196 NEWSLETTER 2021 of the Court of Cassation. In addition, the applicant stated that at the hearing on 29.01.2013, the objection to arbitration was rejected. However, it was accepted and a decision on the lack of jurisdiction was entered approximately seven years after the damage occurred in 2010, which meant that his claim was time-barred according to English Law. The plaintiff claimed that the right to remedy the damage was taken away due to not resorting to arbitration in due time, and claimed that the right to seek justice, the right to a fair trial, and property rights were violated. Evaluation The Constitutional Court held that all of the complaints raised in this case must be examined within the scope of the right to property. In this respect, firstly, it emphasized that the Constitutional Court cannot interfere with the discretion of courts unless a court decides which is obviously arbitrary or there is an obvious error of discretion. Examining the relevant case, the Constitutional Court concluded that the assessment made by the Court regarding the validity of the arbitration clause was not arbitrary and did not contain an obvious error of discretion. Regarding the applicant’s claim that due to the decision on the lack of jurisdiction rendered nearly seven years after the damage occurred the claim was time-barred under English law and he lost the right to claim the damage, the Constitutional Court concluded that the claim that his right to property had been violated was groundless. According to the Constitutional Court, the applicant was aware of the content of the contracts drawn up between the parties and the accompanying documents. Instead of resorting to arbitration in compliance with the foreign arbitration clause in the contract, the applicant brought an action in the Turkish courts. Therefore, the applicant was in a position to foresee that he might face an arbitration objection in the proceedings before the courts and that the courts might issue a decision on lack of jurisdiction. In addition, the Constitutional Court explained that it is not generally possible for the Constitutional Court to decide whether a receivable in dispute is time-barred under the law of another country, and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=