294 / 469
NEWSLETTER 2011
280
public legal entities. To this end, the aim is to prevent the conclusion of
jurisdiction agreements between merchants or public legal entities and
consumers.
Accordingly, merchants and public legal entities cannot conclude a
jurisdiction agreement with a person who lacks these qualities. It must
be also stated that persons apart from merchants and public legal entities
cannot conclude jurisdiction agreements between themselves either.
Thus, it is possible to reach the consequences below as a result of
an examination of the text of Article 17 of the New CPC and its legal
ground:
1. Following the entry into force of the New TCC, jurisdiction
agreements can be concluded only between merchants or public
legal entities. Jurisdiction agreements cannot be concluded
between merchants or public legal entities and consumers. There
will not be any jurisdiction clause in agreements concluded
between consumers and sellers or service provider companies that
consumers have to sign without any opportunity for negotiation.
2. The validity to exclusive jurisdiction agreements between
merchants and public legal entities whose validity was discussed
in Turkish law is granted. Unless otherwise stipulated in the
agreement by the parties, lawsuits can be filed only in the court or
courts determined in the agreement. In that case, the jurisdiction
agreement is an exclusive agreement unless the parties stipulate
otherwise. In current practice, the Court of Appeal does not accept
exclusive jurisdiction agreements.
3. The parties may agree to the jurisdiction of more than one court
with a jurisdiction agreement. This issue is not accepted by the
Court of Appeal. According to the Court of Appeal, it is necessary
to agree on the jurisdiction of only one specific court. The parties
cannot agree on jurisdiction by more than one court.