197 ARBITRATION LAW that the only reason for the impossibility of collection in this case was the Court’s decision on the lack of jurisdiction, rendered in a very long time. The Court further noted that the applicant had the opportunity to prove that the claim is time barred by resorting to arbitration but the applicant failed to prove it by not resorting to arbitration. As a result, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant, who was in a position to foresee that a decision on the lack of jurisdiction could be rendered before the Turkish courts due to the arbitration clause in the contract, could not sufficiently demonstrate that the collection of his receivables became impossible due to the Court’s decision on lack of jurisdiction rendered in a very long time, and that there had been no violation of a property right. Conclusion With its decision, the Constitutional Court points out that the responsibility is on the parties in terms of acting in accordance with the provisions determined in the contract or included in the contract by reference and foreseeing the risks. The decision is also noteworthy in that it evaluates and discusses the issues of arbitration agreements and the jurisdiction of the court - issues which are frequently discussed before civil courts - within the framework of fundamental rights regulated in the Constitution.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=