Abstract:

In the ordinary course of life, it is possible for a person to be held responsible for the same damaging event for different legal reasons. The fact that the reasons for responsibility are more than one, that is, the issue of “competition”, is an institution that has been discussed in the doctrine for a long time and developed with decisions. The competition issue, which is clearly regulated in Article 60 of the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098, which entered into force on 01.07.2012, has become a part of Turkish positive law. Pursuant to the regulation stipulated in Article 60 of the TCO, in the event that more than one legal rule is applied at the same time in a case, the judge will decide according to the reason for the responsibility that provides the best remedy, unless the injured person has explicitly requested otherwise. As can be seen, the principle to be followed in cases where the injured person can be based on more than one liability reason are regulated with the Article 60 of the TCO. However, due to the arrangement of the article, it does not provide a solution to the competition problem and causes more problems. In this context, the phrase “unless the injured party has requested the contrary” added to the Article 60 of the TCO, although it is not included in Article 53 of the Preliminary Draft of the Swiss Code of Obligations, constitutes the focal point of the criticisms brought in the doctrine. This expression, which the legislator added to the text of the article, raises many problems in terms of civil procedure law. For this reason, in our study, we aim to evaluate the Article 60 of TCO, which regulates the competition of liability reasons in terms of civil procedure law.

Keywords: