Citation Number
9
Views
67
Downloands
6
6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu md. 4 uyarınca her iki tarafın da ticari işletmesine ilişkin olan hususlardan doğan davalar, ticari dava olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bu tip davalar doktrin tarafından “nispi ticari dava” olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Yine Türk Ticaret Kanunu md. 5’e göre ise bu tür davalarda görevli mahkeme asliye ticaret mahkemeleridir. Ancak Yargıtay vermiş olduğu birçok kararda, tarafların ticari işletmesine ilişkin olsa da kira sözleşmelerinden kaynaklanan ticari davalarda 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu md. 4 sebebiyle sulh hukuk mahkemelerinin görevli olduğuna hükmetmektedir. Bu çalışmada Yargıtay’ın söz konusu uygulamasının yanlış olduğu ve bu tip davalarda asliye ticaret mahkemesinin görevli olduğu ileri sürülecektir. Bu kapsamda öncelikli olarak kira sözleşmelerinde görevli mahkeme ve kira sözleşmelerinden kaynaklanan ticari davalar hakkında genel bir bilgi verilecektir. Ardından Yargıtay’ın konuya ilişkin görüşü ve yabancı hukuk sistemlerindeki durum ele alınacaktır. Son olarak neden kira sözleşmelerinden kaynaklanan ticari uyuşmazlıklarda sulh hukuk mahkemeleri yerine asliye ticaret mahkemelerinin görevli olduğu gerekçeleri ile açıklanmaya çalışılacaktır.
The Turkish Trade Act No. 6102. The cases arising from the affairs of both parties, according to the law, are considered as commercial cases. This type of cases is called a “nispi commercial case” by the doctrine. The Turkish Trade Act. In the 5th case, the courts responsible for such cases are the original trade courts. However, in many judgments that the court has made, although the parties are related to the commercial business, in commercial cases arising from the rental contracts, Law No. 6100 on Legal Procedures Md. For the fourth reason, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts are responsible. In this study, it will be argued that the Court’s application in question is incorrect and that the original trade court is responsible in such cases. In this context, general information will be provided primarily on the commercial cases arising from the courts and rent contracts responsible for rent contracts. The Court’s opinion on the matter and the situation in foreign legal systems will then be discussed. Finally, it will be attempted to explain why in commercial disputes arising from the lease contracts, the reasons for which the original trade courts are responsible instead of the jurisdictions of the jurisdictions of the jurisdictions.
According to the Article 4 of the Turkish Commercial Code (Law Nr. 6102) lawsuits, which are arisen from matters related to both parties' commercial enterprises, are regarded as commercial case. These types of cases are characterized as "relative commercial case". As stated in Article 5 of the Turkish Commercial Code, court of jurisdiction for such cases is commercial court of first instance. Yet the Turkish Court of Cassation has ruled in its numerous rulings because of the Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Procedure Code that civil courts of peace are court of jurisdiction for commercial cases arising from lease agreements even if they are concerning both sides' commercial enterprises. In this study it will be propounded that stated practice of the Court of Cassation is wrong and commercial courts of first instance are court of jurisdiction for these kinds of lawsuits. In this regard, firstly it will be given an outline of court of jurisdiction for lease agreements and commercial cases arising from lease agreements. Following that, the view of the Court of Cassation on the matter and conjuncture in foreign law systems will be addressed. Lastly it will be tried to explain why commercial courts of first instance are court of jurisdiction for commercial cases arising from lease agreements instead of civil courts of peace.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Ulusal
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
