Atıf Sayısı
1
Görüntüleme
35
İndirme
10
Bazı hukuk sistemlerinde vekilin asil adına tahkim anlaşması yapabilmesi için özel olarak yetkilendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Milletlerarası tahkim uygulamasında, özel olarak yetkilendirilmeyen kişilerce imzalanan tahkim anlaşmalarına dayanarak dava açılmaktadır. Bu davalarda, davalı, tahkim anlaşmasını imzalayan kişinin bu konuda özel olarak yetkilendirilmediğine dayanarak tahkim anlaşmasının geçersiz olduğunu iddia edebilmektedir. Hakemler, yetkisiz temsilci tarafından imzalanan tahkim anlaşmasının dürüstlük kuralından hareketle geçerli olduğuna karar vermektedir. Hakem kararının Türkiye’de tenfizi talep edildiğinde tenfize itiraz eden davalı tahkim anlaşmasının yetkisiz kişilerce imzalandığına dayanarak tahkim anlaşmasının geçersiz olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Bu durumda, hâkim yetkisiz temsile uygulanacak hukuku tespit etmelidir. Yargıtay, Türk hukukunu uyguladığı bazı kararlarında tahkim anlaşmasını imzalayan kişi tahkim anlaşması yapmak için özel olarak yetkilendirilmemişse yabancı hakem kararının Türkiye’de tenfizini reddetmiştir. Bazı Yargıtay kararlarında ise tahkim anlaşmasının yetkisiz kişilerce imzalandığının tahkimde hiç ileri sürülmeyip ilk defa Türkiye’de tenfiz davasında ileri sürülmesinin dürüstlük kuralına aykırı olduğu sonucuna varılmış ve hakem kararları tenfiz edilmiştir. Tahkim anlaşmasının yetkisiz kişi tarafından imzalanması gerekçesiyle tahkim anlaşmasının geçersiz olduğuna ilişkin iddialar hem hakem heyetleri hem de tenfiz ya da iptal davasına bakan mahkeme tarafından dürüstlük kuralı dikkate alınarak incelenmelidir. Somut olayın özelliğine göre katlanma temsili veya görünüşte temsil olduğu sonucuna varılabiliyorsa tahkim anlaşmasının asili bağladığı sonucuna varılmadır.
In some legal systems, the adviser needs special authorization to be able to make an arbitration agreement on the noble behalf. In the international arbitration practice, proceedings are opened on the basis of arbitration agreements signed by non-specially authorized persons. In these cases, the prosecutor may claim that the arbitration agreement is invalid based on the fact that the person who signed the arbitration agreement is not specially authorized in this regard. The judges decide that the arbitration agreement signed by an unauthorized representative is valid by the rule of honesty. The judge claims that the arbitration agreement is invalid based on the fact that the arbitration agreement was signed by unauthorized persons when the arbitration agreement is requested in Turkey. In this case, the judge must identify the law to be applied to an unauthorized representation. The court, if the person who has signed an arbitration agreement in some of the decisions it applies to Turkish law has not been specially authorized to make an arbitration agreement, has denied the arbitration of the foreign arbitration decision in Turkey. In some judgments, however, the arbitration agreement was signed by unauthorized persons was never promoted in the arbitration and the first time in Turkey the judgment was violated by the rule of honesty and the judgment decisions were promoted. Claims that the arbitration agreement is invalid due to the signature of the arbitration agreement by an unauthorized person must be examined by both the arbitration committees and the court in the case of refusal or cancellation, taking into account the rule of honesty. According to the character of the matter, if it can be concluded that the tolerance is representative or apparently representative, it is concluded that the arbitration agreement is original.
In a number of the jurisdictions, including Turkey, any representative needs to have a special authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the principal (TTC Art 504/3). It is not rare that, in respect of the international commercial contracts, the representative lacks the required special authority to sign the arbitration agreement under the applicable law. Once the arbitration commences, the principal (respondent) objects to the tribunal jurisdiction based on the representative’s lack of special authority. In many instances, the international arbitral tribunals reached the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is valid and binding on the principal as the principal’s behaviors during the contract negotiations, thereafter and in arbitration proceedings violate the good faith principle. Once the tribunal decides that they have the jurisdiction, they issue an award on the merits. The unsuccessful principal does not comply with the award voluntarily, and either starts annulment proceedings in the seat of arbitration or resists in the enforcement proceeding based on the invalidity of the arbitration agreement because of the lack of the special authority. The state court should first determine the law applicable to the representation. The Turkish Supreme Court, in a number of cases, applied Turkish law to representation, and refused the enforcement of the award based on the grounds that the arbitration agreement is invalid because of the lack of the special authority. In its recent cases, the Supreme Court enforced the awards based on the fact that the principal did not raise the lack of authority argument in the course of the arbitration proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that raising the special authority argument for the first time in the enforcement proceedings before the Turkish courts is against the good faith principle. Turkish law well recognizes the apparently authority. Therefore; the principal may be bound by the arbitration agreement if the conditions of the apparent authority have been met.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Atıf Yapanlar
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
