For the last few decades, the Court of Appeal’s (“CoA”) approach to arbitration clauses vis-à-vis bankruptcy cases has been extremely rigid. The CoA used to hold that Turkish courts had exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy claims and that, accordingly, parties were precluded from invoking an arbitration clause to enjoin the commencement or continuation of litigation in Turkey.

In arbitral proceedings, parties frequently seek interim measures and interim attachment orders in order to protect their rights and interests until the final award is rendered. However, where such decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal are not voluntarily complied with by the parties, the question of whether they may be rendered directly enforceable through court assistance has long remained a subject of debate in both doctrine and practice.

Tahkim yargılamalarında, tarafların hak ve menfaatlerini korumak amacıyla, nihai karar verilene kadar taraflarca ihtiyati tedbir ve ihtiyati haciz talep edilmesi sıklıkla başvurulan bir yoldur. Ancak, hakem heyetince verilen bu kararların taraflarca yerine getirilmemesi halinde, bunların mahkeme desteğiyle doğrudan icra edilebilir hale getirilip getirilemeyeceği uzun süredir hem doktrinde hem de uygulamada tartışma konusu olmaya devam etmektedir.