The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
The claimant sought recognition and enforcement of an English award rendered in respect of a delivery of coal. The Supreme Court held that the New York Convention prevailed over the enforcement provisions of Turkish law, and that there was no ground under the Convention for denying enforcement. The sole arbitrator had held that the defendant had accepted the contract containing the arbitration clause by performing under it, and had established that the contract had been duly signed and that the defendant had been duly notified of the arbitration in accordance with English law on arbitration. Further, the award was final and the enforcement court could not review its merits.
Yargıtay, 20 February 2020, 19. HD., E. 2018/3424 K. 2020/568
(Flame SA v. As Çimento San. ve Tic. A.S.)
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Yargitay, 11th Civil Chamber, 11 June 2019, No. E. 2017/3469 K. 2019/4259
(Parties not indicated)
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Turkey 4. Yargitay, 19th Civil Chamber, 21 May 2007
Turkey 3. Asliye 1, Ticaret Mahkemesi, Izmir, 19 November 2004 and Yargitay, 11th Civil Chamber, 19 January 2006
Turkey 2. Yargitay, 13th Civil Chamber, 7 July 1998
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Turkey 1. Court of Appeals, 15th Legal Division, 1 February 1996
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.