discussed. Then, the opinions put forward on the subject in the Turkish, Swiss and German doctrines will be included. And finally, we will state our opinion focusing on the accessory nature of the penalty clause on the controversial issues.
Although the penalty clause is included in many contracts in practice today, it contains several controversial issues that are still waiting to be resolved both in the doctrine and in judicial decisions. One of these issues is the consequence of the penalty clause in the event of the transfer of receivables or in case the debt is assumed.
The penalty clause is a provision requiring financial compensation, which is promised to be paid to the other party in the event of the contract is being breached, either partially or fully. In Turkish Law, the penalty clause is regulated in Article 179 and in the following sections of the Turkish Code of Obligations number 6098. The penalty clause appears as a debt in connection with the principal debt. The emergence, continuity and termination of the penalty clause depends on the existence of the principal debt. The transfer of the receivable is regulated between Articles 183 and 194 of the Turkish Code of Obligations number 6098. Because of its accessory nature the penalty clause has significant consequences. One of these is the transfer of authority to demand a penalty clause of the new owner of the receivable in the event of the transfer of the said receivable. The Swiss and German doctrines have for many years placed an emphasis on the transfer of the receivable within the framework of the penalty clause. In this context, however, there are no obvious regulations in Turkish Law. Thus, many different views have arisen on the matter. The focus is set on whether the penalty clause can be transferred independently of the principal receivable. Moreover, many different opinions have also emerged about which creditor has the right to demand a penalty clause. The issue is generally handled depending on whether the penalty clause is due. Our present study focuses specifically on this latter detail.
In the event of the transfer of the principal receivable, the penalty clause which is not yet due will also be transferred to the transferee together with the principal receivable. The matter of transferring the penalty clause to a third party independently of the principal receivable before it is due is controversial. After the penalty clause is due, the principal-accessory debt relationship with the principal debt disappears. In this case, since the penalty clause turns into an independent receivable, the penalty clause does not have to pass onto the transferee when the principal receivable is transferred. In the event of the transfer of the receivable, a distinction should be made taking into account the general principles regarding whether the penalty clause can be transferred independently before or after it is due. Therefore, before the penalty clause is due, an interpretation should be made by paying attention to the fact that it has the accessory nature. In our study, our opinion on the controversial issues is explained in detail within the boundaries of this interpretation.Turkish Code of Obligations number 6098. If the debt is assumed, the accessory nature of the penalty clause comes to the fore regarding the status of the penalty clause. According to Article 198/1 of the TBK, the rights of the creditor other than those related to the personality of the debtor will be reserved even if the debtor has changed. This conclusion does not raise any doubt that the person who assumes the debt will be liable if the penalty clause is due after the debt is assumed. An important issue to address in terms of assuming the debt is whether or not it is possible for a third-party to assume the penalty clause, which has not been due yet, independently of the principal debt. Also, an interpretation should be made by paying attention to the accessory nature of the penalty clause in the controversial areas previously mentioned about assuming the debt. Before the penalty clause is due, it is not possible to independently assume this due to the accessory nature of the penalty clause. On the other hand, the penalty clause continues its existence as an independent debt after it is due. In this case, it is possible to assume it separately from the principal debt. In our study, an attempt was made to find a solution to the controversial issues on assuming debt by taking the German and Swiss Laws into account.
It should be noted that an interpretation should be made without forgetting that the penalty clause is an accessory debt if the receivable is transferred or the debt is assumed. When this method is pursued, it will be possible to obtain consistent results in terms of the effect of the transferred receivable or assumed debt on both the penalty clause which is due and the penalty clause which has not been due yet.
In our study, the accessory nature of the penalty clause will first be discussed. Then, the opinions put forward on the subject in the Turkish, Swiss and German doctrines will be included. And finally, we will state our opinion focusing on the accessory nature of the penalty clause on the controversial issues.
