TÜRKİYE’DE TÜKETİCİLER İÇİN ADALETE ERİŞİM: ONLİNE UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜMÜ YOLUYLA TÜKETİCİ UYUŞMAZLIKLARININ ÇÖZÜMÜNÜ GELİŞTİRME İHTİYACI

Year 2022, , 225 - 260, 31.01.2022

Serkan Kaya

https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1066655

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Son yıllarda, tüketici harcamaları Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla (GSYH) içindeki en yüksek paya sahip olmaya başladı. Sürekli artan tüketici harcamaları, tüketici anlaşmazlıklarının ortaya çıkma olasılığını da artırmıştır. Türkiye'de dijitalleşmiş toplumumuzun gereksinimlerini karşılamak için Türk tüketici hukukunu Avrupa Birliği (AB) mevzuatı ile uyumlu hale getirmek için sürekli bir girişimde bulunulmuştur, ancak yine de gelişmiş tüketici haklarının korunmasına daha fazla ihtiyaç vardır. Bu makale, Türk Tüketici Hukuk Sistemi'nin güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini tartışmakta ve tüketicinin adalete erişiminin uygulanmasına yönelik hukuki yaklaşımı sorgulamaktadır. Bu makale, tüketici uyuşmazlıklarının çözümünü değerlendirmekte ve Türkiye tarafından öğrenilecek dersleri bulmak için AB tüketici çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözümü (ODR) rejimini analiz etmektedir. Çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözümünün ve bunun tüketici uyuşmazlıklarındaki uygulamasının ele alındığı bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki tüketici uyuşmazlıklarının çözümü için yeni bir yasal çerçeve tasarlamaya ve verimli bir ODR platformu oluşturmaya yönelik tavsiyelerde bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Adalete Erişim, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü, Tüketici Uyuşmazlıkları, Tüketici Hakları, Çevrimiçi Uyuşmazlık Çözümü

ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CONSUMERS IN TURKEY: THE NEED FOR ENHANCING CONSUMER DISPUTE RESOLUTION THROUGH ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Abstract

In recent years, consumer spending has dominated the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The continuously increasing consumer spending boosts the possibility of consumer disputes. In Turkey, there is still a need for enhanced consumer redress, although there is a continuing attempt to bring Turkish consumer law into line with the European Union (EU) legislation to meet the needs of our digitised society. This paper explores the powers and deficiencies of the Turkish Consumer Redress System and examines the judicial process to the implementation of consumer access to justice. This article evaluates the resolution of consumer disputes and analyses the EU ODR regime and best practices seeking for models to be followed by Turkey. The research of ODR and its applicability in consumer disputes proposes assembling instructions for outlining a new legal framework and establishing an effective ODR platform for resolving consumer disputes in Turkey.

Keywords

Access to Justice, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Consumer Disputes, Consumer Rights, Online Dispute Resolution

References

• Abdel Wahab M S, Katsh E and Rainey D, ODR: Theory and practice, 2nd edn, Eleven International, 2021.
• American Bar Association's Task Force on Electronic Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Cooperation with the Shidler Centre for Law, Commerce and Technology, University of Washington School of Law, ‘Addressing Disputes in Electronic Commerce: Final Recommendations and Report’, 2002, 58, Business Lawyer, p. 415-477.
• American Bar Association Task Force on E-Commerce and ADR Executive Summary of Final Recommendations, Final Report, August 2002.
• Betancourt J and Zlatanska E, “Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): What Is It, And Is It the Way Forward?”, 2013, 79, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, p. 256-254.
• Blenko M, Mankins M C and Rogers P, Decide and Deliver: Five Steps to Breakthrough Performance in Your Organization, Harvard Business Review Press, 2010.
• Budak A C, “Tüketici Hakem Heyetleri”, 2014, 16, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Pekcanıtez Armağanı, p. 77-103.
• Cole S R and Blankley K M, “Online Mediation: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now, and Where We Should Be”, 2006, 38, U. Tol. L. Rev., p. 193.
• Consumer Protection, A Common Priority! (EU Delegation to Turkey, 2018), <https://www.avrupa.info.tr/en/pr/consumer-protection-common-priority-7765> Date of Access 4 April 2021.
• Cortés P, The Law of Consumer Redress in An Evolving Digital Market: Upgrading from Alternative to Online Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• Cortés P, Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU, Routledge, 2011.
• Cortés P and Lodder A, “Consumer Dispute Resolution Goes Online: Reflections on the Evolution of European Law for Out-Of-Court Redress”, 2014, 21 (1), Maastricht Journal, p. 14-38.
• Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC, OJ L165/63, 18 June 2013.
• Ermenek İ, “Yargı Kararları Işığında Tüketici Sorunları Hakem Heyetleri ve Bu Alanda Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlara İlişkin Çözüm Önerileri”, 2013, 17, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, p. 563-634.
• Ebner N, Zeleznikow J, “No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution”, 2016, 32, Negotiation Journal, p. 297-323.
• Eisen J B, “Are We Ready for Mediation in Cyberspace?”, 1998, 4, Brigham Young University Law Review, p. 1305-1360.
• Ercan M, Uyuşmazlıkların Online Çözüm Yöntemleri, LLM Thesis, 2012.
• European Commission, “Functioning of the European ODR Platform: Statistical Report”, <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/odr_report_2020_clean_final.pdf> Date of Access 1 April 2021.
• European Commission (Online Dispute Resolution 2020), “Reports and statistics”, <https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.statistics.show> Date of Access 1 March 2021.
• European Commission (Online Dispute Resolution 2021), <https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.home.show&lng=E> Date of Access 7 April 2021.
• European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) “European judicial systems, efficiency and quality of justice: Use of information technology in courts in Europe”, CEPEJ Studies No. XX, 2016 edition (2014 data).
• Farned D B, “A New Automated Class of Online Dispute Resolution: Changing the Meaning of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 2011, 2, Faulkner Law Review, p. 335-360.
• Flebus C, “Report: UNCITRAL Working Group III on Online Dispute Resolution - A Change of Focus In The Outcome Document”, 2016, 29, New York State Bar Association International Law Practicum, p. 60.
• Hörnle J, Cross-border Internet Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Kadıoğlu C Ç, “Bricks and Clicks: Online Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Implementation of Online Arbitration in Turkey for Cross-Border Business to Consumer E-Commerce Disputes”, 2019, 1, ASBÜ Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi, p. 113-146.
• Kalafatoğlu M P, “Yabancı Unsurlu E-Tüketici Uyuşmazlıklarının İnternet Üzerinden Çözülmesi (Online Dispute Resolution) Konusunda Görüş, Düşünce Ve Öneriler”, 2018, 34 (2), Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, p. 301-350.
• Katsh E and Rifkin J, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, Jossey-Bass, 2001.
• Kaufmann-Kohler G and Schultz T, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice, Kluwer Law International, 2004.
• Kaya S, Consumer Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age: Online Dispute Resolution, Oniki levha, 2020.
• Lau T and Johnson L, The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, Saylor Foundation, 2011.
• Lavi D, “Three Is Not a Crowd: Online Mediation-Arbitration in Business to Consumer Internet Disputes”, 2016, 37, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, p. 871-941.
• Lodder A and Zeleznikow J, Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• “Ministry of Justice Strategic Plan 2015-2019” published by Republic of Turkey Ministry of Justice, Directorate for Strategy Development (2015), <http://www.judiciaryofturkey.gov.tr/pdfler/plan.pdf> Date of Access 7 April 2021.
• O’Sullivan T, “Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Scheme for New Zealand Consumers Who Shop Online—Are Automated Negotiation Tools the Key To Improving Access To Justice?”, 2015, 24, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, p. 22-43.
• Özmumcu S, “Dünyada ve Ülkemizde Online Uyuşmazlık Çözümleri Bağlamında Online Tahkim ve Uygulamaları”, 2020, 78 (2), İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, p. 431-454.
• Özmumcu S, “Online Uyuşmazlık Çözümleri ve Online Arabuluculuk "Dijital Adalet Mümkün Mü?" Sistem Üzerine Bazı Değerlendirmeler”, 2020, Prof. Dr. Türkan Rado'nun Anısına Armağan, p. 365-420.
• Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 2054 (2015), “Access to justice and the Internet: potential and challenges”, Report: Doc. 13918 of 10 November 2015.
• Pekcanıtez H, “Tüketici Sorunları Hakem Heyeti”, 1996, İzmir Barosu Dergisi, p. 40-53.
• Philippe M, “ODR Redress System for Consumer Disputes: Clarifications, UNCITRAL Works & EU Regulation on ODR”, 2014, 1, International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, p. 57-69.
• Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (hereinafter Regulation on Consumer ODR), OJ L165/1, 18 June 2013.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of Justice Statistics (2019), <https://adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/SayfaDokuman/1062020170359HizmeteOzel-2019-baskı-İSA.pdf> Date of Access 20 March 2021.
• Ross G, “The Possible Unintended Consequences of the European Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution”, 2014, 10, Revista Democracia Digital e Governo Electrônico, p. 206
• Rule C, Online Dispute Resolution for Business, Jossey-Bass, 2002.
• Rule C, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large E-Commerce Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing in Dispute Resolution”, 2012, 34 (4), University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review, p. 767-777.
• Schmitz A J, “There's an "App" for That: Developing Online Dispute Resolution to Empower Economic Development”, 2018, 32, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, p. 1-45.
• The Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and The European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0425&from=EN> Date of Access 5 April 2021.
• The Council of Europe European Committee on Legal Co-operation, “Technical Study on Online Dispute Resolution Mechanisms”, CDCJ, 2018.
• The Project on the Development of Mediation in Civil Disputes (2017), <https://rm.coe.int/mediation/168075fa4c> Date of Access 5 April 2021.
• Tutumlu M A, Tüketici Sorunları Hakem Heyetlerinin Yapısı, İşleyişi, Sorunları ve Çözüm Önerileri, Seçkin, 2006.
• Uluç İ, Online Uyuşmazlık Çözümü, 2015, Prof. Dr. Ramazan Arslan’a Armağan, p. 1609-1643.
• United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 49th session, ‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the work of its thirty-third session’, A/CN.9/868, 27 June-15 July 2016.
• United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 44th session, ‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the work of its twenty-second session’, A/CN.9/716 ,27 June-15 July 2011.
• United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 30th session, “Online dispute resolution for cross-border electronic commerce transactions: draft procedural rules (Track II)” A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.130, 20-24 October 2014.
• Yeşilova B, “6502 sayılı Yeni Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’a Göre Tüketici Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümü Usulü ve Yargılama Kuralları”, 2014, 9, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, p. 107-143.
• Yüksel A, “Online International Arbitration”, 2007, 4 (1), Ankara Law Review, p. 83-93.
• Wang F F, Online Arbitration, Informa Law from Routledge, 2017.
• Wang F F, Online Dispute Resolution, Chandos, 2009.
• Zheng J, Online Resolution of E-commerce Disputes: Perspectives from the European Union, the UK, and China, Springer, 2020.