Akit-Dışı Borçlara Uygulanacak Hukuka İlişkin Tüzükte (Roma II) Ürün Sorumluluğu

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 121 - 140, 01.12.2010

Feriha Bilge Tanrıbilir

Öz

Bu makalede Avrupa Birliğinin Akit Dışı Borçlara Uygulanacak Hukuka İlişkin Tüzüğünün ürün sorumluluğuna dair bağlama kuralı ele alınmaktadır. Roma II Tüzüğünün 5/1 maddesi üç kademeli bağlama kuralıdır: zarar görenin mutad meskeni, ürünün iktisap edildiği yer ve zararın medyama geldiği yer. Her üç kademe de ürünün bu devlette pazara sürülmüş olması şartıyla birlikte bulunmalıdır. Roma II Tüzüğünün 5/2 hükmünde bir istisna kuralı da kabul edilmiştir. Öte yandan bu madde ortak ikametgah hukukunun uygulanmasını öngören 4/2. maddede yer alan genel kuralın uygulanmasına engel olmamaktadır. Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun (5718) 36. maddesinde ürün sorumluluğuna ilişkin özel bir bağlama kuralı ihtiva etmektedir. Bu hükme göre davacı davalının mutad meskeni hukuku, davalının işyeri merkezi hukuku ile ürünün iktisap edildiği yer hukukundan birini seçebilir. Bu çalışma Roma II Tüzüğü ile Türk hukukunda yer alan hükümlerini eleştirel bir yaklaşımla incelemeyi hedeflemektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Roma II, Roma II Tüzüğü, ürün sorumluluğu, ürün sorumluluğuna uygulanacak hukuk, akit dışı borçlar, Lahey Sözleşmesi

PRODUCT LIABILITY IN THE LAW APPLICABLE TO NON-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (ROME II)

Öz

This article reviews a connecting rule on the product liability of the European Union’s Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). Article 5/1 of the Rome II Regulation is the cascade connections in three levels: habitual residence of person who sustains the damage, place of acquisition of product and place where damage occurred. All three levels should be together another condition that the product was marketed in that country. It is accepted an escape clause under Article 5/2 of Rome II Regulation. Besides this article does not prevent to Article 4/2 which is general rule related to the common habitual residence. On the other hand Turkish Act of Private International Law and Procedure Law (5718) has a special connection rule on the product liability, Article 36. According to this provision it is chosen one of law of habitual residence or place of business of the person claimed to be liable, and the law of acquisition of product by the plaintiff. This study attempts a critical approach of the provisions of Rome II Regulation and Turkish Law

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rome II, product liability, the law applicable to product liability, non-contractual obligations, The Hague Convention

Kaynakça

• Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligations (“ROME II”), COM (2006) 83, fi nal, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_ centre/civil/ doc/com_2006_83_en.pdf
• Başbakanlık Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığının 2009 yılı verileri. http://www.dtm. gov.tr/dtmadmin/upload/EAD/ IstatistikDb/eko01.xls
• Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability www.hccc.net/e/conventions/text
• De Boer, Th.M.: Party Autonomy and Its Limitations in the Rome II Regulation, Yearbook of Private International Law, 9(2007), s. 19-29.
• Doğan, V.: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Ankara 2010.
• Fröhlich, C.W.: The Private International Law of Non-Contractual Obligations According to the Rome-II Regulation, A Comparative Study of the Choice of Law Rules in Tort Under European, English and German Law, Hamburg 2008.
• Garriga, G.: Relationships between “Rome II” and other international instruments, A commentary on Article 28 of the Rome II Regulation, Yearbook of Private International Law, 9(2007), s. 137-148.
• Hay, P.: Contemporary approaches to non-conctual obligations in private international law (Confl ict of Laws) and the European Community’s “Rome II” Regulation, Chines Yearbook of Private International Law and Comperative Law, 2008, s. 33-92.
• Huber, P./Illmer, M.: A Commentary on Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation, Yearbook of Private International Law, 9(2007), s. 31-47.
• Illmer, M.: The New European Private International Law of Product Liability – Steering Through Troubled Waters, RabelsZ Bd. 73 (2009), s. 269
• Kadner Graziano, T.: The law Applicaple to product liability – The present state of the law in Europe and current proposals for reform, ICLQ, 54(2005), s. 475-488.
• Nomer, E/Şanlı, C.: Devletler Hususî Hukuku, 17. B., İstanbul 2009.
• Posch, W.: The “Draft Regulation Rome II” in 2004: Its past and future perpectives, Yearbook of Private International Law, 6(2004), s. 129- 153.
• Proposal For A Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (“Rome II”), COM (2003) 427 fi nal, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ. do?uri=CELEX:52003PC0427: EN:HTML
• Reese, WLM.: Explanatory Report, Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability, Lahey 1974.
• REGULATION (EC) No 864/2007 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non- contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ 31.7.2007-L199.
• Stone, P.: The Rome II Regulation on choice of law in tort, Ankara Law Review, 4(Winter 2007), s. 95-130.
• Summary and contributions of consultation “Rome II”, http://ec.europa. eu/justice_home/news/consulting_ public/rome_ii/news_summary_ rome2_en.htm
• Symeonides, S.C.: Tort Confl icts and Rome II: A view from across, Festschrift für Erik Jayme (ed. Mansel/Pfeiffer/Kronke/Kohler/Hausmann), C.1, Münih 2004, s. 935-954.
• Symeonides, S.C.: Rome II and tort confl icts: A missed opportunity, Am. J. Comp. L., 173(2008), s. 173-218.
• Tanrıbilir, F.B.: Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Ürün Sorumluluğu, (ürün sorumluluğu), Ankara 2004.
• Tanrıbilir, F.B.: Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Ürün Sorumluluğuna İlişkin Kurallara Genel Bakış, (tebliğ), Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Sorumluluk ve Tazminat Hukuku Sempozyumu (28-39 Mayıs 2009), Ankara 2009, s. 263-293.
• Tekinalp, G.: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Bağlama Kuralları, 10. B., İstanbul
• Von Hein, J.: Something old and something borrowed, but nothing new? Rome II and the European choice-of-law evolution, Tul. L. Rev. 82(2007-2008), s. 1697-1698.