Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda Forum Necessitatis Doktrini

Öz

Yabancı unsurlu uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde gözetilen temel haklardan biri hak arama hürriyetidir. Bireylere tanınan hak arama hürriyeti, her şeyden önce uyuşmazlığı çözme yetkisine sahip, adil yargılanma hakkını güvence altına alan, bağımsız ve tarafsız bir mahkemenin varlığını gerektirir. Ancak istisnaen de olsa, somut uyuşmazlık bakımından hiçbir devlet mahkemesinin kendisini yetkili görmemesi mümkün olduğu gibi, davacıdan yetkili olan devlet mahkemesinde dava açmasının beklenmesini engelleyen hukukî veya fiilî sebepler mevcut olabilir. Bu gibi durumlarda forum necessitatis doktrini, milletlerarası yetki kuralları uyarınca aslında yetkili olmayan bir mahkemenin, uyuşmazlığın hukukî veya fiilî engeller nedeniyle başka bir mahkemede görülemeyecek olması sebebiyle, yetkisini tesis etmesine imkân tanıyan ve dolayısıyla davacının hak arama hürriyetini güvence altına alan bir araç olarak işlev görür. Günümüzde forum necessitatis doktrini, çoğunlukla Kıta Avrupası hukuk çevresine dâhil devletlerin mevzuatında ve Avrupa Birliği hukukunda üye devlet mahkemelerinin yetkisini düzenleyen ikincil tasarruflardan bazılarında hükme bağlanmıştır. Bu tür düzenlemelerin bulunmadığı devlet hukuklarında ise, hak arama hürriyetinin bir gereği olarak ve adaletin inkârının önüne geçilebilmesi için, mahkeme içtihadında kabul edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, forum necessitatis doktrinini karşılaştırmalı bir bakış açısıyla ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede, forum necessitatis doktrininin işlevi açıklandıktan sonra milletlerarası ve bölgesel metinlerde ne şekilde yer bulduğu, çeşitli devlet hukuklarında ve Avrupa Birliği hukukunda hangi şartlara bağlı olarak düzenlendiği ve/veya uygulandığı tartışılmış, son olarak konu, Türk hukuku bakımından ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forum necessitatis
• olumsuz yetki uyuşmazlığı
• hak arama hürriyeti
• milletlerarası yetki
• adil yargılanma hakkı
• adaletin inkârı

Forum Necessitatis Doctrine in Comparative Law and Turkish Law

Öz

Access to justice is a fundamental right that is recognised in the resolution of disputes involving a foreign element. Granting individuals the right of access to justice first requires the existence of an independent and impartial tribunal that has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute and guarantees the right to a fair trial. However, in certain exceptional situations, depending on the circumstances of the case at hand, it is possible that no national court may consider itself competent or that it cannot be reasonably expected from the plaintiff to take an action before the competent national court due to legal or factual obstacles. In such cases, the doctrine of forum necessitatis functions as a tool allowing the court, which is not ordinarily competent under its rules of international jurisdiction, to assert jurisdiction if the dispute cannot be heard before any other court. Today, the forum necessitatis doctrine is subject to clear rules mostly under the national legislation of Continental European countries and certain EU regulations governing the international jurisdiction of member state courts. In other states where there are no such provisions, different doctrinal frameworks are used in practice to establish jurisdiction to ensure the right of access to court and to prevent denial of justice. This paper describes the forum necessitatis doctrine from a comparative perspective. As such, the function of the doctrine, its acceptance in international and regional instruments, and its implementation under national laws are discussed. The last part of the paper involves assessments regarding Turkish law, which lacks an express provision on the doctrine.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forum necessitatis
• negative conflicts of jurisdiction
• right of access to justice
• international jurisdiction
• right to a fair trial
• and denial of justice

Kaynakça

1. Arslan İ, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin Uluslararası Özel Hukuka Etkisi (Adalet 2019). google scholar
2. Augenstein D and Jägers N, ‘Access to Justice in the European Union for Corporate- Related Human Rights Violations: Jurisdictional Issues’ (2017) 7 Tilburg Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 1-37. google scholar
3. Bayraktaroğlu Özçelik G, ‘When migration meets private international law: issues of private international law in divorce actions of Syrian migrants under temporary protection before the Turkish courts’ (2024) 20(1) Journal of Private International Law 214-247. google scholar
4. Bayraktaroğlu Özçelik G, Milletlerarası Usûl Hukukunda Paralel Davalar (Yetkin 2016). google scholar
5. Boskovic O, ‘Extraterritoriality and the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, a recap’ (2024) 20(1) Journal of Private International Law 117-128. google scholar
6. Commitee on Legal Affairs (European Parliament), ‘Draft Report-with recommendations to the European Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability’ (2020). google scholar
7. Çelikel A and Erdem BB, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (18th edn, Beta 2024). google scholar
8. Dardağan E, Milletlerarası Usul Hukukunda “Aşkın Yetki” Kavramı (Siyasal 2005). google scholar

9. Demir Gökyayla C, ‘Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Vesayet’ (2011) 10(1) Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi- Atâ Sakmar Armağanı 403-427. google scholar
10. Doğan V, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (12th edn, Seçkin 2025). google scholar Ekşi N, Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi (2nd edn, Beta 2000). google scholar
11. Ekşi N, Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi (Beta 2013). google scholar
12. Elçin D, ‘Vesayet ve Kısıtlılık Kararı Verilmesine veya Sona Ermesine ve Vesayetin Yürütülmesine Uygulanacak Hukuk, Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi ve Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması’ (2018) 67(2) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 279-354. google scholar
13. Ersen Perçin G, ‘Within the Scope of Right to Fair Trial the Principle of “Forum Necessitatis” and Its Effect on Turkish International Jurisdiction Rules’ (2021) 27(1) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 677-692. google scholar
14. Erten R, Türklerin Kişi Hallerine İlişkin Davalarda Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi (MÖHUK m. 41) (Yetkin 2017). google scholar
15. Fawcett J and Carruthers J M, Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law (14th edn, OUP 2008). google scholar
16. Franzina P, ‘Forum Necessitatis’, in Ilaria Viarengo and Francesca C Villata (eds), Planning the Future of Cross Border Families: A Path Through Coordination (Hart Publishing 2020) 325-330. google scholar
17. Giray FK, ‘5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun’un Bazı Hükümlerinin Güncellenmesine İlişkin Görüş ve Öneriler’ in Sibel Özel, Mustafa Erkan and Hatice Selin Pürselim (eds), MÖHUK’ta Reform (On İki Levha 2023) 81-105. google scholar
18. Güngör G, Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku (4th edn, Yetkin 2023). google scholar
19. Henckel K, ‘The Brussels Ibis reform, third state defendants and the Dutch experience’ (2025) 43(1) Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 3-28. google scholar
20. Huysal B, ‘Yabancı Mahkemenin Dava ve Taraflar ile Gerçek Bağlantısının Tanıma ve Tenfiz Üzerindeki Etkisi’ (2011) 10(1) Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi- Atâ Sakmar Armağanı 467-502. google scholar
21. Kiestra L R, The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law (T.M.C. Asser Press 2014). google scholar
22. Lutzi T, Piovesani E and Zgrabljić Rotar D, ‘Comparative Report’, in Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani and Dora Zgrabljić Rotar (eds), Jurisdiction over Non-EU Defendants: Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended? (Hart Publishing 2023) 3-28. google scholar
23. Ly V A, ‘Trans-Border Protection of Human Rights under Private International Law: The Application of Forum Necessitatis and Forum Non Conveniens by National Courts’, 2024 (24) European Society of International Law Paper Series 3- 27. google scholar
24. Maciej Szpunar and Krzysztof Pacuła, ‘Forum of necessity in family law matters within the framework of EU and international law’ (2021) 4 Polski Proces Cywilny 563-592. google scholar
25. Mardin Ç, Medeni Usul Hukukunda Adalete Erişim (On İki Levha 2025) google scholar
26. Marongui Buonaiuti F, ‘Article 11- Forum Necessitatis’ in Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Angelo Davì, and Heinz-Peter Mansel (eds), The EU Succession Regulation- A Commentary (Cambridge 2016) 199-208. google scholar
27. McEvoy JP, ‘Forum of necessity in Quebec Private International Law: C.c.Q. art. 3136’ (2005) 35(1) Revue générale de droit 61-124. google scholar
28. Mora PD, ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction and Forum Necessitatis: The Confusion of Public and Private International Law in Naït‑Liman v. Switzerland’ (2018) 65(2) Netherlands International Law Review 155-183. google scholar
29. Nomer E, Devletler Hususi Hukuku (22nd edn, Beta 2017). google scholar
30. Nwapi C, ‘A Necessary Look at Necessity Jurisdiction’ (2014) 47(1) UBC Law Review 211-273. google scholar
31. Özel S, Erkan M, Pürselim HS and Karaca HA, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (3rd edn, On İki Levha 2024). google scholar
32. Özkan I, ‘Adil Yargılanma Hakkı’nın Uluslararası Özel Hukuka Etkisi’ (2017) 19 Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Şeref ERTAŞ’a Armağan, 1767-1834. google scholar
33. Redfield S, ‘Searching for Justice: The Use of Forum Necessitatis’ (2014) 45(3) Georgetown Journal of International Law 893-928. google scholar
34. Roorda L and Ryngaert C, ‘Business and Human Rights Litigation in Europe: the Promises Held by Forum of Necessity-based Jurisdiction’ (2016) 80(4) The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 383-816. google scholar
35. Sargın F, Türk Milletlerarası Usûl Hukuku (Yetkin 2024). google scholar
36. Sarıöz Büyükalp Aİ, AİHS ve AİHM Kararlarının da İncelenmesi Suretiyle Adil Yargılanma Hakkının Türk Milletlerarası Usûl Hukuku Üzerindeki Etkileri (On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
37. Süzen B, Tanıma ve Tenfiz Davalarında Kararı Veren Mahkemenin Yetkisinin Denetimi (On İki Levha 2016). google scholar
38. Şanlı C, Esen E and Ataman Figanmeşe İ, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (12th edn, Beta 2025). google scholar
39. Tekdoğan Bahçıvan IS, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukun (Kanunlar İhtilâfı ve Milletlerarası Usul Hukuku Bağlamında) İnsan Haklarıyla Dönüşümü (Yetkin 2023). google scholar
40. Tekinalp G, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk- Bağlama ve Usul Hukuku Kuralları (13th edn, Beta 2020). google scholar
41. Tiryakioğlu B, ‘Türklerin Kişi Hallerine İlişkin Davâlarda Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi’ in Bilgin Tiryakioğlu and Gülin Güngör (eds) Prof. Dr. Tuğrul Arat’a Armağan (Yetkin 2012) 1141-1165. google scholar
42. Ubertazzi B, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Exclusive (Subject Matter) Jurisdiction: Between Private and Public International Law’ (2011) 15(2) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 357-448. google scholar
43. Blauwhoff R and Frohn L, ‘International Jurisdiction in Cases of Parental Responsibility’ Erişim Tarihi 15 January 2026. google scholar
44. Groupe européen de droit international privé (GEDIP), ‘Consolidated version of a proposal to amend Regulation 44/2001 in order to apply it to external situations (Bergen 2008, Padua 2009, Copenhagen 2010)’ Erişim Tarihi 10 January 2026. google scholar
45. Groupe européen de droit international privé (GEDIP), ‘Recommendation of the European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP/EGPIL) to the European Commission concerning the Private international law aspects of the future Instrument of the European Union on [Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability]’ (2021) Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
46. Mailhè F, ‘Denying the denial, the French Supreme Court rules on forum necessitatis’ Erişim Tarihi 10 January 2026. google scholar
47. Nuyts A, ‘Study on Residual Jurisdiction- (Review of the Member States’ Rules concerning the “Residual Jurisdiction” of their courts in Civil and Commercial Matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations)’ (2007) Erişim Tarihi 16 October 2025. google scholar
48. ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
49. American Convention on Human Rights (1969) Erişim Tarihi 15 October 2025. google scholar
50. Belgian Code on Private International Law Erişim Tarihi 15 September 2025. google scholar
51. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU [2000] OJ C 364/1. google scholar
52. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 [2003] OJ L 338. google scholar
53. Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations [2009] OJ L 7. google scholar
54. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L 12. google scholar
55. Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes [2016] OJ L 183. google scholar
56. Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships [2016] OJ L 183. google scholar
57. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), repealing Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, OJ L 178/1, 2.7.2019. google scholar
58. Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, [2024] OJ L 2024/1760. google scholar
59. Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
60. European Convention on Human Rights (1950) Erişim Tarihi 15 October 2025. google scholar
61. Federal Code of Civil Procedure (consolidated text published in the Official Journal of the Federation on April 9, 2012), Mexico, Erişim Tarihi 15 January 2026. google scholar
62. Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
63. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1967) Erişim Tarihi 15 October 2025. google scholar
64. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) COM (2010) 748 final. google scholar
65. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) [2012] OJ L 351/1. google scholar
66. Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession [2012] OJ L 201. google scholar
67. Swiss Federal Code on Private International Law Erişim Tarihi 15 September 2025. google scholar
68. Uniform Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (2021) Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
69. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Erişim Tarihi 15 October 2025. google scholar
70. Sofia Guidelines on Best Practices for International Civil Litigation for Human Rights Violations, Erişim Tarihi 10 September 2025. google scholar
71. Abood v Kuwait Airways Corp, Amsterdam Subdistrict Court (5 January 1996) (1996) Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 145 [Kuwait Airways case I]. google scholar
72. C- 501/20 MPA v LCDNMT, ECLI:EU:C:2022:619 (1 August 2022). google scholar
73. Cass. soc., 14 Sept 2017, No 15-26.737 & 15-26.738. google scholar
74. Cour de cassation Pourvoi n° 22-21.794 (12 June 2024) ECLI:FR:CCASS:2024:C100341. google scholar
75. El-Hojouj v Unnamed Libyan Officials, The Hague District Court (21 March 2012): BV9748. google scholar
76. Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage, 21 December 2005, EB 2006, 32; NJF 2006. google scholar
77. Golder v United Kingdom Application No. 4451/70, 28, 31 (ECHR 1975), Erişim Tarihi 15 November 2025. google scholar
78. Obergericht ZH, 26 February 1992, ZR 90 (1991). google scholar
79. Obergericht Zürich, 2 February 1990, ZR 89 (1990). google scholar
80. Obergericht Zürich, II. Zivilkammer (1 May 1959) (1961) Annuaire suisse de droit international 293. google scholar
81. Oppenheimer v. Louis Rosenthal & Co. AG [1937] 1 All ER 23. google scholar
82. Michael Cherney v Oleg Deripaska [2009] EWCA Civ 849. google scholar
83. Naït-Liman v Switzerland App No 51357/07 (ECHR Grand Chamber, 15 March 2018). google scholar
84. Naït-Liman v Switzerland App no 51357/07 (ECHR, 2016). google scholar
85. Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (19 November 1986). google scholar