Subject: Regarding the Supreme Court of Appeals 11th Civil Chamber’s Decision No. 2020/5833 E., 2021/4827 K. dated June 7, 2021, on the jurisdiction of the court of the principal place of business of the reinsurance insurer in disputes arising from reinsurance contracts.
Date: December 9, 2024
1. INTRODUCTION
The Court of Cassation has assessed how the competent court should be determined in disputes arising from reinsurance contracts.
2. RELATED TO THE DECISION
In the statement of claim, the representative of the plaintiff insurance company essentially requests reimbursement from the reinsurance company for the damage compensation paid to the insured in accordance with the assumed risk.
In his response, the defendant’s representative summarized Article 46 of the International Private Law and Procedural Law. In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Convention, the defendant requests that the case be dismissed on the grounds that Turkish courts do not have international jurisdiction and that the courts of Vienna, where the client resides, have jurisdiction.
In the investigations conducted by the Court of First Instance, it was determined that the jurisdiction clause in the contract between the parties was invalid because it did not meet the legal requirements, and that Article 46 of the MÖHUK Pursuant to the provisions of the relevant article, in disputes arising from insurance contracts, the court with jurisdiction is the court where the insurer’s principal place of business or the branch or agency that entered into the insurance contract is located in Turkey. In the present case, since the reinsurance contract was not entered into through a branch or agency, the court with jurisdiction is the court of the reinsurer’s principal place of business, namely the Vienna/Austria Courts. Therefore, the court decided to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. An appeal has been filed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Although the Regional Court of Justice has stipulated that Turkish courts have jurisdiction in the jurisdiction clause of the reinsurance contract, it has not been determined which court in Turkey has jurisdiction, and Article 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) Pursuant to the provision, the jurisdiction agreement concluded between the parties is invalid because the competent court agreed upon in the jurisdiction agreement is not specifically indicated, MÖHUK’s 46. In accordance with the relevant article, it was decided to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that the competent court was the court of the reinsurance insurer’s principal place of business.
The plaintiff’s representative appealed on the same grounds, and as a result of the appeal review, it was decided to UPHOLD the decision of the Regional Court of Justice.
3. CONCLUSION
Supreme Court of Appeals 11th Civil Chamber, 2020/5833 E., 2021/4827 K. In its decision numbered 2020/5833 E., 2021/4827 K., it was established that in disputes arising from reinsurance contracts, where there is no properly executed authority agreement, the reinsurance insurer’s principal place of business court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 46 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure.
