Taşıma Hukukunda Riziko Alanı İlkesi Bağlamında Nötr Alan ve COVID-19’un Nötr Alan Olarak Değerlendirilmesi
6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun “Taşıma İşleri” başlıklı dördüncü kitabında yer alan TTK m 863/3, 865, 866/2, 867/4, 869/1, 4 ve 870/2, 3 hükümleri incelendiğinde taşıma sözleşmesinin taraflarına tanınan bazı talep haklarının doğması; taşıma veya teslim engelinin kendi riziko alanına girmemesine veya karşı tarafın riziko alanında yer almasına bağlanmıştır. Riziko alanı ilkesi, kusur sorumluluğundan daha geniştir. Zira taşıma sözleşmesinin taraflarının riziko alanları belirlenirken, şahsi kusurlu davranış veya ihmallerinin yanı sıra; tarafların organizasyon alanlarından kaynaklı kusurlar, öngörülebilirlik ve hakimiyet gibi bazı diğer kriterlere de başvurulması gerekir. Taşıma sözleşmelerinde tarafların, başka bir deyişle gönderen ve taşıyıcının riziko alanı olmak üzere en az iki riziko alanı olduğu tartışmasız kabul edilmektedir. Bununla birlikte bu iki riziko alanı dışında bir “nötr alan” olup olmadığı tartışmalıdır. Nötr alanın varlığının kabulü durumundaysa, nötr alanda yer alan bir sebepten ötürü bir taşıma veya teslim engelinin doğması durumunda buna taşıma sözleşmesinin hangi tarafının katlanması gerektiğine ilişkin kanuni bir düzenleme olmadığı gibi doktrinde de farklı çözümler önerilmektedir. 2020 yılının Şubat ayından itibaren tüm dünyada hayatı durma noktasına getiren COVID-19 pandemisi, nötr alanın kabulünün ne kadar gerekli olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Nötr alanın varlığı kabul edildiğindeyse, nötr alanda yer alan bir sebepten kaynaklanan taşıma veya teslim engelinin sonuçlarının ve özellikle maddi külfetinin taşıma sözleşmesinin hangi tarafına yükleneceğine ilişkin taşıma hukuku sistematiği içerisinde, riziko alanı ilkesini içeren her bir hükmün ratio legisi ve menfaatler dengesi gözetilerek çözümler üretilmelidir. Bu bağlamda Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun beşinci kitabı altında yer alan ve denizde taşımaya ilişkin hükümlerden de faydalanılmalıdır.
Neutral Area In Terms of Risk Area Principle In Transportation Law and Assessment of COVID-19 Pandemic In Regards To Neutral Area
The transport law of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 grants certain demand rights to the parties of a carriage contract. This has been attributed to the fact that the transport or delivery obstacle may not fall within the carrier’s own risk area or is included in the risk area of the other party. Risk area principle is broader than fault liability. Because, while determining the risk areas of the parties of the contract, besides personally culpable behavior or negligence; some other criteria such as culpability arising from the organizational areas of the parties, predictability, and controllability are also applicable. It is not disputed that there is a carrier’s risk area and a consignor’s risk area. It is, however, controversial whether there is a third or neutral area. If the existence of a neutral risk area is accepted, there is no legal regulation regarding which party must endure the consequences of carriage or delivery obstacles that arise from the neutral risk area; doctrinal solutions to this issue diverge. For much of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic brought normal life to a standstill beginning in February 2020. The pandemic revealed how necessary it is to acknowledge the existence of a neutral risk area. Solutions must be developed within transport law regarding the consequences of carriage or delivery obstacles that result from a neutral event. Also, in this context, the fifth book of the Turkish Commercial Code contains provisions related to sea transport that should be utilized.
According to some of the transport law provisions in Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, the emergence of certain demand rights granted to the parties of a carriage contract was attributed to the fact that the transport or delivery obstacle does not fall within the carrier’s own risk area or is included in the risk area of the other party. The risk area principle is a concept that has been obtained from German law. The risk area principle is incorporated in Art 863 par 3, 865, 866; par 2, 867; par 4, 869; par 1 and par 4, 870; par 2; and par 3 of the Turkish Commercial Code. In these articles, risk area is the determining factor of whether a party of the carriage contract has demand rights. Risk area is not equivalent to or synonymous with fault liability. The risk area principle is more comprehensive than fault liability.
In German doctrine and judicature, it is unanimously accepted that there are at least two risk areas, the risk area of the carrier and the risk area of the consignor. The same applies to Turkish law. But it is disputed whether there is a third risk area, a neutral area outside the risk areas of the parties of the carriage contract. In order to determine whether a carriage or delivery obstacle falls within the risk area of a party, several factors must be taken into consideration. If the carriage or delivery obstacle arises because of personally culpable behavior or negligence of a party, the obstacle falls within the risk area of that party. The same applies if the obstacle is not caused by personally culpable behavior or negligence of a party but by the fault of operational sphere of that party which must comply with the legal requirements. If one party might have been better able to foresee the obstacle than the other party, that obstacle falls also within the risk area of that party.
Even though a majority of obstacles can be placed in the risk area of one of the parties using these criteria, some do not fall within the risk areas of either party. This problem raises the question of whether there is a third risk area, a neutral risk area for that matter. More importantly there is a question of how to handle an obstacle caused by a reason arising from the neutral area and which party should have the onus of responsibility for that obstacle when neither party can be held responsible for an obstacle caused by a reason that lies in the neutral risk area.
COVID-19 has proven that a global pandemic is not something that either party in a carriage contract could have anticipated. Globally, lockdowns, nationwide shutdowns, import/export limitations, and other drastic measures to fight the pandemic have caused a lot of carriage and delivery obstacles. According to our sort criteria whether an obstacle should be placed in the risk area of the carrier or of the consignor did not help us with COVID-19 related obstacles because COVID-19 and measures that were taken to fight the pandemic did not result from culpable behavior or negligence of either party or fault in their organizational areas. A pandemic that happens only once a century is also not foreseeable for the parties in a carriage contract. Nor is it a more controllable circumstance for either party in the contract. COVID-19 has proved that some obstacles are caused by forces for which the parties of the carriage contract cannot be held responsible. Therefore, the existence for a neutral risk area is legally necessary.
The problem with acknowledging the existence of a neutral risk area is that the consequences of an obstacle arising from the neutral risk area are not regulated and the question remains which party must be burdened with the economic responsibility. The solution must be developed within transportation law separately for each provision that contains a risk area principle. The interests of both parties and the reason behind the specific provision must be considered. In this context, the provisions under the fifth book of the Turkish Commercial Code related to carriage of goods by sea should also be utilized. For example, according to Art 863, par 3 TCC, if the carrier waits for a longer time than is reasonable for loading or unloading based on the provisions of the contract or for reasons out of its risk area, it becomes entitled to reasonable fees as demurrage (a charge for detaining the ship). This provision is parallel to Art 1156 par 4 TCC which regulates the right to demurrage payment in maritime law. According to Art 1156 par 4 TCC, if the loading cannot be completed because of accidental reasons related to the activity areas of both parties like storms, ice, etc., the carrier must wait for loading to be completed. In return, the ship charterer is obliged to pay demurrage to the carrier for these delays even though they are within the loading time. A similar solution is applicable to Art 863 par 3 TCC. The carrier shall wait to load/unload if the consignor insists when the loading/unloading is not possible due to a neutral obstacle. In that case the consignor must pay demurrage for the waiting time. If it is uncertain when the obstacle will be lifted and the consignor does not wish to pay demurrage, the consignor has the right to terminate the contract according to Art 865 TCC without having to pay a termination indemnity
