In our law, it is regulated by law, as a rule, in which place the trial will be held. Code of Civil Procedure 17. on the other hand, the article Decrees that merchants and public legal entities may authorize one or more courts with a contract to be concluded between them regarding a dispute that has arisen or may arise between them by introducing an exceptional provision Decrees that merchants and public legal entities may authorize one or more courts with a contract to be concluded between them. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the lawsuit to be filed may only be filed in these courts determined by the contract.
Supreme Court 19. In the decision of the Legal Department dated 02.06.2015 numbered 2015/3874 Main and 2015/8205 Decision; “As a result of the trial conducted by the court, the 14th part of the dealership agreement.as a condition of authority in Article 17 of the CCP, where the (new Istanbul Anatolian Courts) Courts are organized, both parties are traders. according to the article, if the parties are merchants, they can authorize one or more courts in disputes that have arisen and will arise between them, the authorization agreement applies if it is made between merchants or public legal entities, if the parties want to continue the authority of Dec Decently authorized general and special competent courts, as well as the court authorized by the contract, this should be specified in the contract, otherwise, the case will be filed only in the court designated by the authorization agreement, since there is an authorization agreement between the parties, in accordance with this authorization agreement, Decrees that the competent court… is the Anatolian Courts, the inadmissibility of this court, the sending of the file to the duty and authorized … Duty Commercial Court, the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
According to the evidence on which the decision is based on the articles in the file and the necessary reasons, it was decided unanimously on 02.06.2015 to APPROVE the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all appeals that were not seen on the spot of the plaintiff’s attorney, to collect the approval fee written below from the appellant.” the judgment is established in the form of.
HMK m. in 18, the terms of validity of the authorization agreement have been regulated. The first paragraph states “An authorization agreement cannot be concluded with subjects on which the parties cannot freely save money in cases of final authorization.” in the form of. In this case, the parties will not be able to determine the authorized place by contract in matters where there is a definite authorization rule. Since the objection to authority concerns public order, it can be put forward at any stage of the case.
Supreme Court 11. In the decision of the Legal Department dated 17.1.2017 numbered 2016/15056 and Decision 2017/319 “
According to the scope of the entire file, the court Decrees the Deciency on the grounds that the courts are shown as the competent court for the settlement of disputes in the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant …, that the court may be authorized by the contract regarding the dispute that may arise or arise between legal entities in accordance with Article 17 of the CCP, that the case must be filed in the court determined by the contract, that the competent court determined by the contract is binding, the case was not filed in the competent court determined by the contract, the defendant’s attorney’s appeal is in time. The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
The cases in which a decision of inadmissibility may be made by the court ex officio are the cases of final authority, which are the condition of the case. HMK’s 18. the article clearly regulates that the parties cannot enter into an authorization agreement in cases where there is final authority. For this reason, the authorization agreement cannot be made in cases where there is final authorization. The fact that the authorization agreement has been concluded is not one of the cases in which an official decision of inadmissibility can be made.” the judgment is established in the form of.
In a state with final authority, the authorization agreement concluded between the parties will have no validity, and the court will implement the necessary Decrees by determining the competent court within the framework of the final authorization rules, fulfilling the requirement of the law regardless of this agreement.
The second paragraph of the article is “In order for the authorization agreement to be valid, it must be made in writing, the legal relationship in which the dispute originates must be specific or determinable, and the authorized court or courts must be indicated.” in the form of.
The existence of an oral agreement between the parties is indicated, and the Decrees will not be of any importance in the case filed based on this declaration. In addition, in the contract signed between the parties, the subject of the contract, the issues that may be subject to legal dispute must be determined or Decidable.
Klicken Sie hier, um zu unseren weiteren Artikeln und petitionsbeispielen zu gelangen
