In its decision dated 4 December 2025 and numbered 2025/2318 E. and 2025/7273 K. (“Decision”), the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal held that an international jurisdiction clause may be valid even where it does not designate a specific court or city within the chosen foreign state. The Court found that a contractual provision referring disputes to the “Courts of England” constituted a valid international jurisdiction agreement under Article 47 of the Turkish Private International Law Act No. 5718 (“PILA”).
- Background of the Decision
The dispute arose from a Credit and Mutual Performance Agreement and a supplementary agreement concerning the financing and development of a hotel project. Following the defendant’s failure to repay USD 3 million transferred under the agreements, the claimant initiated enforcement proceedings and subsequently brought an action for annulment of the defendant’s objection before the Turkish courts.
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, relying on Article 6.3 of the agreement, which provided:
“In the event that the parties cannot reach an agreement concerning any dispute or difference, such disputes shall be referred to the Courts of England.”
The First Instance Court initially upheld the defendant’s jurisdictional objection, finding that the parties had validly agreed to submit their disputes to the English courts pursuant to Article 47 of the PILA.
Upon the claimant’s appeal, however, the Court of Second Instance reached a different conclusion. It held that the clause did not sufficiently determine the foreign court designated by the parties, as the reference to the “Courts of England” did not identify a particular court competent to hear the dispute. It therefore overturned the First Instance Court’s decision and remanded the case back for examination on the merits.
The proceedings subsequently continued before the Turkish courts, where the claimant’s claim was partially upheld. The defendant maintained its jurisdictional objection throughout the subsequent proceedings and appeals.
- Assessment of the Court of Appeal
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction clause was valid and that the Turkish courts lacked international jurisdiction.
The Court examined the jurisdiction clause under Article 47 of the PILA, which allows parties to confer international jurisdiction on the courts of a foreign state in disputes arising from a legal relationship containing a foreign element and involving an obligation, provided that the dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts. The Court held that the provision referring disputes to the “Courts of England” satisfied these requirements and that the absence of a designation of a particular court or city in England did not prevent the clause from being valid.
The Court further held that a party objecting to the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts is not required to specify a particular court within the foreign state. While Article 19/2 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) requires a party raising a domestic jurisdictional objection to identify the competent Turkish court, this requirement cannot apply in the same manner where jurisdiction is asserted in favor of a foreign court. As a Turkish court cannot determine, which particular foreign court has jurisdiction, the objecting party cannot be expected to identify such court. The Turkish court should therefore limit its assessment to whether it has international jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court held that the defendant’s objection to the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts should have been accepted and that the claimant’s action should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The Court therefore overturned the Court of Second Instance’s decision without examining the remaining arguments concerning the merits of the dispute.
- Conclusion
The Decision provides useful guidance on the degree of specificity required for international jurisdiction agreements under Turkish law. It confirms that parties may confer international jurisdiction on the courts of a foreign state generally, without necessarily identifying a particular court or city within that state.
This approach should be distinguished from the requirements applicable to domestic jurisdiction agreements under Articles 17 and 18 of the CPP, which require the competent court or courts to be designated in a jurisdiction agreement, together with other statutory requirements. The Decision indicates that the requirement to identify a specific competent court under the CCP should not be directly transposed to international jurisdiction agreements governed by Article 47 of the PILA.
Accordingly, where a party relies on an international jurisdiction agreement referring generally to the courts of a foreign state, the absence of a designation of a specific court does not, in itself, prevent the party from successfully objecting to the international jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. The Decision therefore reflects greater flexibility in the drafting and the enforcement of international jurisdiction clauses under Turkish law. Nevertheless, parties to cross-border agreements may still wish to identify the relevant court or city where practicable, as greater specificity may help minimize potential disputes concerning the interpretation and scope of the jurisdiction clause.
