Görüntüleme
59
İndirme
13
Acentelik ve tek satıcılık gibi sözleşme ilişkilerine istinaden ileri sürülen denkleştirme veya tazminat taleplerine ilişkin uyuşmazlıklar, 5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun m.24/1 uyarınca, taraflarca seçilen hukuka tabidir. Uygulamada, acentelik veya tek satıcılık gibi sözleşmelere uygulanmak üzere seçilen hukukun, denkleştirme veya tazminat talebine imkân tanımadığı veya bu talep haklarından peşinen feragati geçerli saydığı hâllere rastlanmakta ve bu tercihin, güçlü âkit tarafın, zayıf taraf olan acente ve tek satıcının feshe dayalı taleplerini bertaraf etme amacına hizmet ettiği görülmektedir. Denkleştirme talebinden peşinen feragat edilmesini geçersiz sayan Türk hukukunun emredici hükmünü (TTK m.122/4) dolanmak isteyen karşı âkit taraf, hükmün uygulanmasını kesin bir surette engellemek adına, müesseseyi tanımayan söz konusu devletin hukuk sisteminin seçilmesinin yanında, bu devletin mahkemelerini yetkilendiren bir hükmün de eklendiği sözleşmeyi, zayıf âkit taraf acente veya tek satıcıya -herhangi bir pazarlık imkânı tanımaksızın- dayatabilir. Zira tarafların, MÖHUK m. 47 hükmü uyarınca akdi borç ilişkisinden doğan denkleştirme talebine ilişkin bu uyuşmazlığın, yabancı bir devlet mahkemesinde görüleceği hususunda anlaşabilme imkânları olduğu gibi, sözleşmeye tahkim şartı koymaları da mümkündür. Bu itibarla, çalışmamızın esas odağı, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren acente ve tek satıcıyı, feshe dayalı talep haklarından mahrum bırakmak adına sözleşmeye yabancı hukuk seçimi hükmü ile birlikte konulan yetki ve tahkim şartına rağmen davanın Türk mahkemelerinde görülüp görülemeyeceği meselesinin mukayeseli hukuk verileri ışığında değerlendirilmesidir.
Disputes relating to equalization or compensation claims arising from contractual relations such as agency and single-seller are subject to the law chosen by the parties, in accordance with Law No. 5718 on International Special Law and Procedure Law. In the application, the conditions in which the law chosen to apply to contracts such as agency or single-seller does not recognize the possibility of the claim for equalization or compensation or the claim for such rights is considered applicable and this preference appears to serve the purpose of removing the claims of the strong party, the weak party, the agent and the single-seller on the basis of the claim. The ordering ruling of the Turkish law which considers the withdrawal of the persons pursuant to the request for equalization invalid (TTK m. 122/4) In order to prevent the application of the ruling in a certain manner, the opposite party may, in addition to the choice of the legal system of the State concerned which does not recognize the authority, impose the contract, in which a ruling authorizes the courts of that State is added, on a weak party agent or a single seller, without recognizing any possibility of negotiation. For the parties may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of the Covenant, impose an arbitration requirement to the contract, as they have the possibility to agree that this dispute relating to the claim of equalization arising from the contract debt relationship, will be seen in a foreign state court. According to this, the main focus of our work is the assessment of the issue of whether the case will be seen in the Turkish courts, despite the jurisdiction and arbitration conditions placed in the contract in order to exempt the agency and single seller operating in Turkey from the rights of claim based on the fash, in the light of comparative legal data.
Disputes regarding goodwill indemnity and compensation claims stemming from commercial agency or exclusive distributorship contracts are subject to the law chosen by the parties in accordance with article 24/1 of the Act on Private International and Procedural Law (PIPL) numbered 5718. Also, parties may agree that disputes with a foreign element arising from contracual obligation shall be settled in a foreign state court (PIPL art.47) or by arbitration. In practice, there are cases where the law chosen by the parties does not grant goodwill indemnification or other termination claims or where the waiver in advance of such claims is valid under that law. The counter-contracting party aiming to evade the mandatory provisions of Turkish law may unilaterally prepare contract provisions regarding jurisdiction clauses besides choice-of-law. Commercial agencies/exclusive distributors may concede these clauses, since they do not have equal bargaining power as the weaker party. Such choice of law generally serves the purpose of the powerful contracting party to eliminate termination claims of the commercial agents and exclusive distributors. In this regard, our study is mainly focused on the issue of whether cases regarding termination claims of self-employed commercial agents or exclusive distributors operating in Turkey can be heard by Turkish courts, in cases where the forum-selection clauses may be regarded as a manoeuvre designed to circumvent the mandatory rules of Turkish law on commercial agents.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
