SCOPE OF THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE RULE AS AN INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION RULE: "ACTIONS ARISING OUT OF A CONTRACT"
Keywords:
Place of Performance Rule, Disputes Arising out of a Contract, Contractual Matters, International JurisdictionAbstract
The fact that the place of performance jurisdiction rule under Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to disputes arising out of contracts with a foreign element makes the determination of the disputes falling within the scope of this rule important in terms of international procedural law. Although the Article states that "actions arising out of a contract" fall within the scope of the place of performance rule, no objective criteria have been developed to determine the scope of "actions arising out of a contract". In order to determine which disputes fall within the scope of this provision, this study examines the jurisdiction of the place of performance courts for which types of disputes in some legal systems belonging to the Continental European legal system, particularly the European Union law, and then tries to determine the scope of the place of performance rule as an international jurisdiction rule within the framework of the approaches put forward in the field of Turkish civil procedure law. Within this framework, it has been revealed that the tendency to interpret the place of performance rule broadly in terms of disputes involving a foreign element is predominant in comparative law; in particular, the substantive law character of the claims should not be determinative in terms of establishing jurisdiction in the field of procedural law. In the field of Turkish international procedural law, it has been determined that the broad interpretation of the scope of contractual disputes is functional in terms of the competence of Turkish courts, especially in cases where Turkish courts are not competent under the general rule of jurisdiction.
References
Adıgüzel, Sibel: Sözleşme Görüşmelerinde Kusurlu Davranıştan Doğan Sorumluluk, TAAD, 2012,
Y. 3, S. 9, s. 281-312.
Akkan, Mine: Pekcanıtez Usûl - Medenî Usûl Hukuku, 15. Bası, İstanbul 2017.
Arslan, Ramazan/Yılmaz, Ejder/Taşpınar Ayvaz, Sema: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Ankara 2015.
Aybay, Aydın: Borcun İfa Yeri ve Yetkili Mahkeme, İHFM, XXVI, 1-4, 1961, s. 218-225.
Belgesay, Mustafa Reşit: Hukuk Usulü Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi, İstanbul 1939.
Briggs, Adrian: Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments, 6th Ed., Oxon 2015.
Demir Gökyayla, Cemile: Ticari Uyuşmazlıklarda Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi, İstanbul 2021.
Dickinson, Andrew/ Lein, Eva: The Brussels I Regulation Recast, Oxford 2015.
Durak, Yasemin: Güven Sorumluluğu ve Culpa in Contrahendo, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2017, C. 25, S. 1, s. 239-288.
Ekşi, Nuray: Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi, B. 2, İstanbul 2000.
Erdoğan, Ersin: Medenî Usûl Hukuku Kurallarının Yer Bakımından Uygulanması, B. 2, Ankara 2020.
Junker, Abbo: Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, Auf. 5, München 2020, s. 68; Brödermann, E./Rosengarten, J.: Internationales Privat-und Zivilverfahrensrecht, B. 8, Münih 2019.
Karademir Aydemir, Dilek: Medeni Usul Hukukunda Mahkemelerin Yetkisi, B. 2, Ankara 2019.
Kazmaz, Büşra: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 10. Maddesi Uyarınca İfa Yerinin Tespiti, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2014, C. 16, Prof. Dr. Hakan Pekcanıtez’e Armağan, s. 1935-1950.
Kostkiewics, Jolanta Kren: IPRG 112, Zürcher Kommentar zum IPRG – Band II – Art. 108a-200, Auf 3, 2018.
Kuru, Baki: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü, C. I, İstanbul 2001.
Magnus, Ulrich: Introduction, Brussels I Regulation, Magnus, U./Mankowski, P. (eds.), European Law Publishers 2007, s. 4-44.
Mankowski, Peter: Special Jurisdictions, Article 5, Brussels I Regulation, Magnus, Ulrich/Mankowski, Peter (eds.), European Law Publishers 2007, s. 77-236.
Möcklin-Doss, Andrea/Schnyder, Anton K.: IPRG 112, Internationales Privatrecht Art. 1-200 IPRG, CHK - Handkommentar zum Schweizer Privatrecht, Auf 3, 2016.
Newton, Justin: The Uniform Interpretation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, Oxford 2002.
Pekcanıtez, Hakan/Atalay, Oğuz/Özekes, Muhammet: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Ankara 2013.
Schack, Haimo: Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 7. Auf, Münih 2017.
Süzen, Begüm: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 10. Maddesi Kapsamında Yabancı Unsurlu Sözleşmelerden Doğan Davalarda Yetki, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016, C. 11, S. 145-146, s. 1111-1146.
Şanlı, Cemal/Esen, Emre/Ataman Figanmeşe, İnci: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, B. 10, İstanbul 2023.
Şit Köşgeroğlu, Banu: Milletlerarası Yetki Tesisinde İfa Yeri Kuralı, Ankara 2022.
Tanrıver, Süha: Medenî Usûl Hukuku, C. 1, B. 1, Ankara 2016, s. 230.
Umar, Bilge: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi, Ankara 2014.
Üstündağ, Saim: Medeni Yargılama Hukukunun Esasları, B. 7, İstanbul 2000.
Weser, Martha: Bases of Judicial Jurisdiction in the Common Market Countries, AJIL 1961, Vol. 10, No. 4, s. 323-344.
Yılmaz, Ejder: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Şerhi, Ankara 2013.
