Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:28:09.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Private International Law of Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

T. Ansay  and
E. Schneider
Get access

Extract

Turkish private international law is regulated by the Statute Regarding International Private Law and Procedure which was enacted on 20 May 1982 and became effective on 22 November 1982. This law repealed the former Temporary Law on Rights and Duties of Foreigners in Ottoman Lands of 23 February 1330 (1915) (hereinafter ‘Temporary Law’), which, although intended as a temporary law when enacted during the Ottoman period, was effective until 1982.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , August 1990 , pp. 139 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Law numbered 2675, in Resmi Gazete (Official Gazette), 22 May 1982. An English translation appears as an Annex to this article. For the German translation (with annotations), see Krüger, H., ‘Neues internationales Privatrecht in der Turkei’, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung (1982) p. 173 et seq.Google Scholar; ‘Das turkische IPR-Gesetz von 1982’, IPRax (1982) p. 252 et seq.; StAZ (1983) p. 50 et seq.; Rabels Z (1983) p. 131 et seq. (G. Tekinalp). See further, Tekinalp, G., ‘Das türkische Gesetz uber internationales Privatrecht und Zivilverfahrensrecht von 1982', Rabels Z (1983) pp. 74–78Google Scholar. For a French translation by Uluocak, N., see 72 Rev. Cr. droit Intern. Privé (1983) p. 141 et seq.Google Scholar, and a short note, pp. 149–155 (Uluocak). On the Turkish substantive law, see Ansay, T. and Wallace, D. Jr, Introduction to Turkish Law, 3rd edn. (1987)Google Scholar.

2. Ansay, T., American-Turkish Private International Law (1966) p. 79Google Scholar.

3. See Karper, P. A. and Arnold, K.W., Switzerland's Private International Law Statute 1987. The Swiss Code on Conflict of Laws and Related Legislation (1989)Google Scholar.

4. Arts. 678–687 lUrkish Commercial Code; Art. 88 Law on Intellectual and Artistic Products (Law No. 5846, dated 13 December 1951, as amended on 1 November 1983).

5. Krüger, , lot cit. n. 1 at p. 172Google Scholar; Tekinalp, G., Milletlerarasi ÖzelHukuk (1986)Google Scholar; Uluocak, N., Milletlerarasi Ozel Hukuk Dersleri (1987) p. 39Google Scholar.

6. Art. 1 para. 2. Also Art. 90 para. 5 Turkish Constitution.

7. For a list, see Nomer, E., Devletler Hususi Hukuku (1988) p. 74 et seqGoogle Scholar. On the Hague Conventions on private international law, see 37 NILR (1989) p. 185 et seq.

8. Ansay, T., ‘Das neue Gesetz über das international Privatrecht der Türkei’, in Holl, W. and Klinke, U., eds., Internationales Privatrecht, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (1985) p. 172Google Scholar.

9. See Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 212Google Scholar.

10. Ansay, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 62Google Scholar.

11. For a short description, see Tekinalp, G., ‘Das türkische Gesetzentwurf uber Internationales Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht, Rabels Z (1982) p. 26 et seq.Google Scholar; text of the draft law, p. 184 et seq.

12. See the legislative history cited in Ansay, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 169Google Scholar.

13. Güntac Özler estimates that there are now over two million Turks in Europe and that in the last 25 to 30 years over S million Turks have ‘gone to Europe, mostly West Germany, and some have come back. Two million Turks in Europe are now in various stages from guest worker to citizen!: ‘The Ottoman as a European', Dateline (11 February 1989) p. 4.

14. The Turkish Tourism and Culture Ministry announced that 4.17 million tourists visited Turkey in 1988: Turkish Daily News (9 February 1989) p. 2. From January to October 1988, 3,784,393 foreign tourists had visited Turkey: 1989 Yilina Girerken Turk Ekonomisi (1989) p. 103 (Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Assoc. 1989).

15. See, for example, German decisions, KG, dated Feb. 24, 1983, 65 VRS 1983, pp. 3–7, LG Aachen, dated June 14, 1984, Versr 1985, p. 898 et seq.; OLG München, dated June 14, 1983, Versr 1983, p. 1064; LG Dortmund, dated March 24, 1976, VersR 1976, p. 1185.

16. Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Maritime Trade and Commodity Exchange of Turkey, Economic Report (1988) at pp. 156 and 188–191.

17. Turkey's goal has been to build from the ruins of the Ottoman era a new country and society patterned on the model of Western Europe. Turkey has joined many international organizations. Turkey is a member of the OECD and became an associate member of the European Communityu in 1963. In April, 1987, Turkey applied for full EC membership. See Overseas Business Reports, Marketing in Turkey (April 1989).

18. The most recent are Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7Google Scholar; Tekinalp, op. cit. n. 5; Çelikel, A., Milletlerarasi Özel Hukuk (1987)Google Scholar; Uluocak, loc. cit. n. 1.

19. For an exception, see Art. 8 paras. 2 and 4, Art. 9 para. 3, Art. 22 para. 3; see Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 69Google Scholar; Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, pp. 13 and 20Google Scholar; Uluocak, , loc. cit. n. 1, p. 14Google Scholar.

20. Art. 38(e). See section 3 infra. See Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 316 et seqGoogle Scholar.

21. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 40Google Scholar.

22. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, pp. 153 et seq.Google Scholar, 222. The periods laid down by the statutes of limitation in foreign laws may be considered as against Turkish public order (Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 222)Google Scholar, Court of Cassation (ll.H.D.) of 5 April 1979, in Der, Yargitay Kararlar. (YKD) (1981) p. 51Google Scholar; Milletlerarasi Hukuk ve Milletlerarasi Özel Hukuk Bülteni (MHB) (1981/1) pp. 31–36. Adoption of a grandchild by American parents in Turkey has been held not to be against Turkish public order, Court of Cassation (2.H.D.) of 23 June 1983, YKD (1984) p. 46 et seq.

23. Art. 38c, Art. 42 para. 1.

24. Art. 45(b).

25. Art. 31. See below under section 3.

26. Art. 12 para. 1. Turkish consulates are empowered to celebrate the marriages of Turkish nationals: by-law on Celebration of Marriage, Art. 10 (Resmi Gazete, 7 November 1985).

27. Art. 22 para. 4.

28. Art. 23 para. 4.

29. For the old practice, see Ansay, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 42Google Scholar.

30. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 108 et seqGoogle Scholar.

31. Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 221Google Scholar. Court of Cassation (11. H.D. of 5 April 1980) in YKD (1981) pp. 57–60. Statutes of limitations in negotiable instruments are regulated differently in the Commercial Code (Arts. 681, 690, 730).

32. On the meaning of personal status, see Uluocak, , loc. cit. n. 1, p. 18Google Scholar; Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 117Google Scholar. It includes family matters and matters related to persons, such as capacity, Nomer, ibid. See also Arts. 28, 29, 38(e).

33. Art. 8 paras. 1 and 2.

34. Art. 11 para. 1.

35. Art. 12 para. 1.

36. Art. 18.

37. Art. 9 para. 3.

38. Art. 9 paras. 1 and 2.

39. Arts. 11 and 12.

40. Art. 12 para. 2. For matters of matrimonial regimes, see Art. 14.

41. Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 244Google Scholar.

42. Art. 11, para. 2.

43. Art. 12 para. 2.

44. Art. 12 para. 2.

45. Art. 28. This is also true in matters of matrimonial property. Art. 14 directs the application of the law of common domicile at the time of marriage, if the spouses have no common nationality at that time and if they have not agreed on the application of another law as stated in that Article.

46. Art. 12 para. 2.

47. Art. 15.

48. Art. 315 et seq. Civil Code.

49. Art. 21.

50. Art. 22.

51. Art. 22 para. 1.

52. Art. 22 para. 2.

53. Art. 23 paras. 1 and 2.

54. Art. 24 para. 1.

55. Ansay, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 41Google Scholar.

56. Art. 24 para. 2.

57. Since Art. 24 states no exception to specific types of contracts. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, comes to the same conclusion at p. 286 et seqGoogle Scholar.

58. Art. 5. See Krüger, , loc. cit. n. 1, p. 172Google Scholar; Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 286 et seqGoogle Scholar.

59. Art. 25 para. 2.

60. Art. 25. It is the judge who finds the closer connection. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, pp. 316, 318Google Scholar; Turhan, T., Haksiz Fiilden DoGan Kanunlar Ihtilafi Alaninda Ika Yen Kurali (1989) p. 381 et seqGoogle Scholar.

61. Code of Obligations, Art. 61 et seq.

62. Ansay, and Wallace, , op. cit. n. 1, p. 62Google Scholar.

63. Art. 28.

64. Art. 28.

65. Art. 31.

66. Ansay, and Wallace, , op. cit. n. 1, p. 61Google Scholar, and the views expressed there.

67. An example of exclusive jurisdiction is inheritance issues on immovables located in Turkey, see Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 453Google Scholar.

68. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 264 et seq.Google Scholar; Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 433Google Scholar.

69. Court of Cassation (Hukuk Genel Kurulu) 15 June 1988, in YKD (1988) p. 1486 et seq.

70. Art. 2.

71. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 171Google Scholar.

72. Ansay, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 72 et seqGoogle Scholar.

73. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 172Google Scholar. However, Art. 2 para. 2 speaks only of the ‘provisions’. Art. 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been repealed, but the contrary provision in Art. 2 of the new Statute makes it inapplicable.

74. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 175Google Scholar.

75. Or not applied, see the enforcement of foreign judgments below.

76. Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 175Google Scholar.

77. Art. 2 para. 1.

78. Art. 2 para. 2.

79. Resmi Gazete, 26 05 1975, No. 15338Google Scholar.

80. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 43Google Scholar; Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 201Google Scholar.

81. Art. 38(e). Nomer, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 459Google Scholar, finds the wrong application of Turkish law by a foreign court as a ground to refuse enforcement: contra, Celikel, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 318 et seqGoogle Scholar. The Supreme Court refuses enforcement in such cases because of the Turkish ordre public. See Court of Cassation (2.H.D.) 15 April 1985, in Yalçinkaya, N. and Kaleli, S., Bosanma Hukuku (1988) p. 2022 et seqGoogle Scholar.

82. Art. 38.

83. Among others, Dutch and German court decisions have been enforced in Turkey: Court of Cassation (2.H.D.) 15 April 1985, supran. 81 (Dutch case); 16 June 1986, Yalçinkaya, and Kaleli, , op. cit. n. 81, at p. 2019, and 19 01 1987Google Scholar, Yalçcinkaya, and Kaleli, op. cit. n. 81 at p. 2017Google Scholar (German cases).

84. See Nomer, , op. cit. n. 18, p. 453Google Scholar, for decisions on real property located in Turkey.

85. Art. 38(b) and (c).

86. Art. 38(d).

87. 2.H.D. 28 March 1983, in Yalçcinkaya, and Kaleli, , op. cit. n. 81, pp. 2014 and 2022Google Scholar.

88. Art. 24 para. 2.

89. Art. 25 para. 3.

90. Tekinalp, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 74 et seqGoogle Scholar.

91. Turhan, , op. cit. n. 60, p. 380 et seqGoogle Scholar.