Kıta Avrupası (AB) Hukukunda Sözleşmenin İfa Yeri Mahkemesinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi: Common Law Bakış Açısı ile Kanunlar İhtilâfı Terminolojisi Arasında Sıkışmış Bir Yetki Kuralı

Öz

İfa yeri yetki kuralı özellikle Kıta Avrupası hukuk sistemine aidiyeti ile karakterize olan bir kuraldır. Kural, sözleşmeden doğan uyuşmazlıkların hangi yer mahkemelerince görüleceğine ilişkin olarak Roma hukukundan bugüne klasikleşmiş bir kural olarak varlığını korumuştur. Milletlerarası yetki tesisinde de esas alınan ifa yeri kuralının, özellikle Avrupa Birliği (AB) hukukuna ait uygulamada yorumlanması ile ilgili sorunlar 1970’li yıllardan beri baş göstermiş; AB Adalet Divanı tarafından common law etkisi ile kuralın en yakın ilişkili mahkemeye işaret etmesi gerektiği yönünde değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Sadece common law etkisi olarak görülemeyecek olan en yakın ilişki testi, aynı zamanda kanunlar ihtilâfı terminolojisinin izlerini taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada ifa yeri yetki kuralının en yakın ilişkili mahkemeyi gösterme işlevinin en azından Kıta Avrupası sistemi dikkate alındığında bulunmadığı; aksine kuralın hukukî kesinlik ve öngörülebilirlik perspektifinden yorumlanması gerektiği ortaya konulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Milletlerarası yetki
• ifa yeri yetki kuralı
• en yakın ilişki
• en uygun mahkeme
• hukukî kesinlik ve öngörülebilirlik

International Jurisdiction at the Place of Performance of a Contract in Civil (EU) Law: A Jurisdiction Rule Stuck Between the Common Law Perspective and Conflict of Laws Terminology

Öz

The place of performance rule is characterized by its belonging to the European (civil law) legal system. The rule has preserved its existence as a classic rule from Roman law to the present day regarding which local courts will hear the disputes arising from the contracts. Problems related to the interpretation of the place of performance rule, which is also taken as a basis of international jurisdiction, especially in the practice of European Union (EU) law, have emerged since the 1970s; the EU Court of Justice has held that the rule should point to the most closely connected court under the effect of a common law perspective. The closest connection test, which cannot only be seen as a common law effect, also bears traces of the conflict of laws terminology. In this article, it is found that the place of performance rule does not have the function of indicating the most closely connected court, at least in the context of civil law; on the contrary, the rule should be interpreted from the perspective of legal certainty and predictability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International judicial jurisdiction
• jurisdiction rule of the place of performance
• the closest connection
• the most appropriate court
• legal certainty and predictability
• Milletlerarası yetki
• ifa yeri yetki kuralı
• en yakın ilişki
• en uygun mahkeme
• hukukî kesinlik ve öngörülebilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Batiffol H and Lagarde P, Droit international privé (Paris 1983).
2. Briggs A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Informa Law from Routledge 2015).
3. Brödermann E and Rosengarten J, Internationales Privat-und Zivilverfahrensrecht (Auf. 8, München 2019).
4. Bureau D and Muir Watt H, Droit international privé (Paris 2007).
5. Cappeletti M and Perillo J M, Civil Procedure in Italy (M. Nijhoff, The Hague 1965).
6. Dickinson A and Lein E, The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press 2015).
7. Droz G A L, Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le marché commun (Paris 1972).
8. Droz G A L, "Delendum est forum contractus" (1997) Recueil Dalloz, 351-356.

9. Dryander C von, "Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters under the German Code of Civil Procedure" (1982) 16 Int'l Lawyer 671-692.
10. Ehrenzweig A A, "The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The "Power" Myth and Forum Conveniens" (1956) 65 Yale L. J. 289-314.
11. Franzina P, "Jurisdiction, Contracts and Torts" (2017) Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Eds. J Basedow; G Rühl; F Ferrari and P M Asensio) 1032-1042.
12. Franzina P and Michaels R, "Jurisdiction, Foundations" (2017) Encyclopedia of Private International Law (Eds. J Basedow; G Rühl; F Ferrari and P M Asensio P M) 1042-1051.
13. Giardina A, "Italy: Law Reforming the Italian System of Private International Law" (1996) 35 ILM 760-782.
14. Graveson R H, "Comparative Aspects of the General Principles of Private International Law" (1963-II) 1 Hag Rec 1-164.
15. Grušić U, Heinze C, Merrett L, Mills A, García-Castrillón C O, Tang Z, Trimmings K and Walker L, Cheshire, North and Fawcett, Private International Law, (Ed. 15, Eds. P Torreman and J Fawcett, Oxford 2017).
16. Güngör G, The Proximity Approach of Basic Private International Law Texts on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Ankara 2004).
17. Hay P, "Reflections on Conflict-of-Laws Methodology" (1981) 32 Hastings Law Journal 1644-1677.
18. Hill J, "Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters: Is There a Third Way?" (2001) 54 Current Legal Problems 439-476.
19. Hill J, "The Exercise of Jurisdiction in Private International Law" (2003) Asserting Jurisdiction - International and European Legal Approaches (Eds. P Capps, M Evans and S Konstandinidis) 39-62.
20. Hill J, "Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract under Brussels Convention" (1995) 44 ICLQ 591-619.
21. Juenger F, "Judicial Juriscdiction in the United States and in the European Communities: A Comparison" (1984) 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1195-1212.
22. Junker A, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (Auf. 5, München 2020).
23. Levina D, “Jurisdiction at the place of performance of a contract revisited: a case for theory of characteristic performance in EU civil procedure” (2022) 18 Journal of Private International Law 266-295.
24. Lith H van, International Jurisdiction and Commercial Litigation (The Hague 2009).
25. Magnus U, "Introduction", in Brussels I Regulation (European Law Publishers 2007) 1-44.
26. Mankowski P, "Special Jurisdictions, Article 5" in Brussels I Regulation (European Law Publishers 2007) 77-235.
27. Mehren A T von, Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law (Leiden-Boston 2007).
28. Michaels R, “Two Paradigms of Jurisdiction” (2006) 27 Mich. J. Int’l L 1003-1069.
29. Neidhardt A H, The Transformation of European Private International Law, A Genealogy of the Family Anomaly (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis (European University Institute 2018) https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60158/Neidhardt_2018-_LAW.pdf.
30. Newton J, The Uniform Interpretation of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (Hart Publishing 2002.
31. Okoli C S A, Place of Performance: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford 2020).
32. Poesen M, “Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it?An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention” (2021) Unif. L. Rev 1-13.
33. Poon A, "Determining the Place of Performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast" (2021) 70 ICLQ 635-663. Savigny F C von, Private International Law, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws and the Limits of their Operation in Respect of Place and Time (London 1869) (William Guthrie Trans).
34. Schlosser P, "Lectures on Civil-Law Litigation Systems and American Cooperation with Those Systems" (1996) 45 U. Kan. L. Rev 9-48.
35. Schlosser P, Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice, OJ 1979 C 59, 71-151.
36. Sereni A P, "Basic Features of Civil Procedure in Italy - A Comparative Study" (1952) AJIL 373-389.
37. Triebel V, "The Choice of Law in Commercial Relations: A German Perspective" (1988) 37 ICLQ 935-945.
38. Wenger L, Institutes of Roman Law of Civil Procedure (New York 1940) (Fisk Trans).
39. Yntema H E, "The Historic Bases of Private International Law" (1953) 2 AJIL 297-317.