Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ ADALET DİVANININ ECO SWISS KARARINDAKİ KAMU DÜZENİ KAVRAMI VE BUNUN AB İÇİ YATIRIM ANTLAŞMASI TAHKIMLERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 438 - 449, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.933007

Öz

Kamu düzeninin ilginç tanımlarından birini, Amerikan Federal Yüksek Mahkemesi Yargıcı Cardozo'nun kararında görmekteyiz. Cardozo'ya göre, yabancı devletin hâkimi, kendi ülkesinde var olan temel adalet şuurunu, ortak yaygın ahlak anlayışını ve köklü ortak iyilik anlayışını ihlâl etmedikçe yabancı hukuku reddedemez. Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta for yargıcı, kamu düzeni anlayışının harekete geçmesi gerektiği kanısına varırsa, artık milletlerarası özel hukuk menfaatini ikinci plana atıp maddî hukuk menfaatini ön plana alabilir. Kamu düzeni kavramının, kanunlar ihtilâfı hukukunda, yabancı hakem veya mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizinde farklı işlevleri vardır. Öte yandan, kamu düzenine başvurmak istisnaî olmalıdır ve işte bu, kamu düzenini, emredici kurallardan ayıran temel kriterlerden biridir. Bu ayrım, Eco Swiss davasında Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı tarafından tam olarak ortaya konulamamış ve Divan, Avrupa Birliği Antlaşmasındaki emredici rekabet hukuku kurallarını kamu düzeni kavramı içerisinde nitelendirmiştir. Bununla birlikte, AB içi yatırım tahkimi kararlarına karşı millî mahkemeler nezdinde başvurulan hakem kararlarını iptal taleplerinde kamu düzeni kavramı daha doğru yorumlanmış ve hakimler, hakem kararlarının iptalinde kamu düzenine başvurmamışlardır.

Kaynakça

  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Tahkim, 5.Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci:” Devletlerarası Sözleşmelerde Yer Alan Tahkim Klozlarının Yatırımcılara Yapılmış Tahkim Anlaşması Akdetme Önerisi Olarak Kabulünün Ev Sahibi Devletler Bakımından Doğurduğu Olumsuz Sonuçlar”, in ÖZDEMİR-KOCASAKAL, Hatice/BALKAR, Süheyla (ed.), Tahkim Anlaşması, On iki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul 2020, s.103-131.
  • ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci:” Manufacturing Consent to Investment Treaty Arbitration By Means of the Notion of ‘‘Arbitration Without Privity’’, Annales de la Faculte de Droit d'Istanbul, XLIII(LX), 2011, p.187-201.
  • BARRACLOUGH, Andrew/ WAINCYMER, Jeff: “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 6(2), 2005, s. 205-244.
  • BERMANN, George A.: “Navigating EU Law and Law of Arbitration,” Arbitration International, 28(3), 2012, s.397-446.
  • BORN, Gary: International Commercial Arbitration, Vol I, Ed.3, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021.
  • BORN, Gary, International Commercial Arbitration, Vol.III, Ed.3, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021.
  • BUCHANAN, Mark A.: “Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration”, American Business Law Journal, XXVI (III), Fall 1988, p. 511-531.
  • ÇELİKEL, Aysel/ERDEM, Bahadır: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 14.Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul 2016.
  • DEMIR GÖKYAYLA, Cemile: Yeniden Kamu Düzeni, Onuncu Yılında MOHUK Sempozyumu, in Tanrıbilir, Feriha Bilge/Gümüşlü Tunçağıl, Gülce (ed.), Sempozyum 7-8 Aralik 2017, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2018, s. 85-98.
  • DOLINGER, Jacob: “World Public Policy: Real International Public Policy in the Conflict of Laws”, Texas International Law Journal, XVII(II) Spring 1982, p.167-193.
  • FRY, James: “Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy”, Chinese Journal of International Law, VIII, 2009, p.81-134.
  • FUMAGALLI, Luigi:” Mandatory Rules and International Arbitration: An Italian Perspective”, ASA Bulletin, 16(1), 1998, s.43-59.
  • GRUSIC, Uglješa/HEINZE, Christian/MERRETT, Louise/MILLS, Alex/GARCIA-CASTRILLON, Carmen Otero/TANG, Zheng Sophia/TRIMMINGS, Katarina/WALKER, Lara: Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law-Edited by Paul Torremans, Ed.15, OUP, New York 2017.
  • GÜNGÖR, Gülin: Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku-Kanunlar İhtilafı Hukuku Milletlerarası Usul Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021.
  • HAY, Peter: Advanced Introduction to Private International Law and Procedure, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton 2018.
  • HORVATH, Gunther J:” The Duty of the Tribunal to Render an Enforceable Award”, Journal of International Arbitration 18(2), 2001, p.135-158.
  • IDOT, Laurence: “Arbitrage et droit de la concurrence”, Revue des droits de la concurrence, Concurrences 4, 2010, note.64, s.14,www.concurrences.com, (13.04.2021)
  • JEMIELNIAK, Joanna: “Transnationalization of Domestic Law in International Commercial Arbitration Through Comparative Analysis: Challenges for Legal Profession, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 7(2), 2014, s. 309-340.
  • KÁPOSZNYÁK, Aliz:” Intra-EU Arbitral Awards After Achmea: Recognition and Enforcement Within the European Union Under the New York Convention” in Z. Meškić et al. (eds.), Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2019, 2020, p.69-89.
  • KASOLOWSKY, Boris/WENDLER, Carsten: Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards: Jurisdictional Know-How-Germany- in Rowley, J.William/Gaillard, Emmanuel and Kaiser, Gordon E. (eds) The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards, David Samuels, London 2019, p.300-315. For the text of the German Arbitration Act see: https://sccinstitute.com/media/29988/german-arbitration-act.pdf,
  • KEGEL, Gerhard/SCHURIG, Klaus: Internationales Privatrecht, 9. Auflage, Beck, München 2004.
  • LALIVE, Pierre: “Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration”, in Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, ICCA Congress Serıes, III, 1986, Kluwer Law International, Aaan den Rijn 1987, p.258-318.
  • MAURER, Anton.: The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention-History, Interpretation and Application, Revised Edition, JurisNet, New York 2013.
  • MAYER, Pierre: “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 2 (4),1986, s.274-293.
  • NOMER, Ergin: Devletler Hususi Hukuku, 22.Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul 2017.
  • PARK, William: The Specificity of International Arbitration: The Case for FAA Reform, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, XXXVI, 2003, p.1242-1311.
  • SARIÖZ-BÜYÜKALP. A. İpek: “Uluslararası Tahkimde Tahkim Anlaşmasının Hükümsüz, Tesirsiz Veya İcrasının İmkansız Olması Kavramları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Hakan PEKCANITEZ’e Armağan, 16, Özel Sayı 2014, s.2015-2061.
  • SCHEU, Julian/NIKOLOV, Petyo: “The setting aside and Enforcement of intra-EU investment arbitration awards after Achmea” Arbitration International, 36, 2020, p. 254-274.
  • SILACI KORKMAZ, Melis. New York Konvansiyonu Uyarınca Tahkim Anlaşmasının Geçerliliği ve Ehliyet, İstanbul 2020.
  • SHENOY, Nivedita: “Public Policy under Article V (2)(b) of the New York Convention: Is there a Transnational Standard”, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, XX, 2018, p.77-103.
  • STORSKRUBB, Eva: “Navigating EU Law and the Law of Arbitration-From the Horizon of Commercial Arbitration in Sweden”, In: Eric Bylander, Anna Jonsson Cornell, Jakob Rangwaldh (ed.), Forward! – Bперёд! – Framåt!: Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hobér Uppsala: Iustus förlag, Uppsala 2019, p.285-309.
  • ŞANLI, Cemal/ESEN, Emre/ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Bası.8, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • TEKİNALP, Gülören: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bağlama ve Usul Hukuku Kuralları, 13.Bası, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • TİRYAKİOĞLU, Bilgin.: Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Kamu Düzenine Aykırılık, Yabancı Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Güncel Gelişmeler, Edt. Süheyla Balkar BOZKURT, Sempozyum 14 Ekim 2016, On iki Levha, İstanbul 2018, s.83-95.
  • TİRYAKİOLU, Bilgin: Taşinir Mallara İlişkin Milletlerarasi Unsurlu Satim Akitlerine Uygulanacak Hukuk, AÜHF Döner Sermaye Yayınları, Ankara 1996 (Taşınır)

THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 438 - 449, 31.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.933007

Öz

One of the interesting definitions of public policy was seen in the quoted passage of the US Supreme Court Judge Cardozo. According to Cardozo, foreign judge shall not discard the foreign law unless it violates some fundamental principle of rights, some common conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal. In private international law, especially when the forum judge needs to functionalize the notion of public policy, the interest of the private international law may stay behind the interests of substantial law. Public policy has different functions in conflicts of law and in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or court decisions. On the other hand, triggering off the institution of the public policy must be exceptional, and this is the most important distinction between the public policy and the mandatory rules. This distinction could not be pointed out properly in Eco Swiss case where the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) has qualified the mandatory rules of competition law in the Treaty within the concept of public policy. In the subsequent court decisions that supervise the intra-EU investment arbitral awards, however, the concept of public policy was interpreted more accurately, and the judges did not prefer to apply the concept of public policy to set aside the arbitral awards.

Kaynakça

  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • AKINCI, Ziya: Milletlerarası Tahkim, 5.Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci:” Devletlerarası Sözleşmelerde Yer Alan Tahkim Klozlarının Yatırımcılara Yapılmış Tahkim Anlaşması Akdetme Önerisi Olarak Kabulünün Ev Sahibi Devletler Bakımından Doğurduğu Olumsuz Sonuçlar”, in ÖZDEMİR-KOCASAKAL, Hatice/BALKAR, Süheyla (ed.), Tahkim Anlaşması, On iki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul 2020, s.103-131.
  • ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci:” Manufacturing Consent to Investment Treaty Arbitration By Means of the Notion of ‘‘Arbitration Without Privity’’, Annales de la Faculte de Droit d'Istanbul, XLIII(LX), 2011, p.187-201.
  • BARRACLOUGH, Andrew/ WAINCYMER, Jeff: “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 6(2), 2005, s. 205-244.
  • BERMANN, George A.: “Navigating EU Law and Law of Arbitration,” Arbitration International, 28(3), 2012, s.397-446.
  • BORN, Gary: International Commercial Arbitration, Vol I, Ed.3, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021.
  • BORN, Gary, International Commercial Arbitration, Vol.III, Ed.3, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2021.
  • BUCHANAN, Mark A.: “Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration”, American Business Law Journal, XXVI (III), Fall 1988, p. 511-531.
  • ÇELİKEL, Aysel/ERDEM, Bahadır: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 14.Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul 2016.
  • DEMIR GÖKYAYLA, Cemile: Yeniden Kamu Düzeni, Onuncu Yılında MOHUK Sempozyumu, in Tanrıbilir, Feriha Bilge/Gümüşlü Tunçağıl, Gülce (ed.), Sempozyum 7-8 Aralik 2017, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2018, s. 85-98.
  • DOLINGER, Jacob: “World Public Policy: Real International Public Policy in the Conflict of Laws”, Texas International Law Journal, XVII(II) Spring 1982, p.167-193.
  • FRY, James: “Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy”, Chinese Journal of International Law, VIII, 2009, p.81-134.
  • FUMAGALLI, Luigi:” Mandatory Rules and International Arbitration: An Italian Perspective”, ASA Bulletin, 16(1), 1998, s.43-59.
  • GRUSIC, Uglješa/HEINZE, Christian/MERRETT, Louise/MILLS, Alex/GARCIA-CASTRILLON, Carmen Otero/TANG, Zheng Sophia/TRIMMINGS, Katarina/WALKER, Lara: Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law-Edited by Paul Torremans, Ed.15, OUP, New York 2017.
  • GÜNGÖR, Gülin: Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku-Kanunlar İhtilafı Hukuku Milletlerarası Usul Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021.
  • HAY, Peter: Advanced Introduction to Private International Law and Procedure, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton 2018.
  • HORVATH, Gunther J:” The Duty of the Tribunal to Render an Enforceable Award”, Journal of International Arbitration 18(2), 2001, p.135-158.
  • IDOT, Laurence: “Arbitrage et droit de la concurrence”, Revue des droits de la concurrence, Concurrences 4, 2010, note.64, s.14,www.concurrences.com, (13.04.2021)
  • JEMIELNIAK, Joanna: “Transnationalization of Domestic Law in International Commercial Arbitration Through Comparative Analysis: Challenges for Legal Profession, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 7(2), 2014, s. 309-340.
  • KÁPOSZNYÁK, Aliz:” Intra-EU Arbitral Awards After Achmea: Recognition and Enforcement Within the European Union Under the New York Convention” in Z. Meškić et al. (eds.), Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law 2019, 2020, p.69-89.
  • KASOLOWSKY, Boris/WENDLER, Carsten: Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards: Jurisdictional Know-How-Germany- in Rowley, J.William/Gaillard, Emmanuel and Kaiser, Gordon E. (eds) The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards, David Samuels, London 2019, p.300-315. For the text of the German Arbitration Act see: https://sccinstitute.com/media/29988/german-arbitration-act.pdf,
  • KEGEL, Gerhard/SCHURIG, Klaus: Internationales Privatrecht, 9. Auflage, Beck, München 2004.
  • LALIVE, Pierre: “Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration”, in Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, ICCA Congress Serıes, III, 1986, Kluwer Law International, Aaan den Rijn 1987, p.258-318.
  • MAURER, Anton.: The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention-History, Interpretation and Application, Revised Edition, JurisNet, New York 2013.
  • MAYER, Pierre: “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 2 (4),1986, s.274-293.
  • NOMER, Ergin: Devletler Hususi Hukuku, 22.Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul 2017.
  • PARK, William: The Specificity of International Arbitration: The Case for FAA Reform, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, XXXVI, 2003, p.1242-1311.
  • SARIÖZ-BÜYÜKALP. A. İpek: “Uluslararası Tahkimde Tahkim Anlaşmasının Hükümsüz, Tesirsiz Veya İcrasının İmkansız Olması Kavramları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Hakan PEKCANITEZ’e Armağan, 16, Özel Sayı 2014, s.2015-2061.
  • SCHEU, Julian/NIKOLOV, Petyo: “The setting aside and Enforcement of intra-EU investment arbitration awards after Achmea” Arbitration International, 36, 2020, p. 254-274.
  • SILACI KORKMAZ, Melis. New York Konvansiyonu Uyarınca Tahkim Anlaşmasının Geçerliliği ve Ehliyet, İstanbul 2020.
  • SHENOY, Nivedita: “Public Policy under Article V (2)(b) of the New York Convention: Is there a Transnational Standard”, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, XX, 2018, p.77-103.
  • STORSKRUBB, Eva: “Navigating EU Law and the Law of Arbitration-From the Horizon of Commercial Arbitration in Sweden”, In: Eric Bylander, Anna Jonsson Cornell, Jakob Rangwaldh (ed.), Forward! – Bперёд! – Framåt!: Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hobér Uppsala: Iustus förlag, Uppsala 2019, p.285-309.
  • ŞANLI, Cemal/ESEN, Emre/ATAMAN-FİGANMEŞE, İnci: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Bası.8, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • TEKİNALP, Gülören: Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bağlama ve Usul Hukuku Kuralları, 13.Bası, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2020.
  • TİRYAKİOĞLU, Bilgin.: Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Kamu Düzenine Aykırılık, Yabancı Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Güncel Gelişmeler, Edt. Süheyla Balkar BOZKURT, Sempozyum 14 Ekim 2016, On iki Levha, İstanbul 2018, s.83-95.
  • TİRYAKİOLU, Bilgin: Taşinir Mallara İlişkin Milletlerarasi Unsurlu Satim Akitlerine Uygulanacak Hukuk, AÜHF Döner Sermaye Yayınları, Ankara 1996 (Taşınır)
Toplam 37 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Hukuk
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Kazım Sedat Sirmen 0000-0001-9174-8759

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 9 Temmuz 2021
Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 5 Mayıs 2021
Kabul Tarihi 8 Temmuz 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Sirmen, K. S. (2021). THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 438-449. https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.933007
AMA Sirmen KS. THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS. İnÜHFD. Aralık 2021;12(2):438-449. doi:10.21492/inuhfd.933007
Chicago Sirmen, Kazım Sedat. “THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS”. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 12, sy. 2 (Aralık 2021): 438-49. https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.933007.
EndNote Sirmen KS (01 Aralık 2021) THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 12 2 438–449.
IEEE K. S. Sirmen, “THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS”, İnÜHFD, c. 12, sy. 2, ss. 438–449, 2021, doi: 10.21492/inuhfd.933007.
ISNAD Sirmen, Kazım Sedat. “THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS”. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 12/2 (Aralık 2021), 438-449. https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.933007.
JAMA Sirmen KS. THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS. İnÜHFD. 2021;12:438–449.
MLA Sirmen, Kazım Sedat. “THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS”. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 12, sy. 2, 2021, ss. 438-49, doi:10.21492/inuhfd.933007.
Vancouver Sirmen KS. THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ECO SWISS DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTRA-EU INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS. İnÜHFD. 2021;12(2):438-49.