Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001    Full Text (PDF)

An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019

Melis Avşar

In the case subject to the decision of the German Federal Court (BGH) dated 17.10.2019, there was an exclusive choice of court agreement in favor of the Bonn courts, because of one of the parties filed a lawsuit in the US courts, the other party had to pay high amounts of litigation costs and attorney fees. In the case, the BGH accepted that the international choice of court agreement was violated, and it was decided that compensation be paid in accordance with the provisions of the law of obligations. This decision could set a precedent for the states included in the Continental European legal system. The reasonings accepted in the decision are of a nature that can also be asserted in terms of Turkish law. With the exclusive choice of court agreement, the parties are obliged to file a lawsuit in the chosen court (prorogation) and not to file a lawsuit in other non-chosen state courts (derogation). Although the dominant approach was accepting of the legal nature of the international choice of court agreement as a procedural law contract in the past, the new jurisprudence confirmed that the choice of court agreement also has a substantive law character. Article 112 of the TCO will have to be applied to the compensation liability under Turkish law in case of a breach of the choice of court agreement. The conditions sought in article 112 of the TCO are as follows: a breach of an obligation, occurrence of damage, existence of a fault and the presence of a causal link. These elements must be present for the breach of the choice of court agreement to lead to a liability for compensation.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001    Full Text (PDF)

Alman Federal Mahkemesi’nin 17.10.2019 Tarihli Kararı Işığında Milletlerarası Yetki Anlaşmalarının İhlal Edilmesinin Tazminat Sorumluluğu Doğurması Hakkında Bir İnceleme

Melis Avşar

Alman Federal Mahkemesi’nin 17.10.2019 tarihli kararına konu olay, Bonn mahkemeleri lehine münhasır nitelikte bir yetki anlaşması bulunmasına rağmen, taraflardan birinin ABD mahkemelerinde dava açması sonucu, diğer tarafın yüksek tutarlarda dava masrafı ve avukat ücreti ödemek zorunda kalması nedeniyle uğramış olduğu zararın tazmini talebine ilişkindir. Mahkemece bu davada, milletlerarası yetki anlaşmasının ihlal edildiği kabul edilmiş ve borçlar hukuku kapsamında bir tazminat ödenmesine karar verilmiştir. Bu karar, Kıta Avrupası hukuk sistemine dahil devletler bakımından emsal olabilecek niteliktedir. Kararda, kabul edilen gerekçeler Türk hukuku bakımından da ileri sürülebilecek niteliktedir. Münhasır nitelikteki milletlerarası yetki anlaşmasıyla taraflar seçilen mahkemede dava açma (prorogasyon) ve seçilmeyen diğer devlet mahkemelerinde dava açmama (derogasyon) borcu altına girmektedir. Milletlerarası yetki anlaşmasının hukuki niteliğini, usul hukuku sözleşmesi olarak kabul etme görüşü eskiden hâkim olsa da yeni içtihatlarla birlikte maddi hukuk sözleşmesi niteliğine sahip olduğu da kabul edilmektedir. Yetki anlaşmasının ihlal edilmesi, yani seçilmeyen bir devlet mahkemesinde bir dava açılması halinde oluşacak tazminat sorumluluğuna Türk hukukunda TBK madde 112’nin uygulanması gerekecektir. TBK madde 112’de aranan şartlar; bir borcun ihlal edilmiş olması, zarar meydana gelmiş olması, kusurlu olunması ve illiyet bağı bulunmasıdır. Yetki anlaşmasının ihlalinin de tazminat sorumluluğuna yol açabilmesi için bu unsurların mevcut olması gerekir.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


The US company and the German company, both operating in the field of telecommunications, decided in their contract that any disputes arising from the contract would be heard exclusively in the Bonn courts. However, as a result of a contractual dispute, the US company filed a lawsuit against the German company in the District Court of Washington. In this case, the US court gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case for this reason. Thereupon, in the lawsuit filed in the Bonn court, a compensation for the damages arising from the litigation costs (the American rule of cost) and attorney fees due to the lawsuit filed in the US was requested. In the 2019 German Federal Court (BGH) decision, the claim for compensation for the damages arising from the breach of the choice of the court agreement was accepted within the framework of the German Civil Code (BGB) § 280. 

The 2019 BGH decision is quite innovative in terms of accepting the breach of the choice of court agreement, and leads to compensation liability in the field of substantive law (obligations law). The decision has the impact of setting a precedent both in terms of the legal systems in Continental Europe and Turkey. In addition, a clear jurisprudence was presented in the decision in terms of the legal nature of the choice of court agreement, the law applicable to the choice of court agreement and the interpretation of the choice of court agreement. The legal nature of the choice of court agreement was accepted as a substantive law contract in terms of the obligation not to file a lawsuit in the non-chosen court. Furthermore, regardless of the legal nature of the choice of court agreement, if the interpretation of the party wills indicates that the parties enter into an obligation of not to file a lawsuit against each other in a nonchosen court, the liability must arise.

The court accepted that the liability for compensation would be subject to the BGB § 280, that regulates liability for compensation in the case of the breach of contract. In Turkish law, this issue is regulated in article 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligation (TCO). Therefore, the examination of the applicability of the legal grounds in the 2019 BGH decision in terms of Turkish law should be examined within the framework of this article. According to the conditions provided in article 112 of the TCO, the act of filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court will constitute a breach of contract. 

The second condition provided by this article is the occurrence of damage. If the non-chosen court where the lawsuit was filed gives a decision of lack of jurisdiction, the litigation costs and attorney fees incurred must be calculated. However, if the non-chosen court, where the lawsuit was filed, found itself having jurisdiction and making decisions on the merits, revealing the occurrence of damage would be quite difficult. In accordance with the international comity, in this case, finding that damage has occurred and may constitute an interference with the sovereignty of the states. The third condition sought in article 112 of the TCO is the existence of a fault. The plaintiff will be liable for the damage incurred unless he can prove that he was not at fault in filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court. The plaintiff cannot prove that he is not at fault by claiming that his lawyer recommended filing a lawsuit in the nonchosen court. The last condition sought in TCO article 112 is that there should be a causal link between the damage and the act of the breach of the contract.

The compensation claim arising from the breach of the choice of court agreement is subject to a ten-year limitation period stipulated in article 146 of the TCO. This period will begin to run from the date of filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court.  


PDF View

References

  • Ahmed M, The Nature and Enforcement of Choice of Court Agreements: A Comparative Study (1st edn, Hart 2017) google scholar
  • Akinci Z, Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk Ders Kitabi (1st edn, Vedat 2020) google scholar
  • Alangoya Y, Yildirim K and Deren-Yildirim N, Medeni Usul Hukuku Esaslari (8th edn, Beta 2011) google scholar
  • Âlvarez Gonzalez S, ‘The Spanish Tribunal Supremo Grants Damages for Breach of a Choice-of-Court Agreement’ (2009) 6 IPRax google scholar
  • Antomo J, Schadensersatz Wegen Der VerletzungEinerInternationalen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung? (Mohr Siebeck 2017) google scholar
  • ——, ‘Zivilprozessrecht: Schadensersatz Wegen Verletzung Einer Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung’ (2020) 4 EuZW 143 google scholar
  • Arslan R and others, Medeni Usul Hukuku (7th edn, Yetkin 2021) google scholar
  • Avsar M, Milletlerarasi Usul Hukukunda Mahkemelerin Yetkisinin Belirlenmesinde Taraflarin Irade Serbestisi (On Iki Levha 2021) google scholar
  • Aybay R and Dardagan E, Uluslararasi Düzeyde Yasalarin Catismasi (2nd edn, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları 2008) google scholar
  • Baysal B, Zarar Görenin Kusuru (1st edn, On Iki Levha 2012) google scholar
  • Bolayir N, Medeni Usul Hukukunda Yetki Sozlesmeleri (Beta 2009) google scholar
  • Born G, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing (5th edn, International, Kluwer Law 2016) google scholar
  • Briggs A, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2008) google scholar
  • Brownlie I and Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) google scholar
  • Budak AC and Karaaslan V, Medeni Usul Hukuku (5th edn, Filiz 2021) google scholar
  • Caliskan Y, ‘Tahkim Sozlesmesine Aykiriliktan Dolayi Tazminat Talebi’, Milletlerarası Ozel Hukukta Guncel Konular Sempozyumu Anadolu Universitesi Eskisehir 21-22 Nisan 2016 (Yetkin 2016) google scholar
  • Celikel A and Erdem BB, Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk (17th edn, Beta 2021) google scholar
  • Demirkol B, Milletlerarasi Yetki Anlasmalari (Vedat 2018) google scholar
  • Dogan V, Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk (6th edn, Savaş 2020) google scholar
  • Eksi N, Milletlerarasi Ticaret Hukuku (4th edn, Beta 2020) google scholar
  • Eren F, Borclar Hukuku Genel Hukumler (25th edn, Yetkin 2020) google scholar
  • Giray FK, Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk ve Usul Hukukunda Zamanasimi (1st edn, Beta 2020) google scholar
  • Gungor G, Turk Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuku (Yetkin 2021) google scholar
  • Hay P, ‘Forum Selection Clauses - Procedural Tools or Contractual Obligations? Conceptualization and Remedies in American and German Law’ (2021) 35 Emory International Law Review 1 google scholar
  • Huysal B, ‘6100 Sayili Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Ile Getirilen Yenilikler Isiginda Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizi Konusunda Bazi Tespitler’ (2012) 32 MHB 71 google scholar
  • Irge Erdogan B, Milletlerarasi Usul Hukukunda Yetki Anlasmalari (1st edn, On Iki Levha 2021) google scholar
  • Karsli A, Medeni Usul Hukukunda Usuli Islemler (1st edn, Kudret Basim 2001) google scholar
  • Kilicoglu AM, Borclar Hukuku Genel Hukumler (25th edn, Turhan 2021) google scholar
  • Koc E, Medeni Usul Hukuku Kapsaminda Usuli İslemlerde Irade Bozukluklari (1st edn, Sumer Kitabevi 2021) google scholar
  • Kocayusufpasaoglu N, Borclar Hukuku Genel Bolum Cilt 1 (7th edn, Filiz 2017) google scholar
  • Kuru B, Medeni Usul Hukuku El Kitabi Cilt 1 (Yetkin 2020) google scholar
  • Mankowski P, ‘Ist Eine Vertragliche Absicherung von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen Möglich?’ (2009) 1 IPRax 23 google scholar
  • Nomer E, Devletler Hususi Hukuku (23rd edn, Beta 2021) google scholar
  • Oguzman MK and Oz MT, Borclar Hukuku Genel Hukumler (19th edn, Vedat 2021) google scholar
  • Papakci A, ‘Durust Davranma ve Dogruyu Soyleme Yukumlulugu’ (2016) 11 Bahcesehir Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 103 google scholar
  • Pekcanitez H and others, Pekcanitez Usul-Medeni Usul Hukuku (15th edn, On Iki Levha 2017) google scholar
  • Pekcanitez H, Tas Korkmaz H and Meric N, Gerekceli Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu (12th edn, On Iki Levha 2021) google scholar
  • Postacioglu I, Medeni Usul Hukuku Dersleri (Sulhi Garan Matbaası 1975) google scholar
  • Resch R, ‘Druckmittel Wider Die Sowie Kompensation Nach Missactung Internationaler Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen Vor Deutschen Gerichten Im Verhaltnis Zu Drittstaaten’ [2020] NZG 241 google scholar
  • Rielaender F, ‘Schadensersatz Wegen Klage Vor Einem Aufgrund Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung Unzustaendigen Gericht’ (2020) 84 RabelsZ 548 google scholar
  • Ries F, Der Schadensersatzanspruch Wegen Der Missactung Einer Internationalen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung (Duncker&Humblot 2018) google scholar
  • Sanli C, Uluslararasi Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyusmazliklarin Cozum Yollari (7th edn, Beta 2019) google scholar
  • Sanli C, Esen E and Ataman Figanmese İ, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (9th edn, Beta 2021) google scholar
  • Sargın F, Milletlerarasi Usul Hukukunda Yetki Anlasmalari (Yetkin 1996) google scholar
  • Schulze R and others, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Handkommentar (10th edn, Nomos 2019) google scholar
  • Takahashi K, ‘Damages for Breach of a Choice of Court Agreement’ (2008) 10 Yearbook of Private International Law 57 google scholar
  • Tanriver S, Medeni Usul Hukuku Cilt 1 (2nd edn, Yetkin 2018) google scholar
  • Tekinalp G, Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk Baglama ve Usul Hukuku Kurallari (13th edn, Vedat 2020) google scholar
  • Tham CH, ‘Damages for Breach of English Jurisdiction Clauses: More than Meets the Eye’ [2004] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 46 google scholar
  • Umar B, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi (2nd edn, Yetkin 2014) google scholar
  • Ustundag S, ‘Medeni Usul Hukukunda Salahiyet Anlasmalari’ (1967) 27 IUHFM 310 google scholar
  • ——, Medeni Yargilama Hukuku (7th edn, Nesil Matbaacilik 2000) google scholar
  • Uyanik A, Turk Milletlerarasi Usul Hukukunda Yetki Sözlesmeleri (İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi 1994) google scholar
  • Vargo JF, ‘American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person’s Access to Justice, The’ (1993) 42 American University Law Review 1567 google scholar
  • Yunlu S, Yardimci Kisilerin Fiillerinden Sorumluluk (1st edn, On Iki Levha 2019) Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) III ZR 42/19 google scholar
  • LG Bonn, Urteil vom 08112017-16 O 41/16 google scholar
  • OLG Köln, Urteil vom 26022019-3 U 159/17 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Avşar, M. (2022). An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019. Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


AMA

Avşar M. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019. Istanbul Law Review. 2022;80(2):357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


ABNT

Avşar, M. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 80, n. 2, p. 357-381, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Avşar, Melis,. 2022. “An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2: 357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


Chicago: Humanities Style

Avşar, Melis,. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 2 (Dec. 2022): 357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


Harvard: Australian Style

Avşar, M 2022, 'An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 357-381, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Avşar, M. (2022) ‘An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019’, Istanbul Law Review, 80(2), pp. 357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Avşar, Melis,. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 2, 2022, pp. 357-381. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


Vancouver

Avşar M. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];80(2):357-381. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001


ISNAD

Avşar, Melis. An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019”. Istanbul Law Review 80/2 (Dec. 2022): 357-381. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.2.0001



TIMELINE


Submitted10.12.2021
Accepted27.05.2022
Published Online22.07.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.