Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkiminde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı

Öz

Uluslararası yatırım tahkiminde üçüncü kişi finansmanından yararlanma, son yıllarda gittikçe artmaktadır. Üçüncü kişi finansmanında finansör, tarafı olmadığı bir uyuşmazlığın taraflarından birini finanse ederek yargılamanın sonucunda elde edilecek meblağdan pay almayı hedeflemektedir. Bu sayede kendisine fon sağlanan taraf, tahkim masraflarını ödemekten kurtulmaktadır. Davayı kaybettiği takdirde de finansöre herhangi bir geri ödeme yapması gerekmemektedir. Tahkim masrafları, finansör tarafından karşılanacağından dolayı finanse edilen tarafın adalete erişim hakkı tesis edilmiş olacaktır. Bunun yanında üçüncü kişi finansmanı, yargılama sırasında oluşabilecek masraflara ilişkin riskin, finansör ile paylaşılması noktasında da önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki finansörler, uyuşmazlıkları finanse etme konusunda oldukça seçici davranmakta ve yüksek başarı şansı görmediği başvuruları -yaklaşık %90 oranında- reddetmektedir. Finansmanın sağlanması için finansör ile kendisine finansman sağlanan taraf arasında bir finansman sözleşmesinin akdedilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu sözleşmenin niteliği doktrinde tartışmalı olsa da sui generis olarak değerlendirilmesinde fayda olduğu çıkarımında bulunulmuştur. Uluslararası yatırım tahkiminde üçüncü kişi finansmanının yargılamaya olumsuz etkileri de bulunmaktadır. Bunların başında hakemlerin tarafsızlık ve bağımsızlıklarına halel getirilmesi hususu gelmektedir. ICSID Tahkim Kuralları Temmuz 2022 değişiklikleri ile bu konuda önemli bir adım atılmış ve üçüncü kişi finansörün kimliğinin bildirilmesi düzenleme altına alınmıştır. Finansörün tahkim yargılamasına oluşturabileceği olumsuz etkilerden bir diğeri de davaya etkin müdahale etmesi olacaktır. Çalışmanın son bölümünde finansörün oluşturabileceği bu gibi menfi zararlara değinilip son olarak masraflar için teminat yatırma yükümlülüğünün finansörün varlığı durumunda ne şekilde ele alınması gerektiği değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı
• Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkimi
• Dava Sonucundan Pay Alma Yasağı
• Finansörün Kimliğinin Açıklanması

Third-Party Funding in International Investment Arbitration

Öz

The use of third-party funding in international investment arbitration has increased significantly in recent years. In thirdparty funding, funders finance a legal claim in which they have no pre-existing interest with the aim of receiving financial benefit. In this way, the funded party avoids paying arbitration costs. If the case is lost, the funded party additionally doesn’t have to make any repayments to the funder. The right to access to justice is established because of the arbitration costs covered by the funder. Third-party funding also provides significant contributions with regard to sharing with the funder the risks of costs that may arise during the tribunal. One should note that funders are very selective about financing disputes and reject 90% of applications if they don’t see a high chance of success. In order to provide funding, a funding agreement must be signed between the funded party and the third-party funder. Although the legal character of this agreement is controversial in terms of doctrine, considering it as sui generis has been concluded to be beneficial.

Third-party funding also has negative effects on the tribunal process in international investment arbitration. The presence of a third-party funder can raise doubt as to the impartiality and independence of the arbitrators. With the 2022 Amendment of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, a major step has been taken by making a new rule about disclosure of third-party funding. Another negative effect of third-party funding is that the funder may want to take full control over the arbitral proceeding. The last part of the study evaluates security for costs when a third-party funder is present.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Third-Party Funding
• International Investment Arbitration
• ICSID
• Maintenance and Champerty
• Disclosure of Third-Party Funding
• Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı
• Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkimi
• Dava Sonucundan Pay Alma Yasağı
• Finansörün Kimliğinin Açıklanması

Kaynakça

1. Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim, (6th edn, Vedat 2021)
2. Atalı M and Ermenek İ and Erdoğan E, İcra ve İflâs Hukuku (2nd edn, Yetkin 2019)
3. Ataman-Figanmeşe İ, ‘Milletlerarası Ticarî Tahkim ile Yatırım Tahkimi Arasındaki Farklar’ (2012) 31(1) PPIL 91-152.
4. Ataseven MB, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration’ (Master thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi 2019)
5. Balkar Bozkurt S, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Yargılama Masraflarının Hak Arama Özgürlüğüne Etkisi ve Sonuçları’ (2015) 10(129-130) Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 121-222.
6. Balkar Bozkurt S, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Hakemlerin Bağımsızlık Yükümlülüğü (1st edn, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2016)
7. Bao C, ‘Third Party Funding in Singapore and Hong Kong: The Next Chapter’ (2017) 34 (Special Issue) Journal of International Arbitration 387-400.
8. Barker GR, ‘Third Party Litigation Funding in Australia and Europe’ (2012) 8(3) Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 451-524.

9. Baumann A and Singh MM, ‘New Forms of Third Party Funding in Internaitonal Arbitration: Investing in Case Portfolios and Financing Law Firms’ (2019) 7(2) Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 29-44.
10. Brabandere ED, ‘Mercantile Adventurers?’ The Disclosure of Third Party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2017) Grotius Centre Working Paper 2016/059, Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
11. Brabandere ED and Lepeltak J, ‘Third Party Funding in International Investment Arbitration’ (2012) Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies Working Paper Leiden University No 2012/1, Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
12. Brekoulakis S and Rogers C, ‘Third Party Funding in ISDS: A Framework for Understanding Practice and Policy’ (2019) Academic Forum on ISDS Concept Paper 2019/11 Version 2, Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
13. Burford Capital- Legal Finance 101, 4 Erişim Tarihi 2 May 2022
14. Burford Case Study: Single Case and Secondary Market Transaction, Erişim Tarihi 30 April 2022
15. Campbell and Fell v UK App no 7819/77; 7878/77 (ECHR, 28 June 1984)
16. Can H and Tuna E, Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu (1st edn, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021)
17. ‘Case Summaries: International Investment Law’ (2017) 16(3) World Trade Review 551-555.
18. Chaisse J and Eken C, ‘The Monetization of Investment Claims Promises and Pitfalls of Third Party Funding in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2020) 44(2-3) Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 113-166.
19. Colombo GF and Yokomizo D, ‘A Short Theoretical Assessment on Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2018) (280) Nagoya University Journal of Law and Politics 109-124.
20. Cremades JA, ‘Adapting Disclosure Obligations to the Realities of Modern Third Party Funding’ (2019) 6(1) BCDR International Arbitration Review 5-26.
21. Cremades Jr. BM, ‘Third Party Litigation Funding: Investing in Arbitration’ (2011) 8(4) Transnational Dispute Management 1-41.
22. Crivellaro A and Melchionda L, ‘Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest in Relation to Third Party Funding’ (2018) 5(2) BCDR International Arbitration Review 281-306.
23. Çalışkan Y, ‘Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkiminin Üçüncü Kişiler Tarafından Finansmanı’ (2016) 22(3) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 645-658.
24. Çelikel A and Erdem BB, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (17th edn, Beta 2021)
25. Darwazeh N and Leleu A, ‘Disclosure and Security for Costs or How to Address Imbalances Created by Third Party Funding’ (2016) 33(2) Journal of International Arbitration 125-150.
26. De Boulle T, ‘Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration’ (Master thesis, Ghent University 2013-2014)
27. Dirk Herzig as Insolvency Administrator over the Assests of Unionmatex Industrieanlagen GmbH v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/18/35
28. Dodge K, Barnett J, Macedo L and Kulig P, ‘Third-Party Funding and Reform of the ICSID Arbitration Rules’ (2021) 15(3) Romanian Arbitration Journal/ Revista Romana de Arbitraj 15-32
29. Doğan V, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (7th edn, Savaş Yayınevi 2021)
30. Efeçınar CS, ‘Uluslararası Tahkimde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanının Masraflar İçin Teminat Gösterilmesi Kararının Verilmesine Etkileri’ (2018) 20(2) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 33-62.
31. Eken C, ‘Uluslararası Tahkim ve Uluslararası Tahkimde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı’ (Master thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi 2018)
32. Emrehan İnal, Sonuca Katılmalı Sözleşme Kavramı ve Gelir Paylaşımlı İnşaat Sözleşmesi (2nd edn, On İki Levha 2011)
33. Eren F, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (25th edn, Yetkin 2020)
34. EuroGas Inc. and Bellmont Resources Inc. v. The Slovak Republic, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14
35. EuroGas Inc. and Bellmont Resources Inc. v. The Slovak Republic, Procedural Order No 3 Decision On The Parties’ Requests For Provisional Measures, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14 (23 June 2015)
36. Frignati V, ‘Ethical Implications of Third Party Funding in International Arbitration’ (2016) 32 Arbitration International 505-522.
37. Frischknecht A and Schmidt V, ‘Privilege and Confidentiality in Third Party Funder Due Diligence: The Positions in the United States and Switzerland and the Resulting Expectations Gap in International Arbitration’ (2011) 8(4) Transnational Dispute Management 1-35.
38. Garcia FJ, ‘Third Party Funding as Exploitation of the Investment Treaty System’ (2018) 59 (1) Boston College Law Review 1-27. Garimella SR, ‘Interrogating Third Party Funding in Investment Arbitration: The Need for Regulation in the UK and India’ (2019) 16(2) Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 213-233.
39. Gayner O and Khouri S, ‘Singapore and Hong Kong: International Arbitration Meets Third Party Funding’ (2017) 40(3) Fordham International Law Journal 1033-1046.
40. Gian Marco Solas, Third Party Funding, Law, Economics and Policy, (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2019)
41. Giovanni Alemanni and Others v The Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8 (17 November 2014)
42. Günergök Ö, ‘Avukatın Sır Saklama Yükümlülüğü’ (2003) 7(1-2) Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 655-669.
43. Guven B. and Johnson L., The Policy Implications of Third-Party Funding in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, (1st edn, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment-Working Paper, 2019
44. Henriques DG, ‘Third Party Funding: A Protected Investment’ (2017) 2017(30) Spain Arbitration Review 100-140.
45. Henriques DG, ‘Arbitrating Disputes in Third Party Funding: A Parallel with Arbitration in The Financing Sector’ (SSRN, 10 December 2018) Erişim Tarihi 19 May 2022
46. Hwang M and Chan YW, ‘Leading The Way: Third Party Funding in International Arbitration in Singapore’ (2018) 5(2) BCDR International Arbitration Review 353-368.
47. Işık F and Pat H, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı’ in Ceyda Süral Efeçınar, Ekin Ömeroğlu and Ece Uyanık (eds), Uluslararası Yatırım Tahkimi ve Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı Sempozyumu (Seçkin 2018) 94-134.
48. ‘International Arbitration Report’ (2016) 7 Norton Rose Fulbright
49. Jonas von Goeler, ‘Show Me Your Case and I’ll Show You the Money- How to Balance Conflicts Between Third Party Funding and Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceeding’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 21 July 2016) Erişim Tarihi 18 May 2022
50. Jones DS, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: Useful Experience from Australia’ (2018) 5(2) BCDR International Arbitration Review 335-352.
51. Joubin-Bret A, ‘Spotlight on Third Party Funding in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2015) 16(4) Journal of World Investment & Trade 727-733.
52. Kadarisman A, ‘Disclosure of Third Party Funding Arrangements and the Existence of Third Party Funders in International Investment Arbitration’ (2019) 17(1) Indonesian Journal of International Law 91-112.
53. Kadhim N, ‘Whose Line of Credit is it Anyway? Third Party Funding Issues in Arbitration’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 July 2017) Erişim Tarihi 18 April 2022
54. Kalajdzic J, Cashman P and Longmoore A, ‘Justice for Profit: A Comparative Analysis of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Third Party Litigation Funding’ (2013) 61(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 93-148.
55. Kantor M, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: An Essay About New Developments’ (2009) 24(1) ICSID Review- Foreign Investment Law Journal 65-79.
56. Kayalı D, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı’ (2019) 8(1) Uluslararası Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi, 83-117.
57. Kenny C, ‘A Comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong’s Third Party Funding Regimes to England and Australia’ (2021) 87(2) The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Disputes Management 170-190.
58. Kirtley W and Wietrzykowski K, ‘Should an Arbitral Tribunal Order Security for Costs When an Impecunious Claimant is Relying upon Third Party Funding?’ (2013) 30(1) Journal of International Arbitration 17-30.
59. Kühner D, ‘Impact of Party Impecuniosity on Arbitration Agreements: The Example of France and Germany’ (2014) 31(6) Journal of International Arbitration 807-818.
60. Lew JDM, ‘ICSID Arbitration: Special Features and Recent Developments’ (2004) 19 Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, Studies in Transnational Economic Law 265-283.
61. Lyon J, ‘Revolution in Progress: Third Party Funding of American Litigation’ (2010) 58 UCLA Law Review 571-609.
62. Mansinghka V, ‘Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration and its Impact on Indepence of Arbitrators: An Indian Perspective’ (2017) 13(1) Asian International Arbitration Journal 97-112.
63. Mert BM, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Üçüncü Kişi Finansmanı’ (Master thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi 2019)
64. Moseley SE, ‘Disclosing Third Party Funding in International Investment Arbitration’ (2019) 97(6) Texas Law Review 1181-1203.
65. Moses ML, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2012)
66. Muhammet Çap & Sehil İnşaat Endüstri ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkmenistan, Procedural Order No 3, ICSID Case No ARB/12/6 (12 June 2015)
67. Muhammet Çap & Sehil İnşaat Endüstri ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkmenistan, Procedural Order No 3, ICSID Case No ARB/12/6
68. Mulheron R, ‘England’s Unique Approach to the Self-Regulation of Third Party Funding: A Critical Analysis of Recent Developments’ (2014) 73(3) Cambridge Law Journal 570-597.
69. Nasr I, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration’ (Academia, 2014-2015) Erişim Tarihi 1 May 2022 Nomer E, Devletler Hususî Hukuku (23th edn, Beta Yayıncılık 2021)
70. Oğuzman MK and Öz MT, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler Cilt-1 (17th edn, Vedat 2019)
71. Oğuzman MK and Öz MT, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler Cilt-2 (14th edn, Vedat 2018)
72. Osmanoğlu B, ‘Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitrator Conflict of Interest’ (2015) 32(3) Journal of International Arbitration 325-350.
73. Peng H, ‘Using Shields as Weapons: Third Party Funding Assisting China-Related Arbitration under Belt and Road Investment’ (2019) 14(2) Frontiers of Law in China 274-303.
74. Philip Morris Brands Sarl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7 (2 July 2013)
75. Quasar de Valors SIVAC SA et al (Formerly Renta 4 SVSA et al) v Russian Federation, SCC No. 24/2007 (11 September 2014)
76. Pobozniak G and Zawicki K, ‘Three’s a crowd? Third-Party arbitration funding’ (Internaional Law Office 10.08.2017) Erişim Tarihi 23 June 2022
77. ‘Report Of The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)-Queen Mary Task Force on Third Party Funding in International Arbitration’ (2018) The ICCA Report No 4, 109 (ICCA Report)
78. Risk Management and Insurance Erişim Tarihi 1 May 2022
79. Rogers CA, ‘Gamblers, Loan Sharks& Third Party Funders’ (2014) Ethics in International Arbitration Penn State Law Research Paper No 51-2013, Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
80. Rooney KM, ‘Third Party Funding of Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Hong Kong’ (2018) 5(2) BCDR International Arbitration Review 369-388.
81. Rosenfeld FJ, ‘Security for Costs in ICSID Arbitration: RSM Prıduction Corporation v. Saint Lucia’ (2016) 32(1) Arbitration Internaitonal 157-166.
82. RSM Production Corporation v Saint Lucia, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs, ICSID Case No ARB/12/10 (13 August 2014)
83. Rubins N and Kinsella NS, International Investment, Political Risk and Dispute Resolution, (1st edn, Oceana 2005)
84. S&T Oil Equipment and Machinery Ltd v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/13
85. Sahani V, ‘Third Party Funding in Dispute Settlement in Africa’ (2016) 110 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 90-92.
86. Sahani VS, ‘Judging Third Party Fundig’ (2016) 63 UCLA Law Review 389-450.
87. Sahani VS, ‘Rethinking the Impact of Third Party Funding on Access to Civil Justice’ (2020) 69 (2) DePaul Law Review 611-632.
88. Sai Ramani Garimella, ‘Third Party Funding of Arbitral Claims’ in Leila Choukroune and Rahul Donde (eds), Adjudicating Global Business in and with India (Routledge 2021) 202-220.
89. Santos CD, ‘Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?’ (2017) 35 (4) Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage 918- 936.
90. Sarvarian A, ‘Problems of Ethical Standarts for Representatives before ICSID Tribunals’ (2011) 10 The Law and Practice of Internationals Courts and Tribunals 67-134.
91. Scherer M, Goldsmith A and Flechet C, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration in Europe: Part 1- Funders’ Perspectives’ (2013) Queen Mary University of London School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No 164, Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
92. Serhat Celen, ‘Third Party Funding in Arbitration: Everyone Deserves a Chance’(2012) Erişim Tarihi 28 May 2022
93. Shao X, ‘Disrupt The Gambler’s Nirvana: Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration Supported by Third Party Funding’ (2021) 12 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 427-447.
94. Silver C, ‘Litigation Funding versus Liability Insurance: What’s the Difference?’ (2014) 63(2) DePaul Law Review 617-654.
95. Smith R, ‘Tempering The Gambler’s Nirvana’ (Master’s thesis, Uppsala University 2018)
96. Sornarajah M, The International Law on Foreign Investment, (3th edn, Cambridge University Press 2012)
97. Steinitz M, ‘Whose Claim is This Anyway? – Third Party Litigation Funding’ (2011) 95(4) Minnesota Law Review 1268-1338.
98. Stoyanov M and Owczarek O, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: Is it Time for Some Soft Rules?’ (2015) 2(1) BCDR International Arbitration Review 171-200.
99. Şanlı C, Esen E and Ataman-Figanmeşe İ, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (8th edn, Beta 2020)
100. Şanlı C, Milletlerarası Ticarî Tahkimde Esasa Uygulanacak Hukuk (1st edn, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü 1986)
101. Şanlı C, Uluslararası Ticarî Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları, (7th edn, Beta 2019)
102. Teinver SA, Transportes de Cercanías SA and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur SA v The Argentine Republic, Decision on Argentina’s Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/09/1 (29 May 2019)
103. Tekinalp G, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (13th edn, Vedat Yayıncılık 2020)
104. Trusz JA, ‘Full Disclosure? Conflicts of Interest Arising From Third Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2013) 101(6) Georgetown Law Journal 1649-1682.
105. van Boom WH, Third-Party Financing in International Investment Arbitration, (1st edn, Erasmus Universiteit 2011)
106. Veljanovksi C, ‘Third Party Litigation Funding in Europe’ (2012) 8(3) Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 405-451
107. Wolfhagen J and Coelen S, ‘Three’s a crowd? Third-party arbitration funding’ (Lexology 14.09.2017) Erişim Tarihi 23 June 2022
108. Yeoh D, ‘Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: A Slippery Slope or Levelling the Playing Field’ (2016) 33(1) Journal of International Arbitration 115-122.
109. Zabloudilova K, ‘Third-Party Funding in International Commercial Arbitration’ (Diploma thesis, Masaryk University 2018)
110. Zwolankiewicz A, ‘Third Party Funding in International Investment Arbitration: A Dire Need of Disclosure’ (2019) 18(2) Warsaw University Law Review 5-17.