The Requirement of Specifying a Foreign Court When Raising a Jurisdiction Objection

In its decision dated 27 September 2023 (Case No. 2021/11-722 E., 2023/865 K.), the Grand Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal examined the procedural requirements for raising an objection to the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts.

The matter arose from a lawsuit filed in Turkey in 2008 concerning an insurance claim. The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts, and the Court of First Instance dismissed the case on the ground that the Romanian courts had jurisdiction. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that the Court of First Instance had failed to assess whether the objection had been raised within the prescribed time limit.

Following this, the Court of First Instance conducted a retrial and concluded that the jurisdictional objection had indeed been timely raised. However, it rejected the objection on procedural grounds, finding that the defendant had failed to identify the competent foreign court. The court then proceeded to examine the merits of the case and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. Both parties appealed this decision.

Upon further review, the 11^th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal once again overturned the lower court’s judgment, emphasizing that, in matters involving objections to the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts, it suffices for a party to merely contest the jurisdiction of the Turkish court; there is no obligation to designate a competent foreign court.

Despite this guidance, the Court of First Instance maintained its earlier position, relying on Article 19/2 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”), and reiterated that an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court is admissible only if the party specifies the foreign court which will exercise jurisdiction. The matter was then referred to the Grand Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal.

In its ruling, the Grand Chamber clarified that, where Turkish courts lack international jurisdiction, the objecting party is not required under Article 19(2) of the CCP to identify a competent foreign court. The Chamber underscored that, under Turkish procedural law, a Turkish judge is not in a position to determine the jurisdiction of a foreign court. In such cases, the court must evaluate the objection on jurisdiction regardless of whether a foreign court is indentified and, if it determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case without referring it to any foreign authority.

This decision confirms that a party challenging the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is not required to identify a foreign court which has jurisdiction; rather, it is sufficient to assert that the Turkish court lacks jurisdiction.