Arbitrability of the Action for Annulment of Objection and Compensation for Unjustified Denial of Debt: 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Decision dated 3 April 2024
Introduction
As is well known, the action for annulment of objection is a special type of lawsuit regulated under Article 67 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”). The primary objective of this action is to nullify a debtor’s objection to execution proceedings. Despite its procedural function of facilitating the continuation of execution, there exists considerable divergence in scholarly opinion regarding the legal characterization of this remedy.
In its decision dated 3 April 2024 (Case No. 2024/212 E., Decision No. 2024/2703 K.), the 11th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation evaluated both the action for annulment of objection and the ancillary claim for compensation due to unjustified denial of debt within the context of arbitrability. The decision contains several noteworthy findings in this respect. This newsletter provides an analysis of the aforementioned ruling.
Factual Background
The dispute in question arose from a license agreement concluded between the parties. The agreement contained an arbitration clause stipulating that any disputes arising therefrom would be resolved by arbitration. Relying on claims derived from the agreement, one of the parties initiated ex parte execution proceedings. Upon the debtor’s objection to the payment order, the creditor subsequently filed an action for annulment of objection before the Istanbul Arbitration Centre.
The arbitral proceedings, conducted in accordance with the provisions of the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 (“IAL”), resulted in a decision whereby the tribunal not only upheld the creditor’s claim based on the underlying contract but also awarded compensation for unjustified denial of debt.
The respondent, against whom the arbitral award had been rendered, filed an action for annulment of the arbitral award before the Turkish courts. In support of its application, the claimant argued that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate an action for annulment of objection, asserting that such actions fall outside the scope of arbitrable disputes. The claimant further contended that initiating execution proceedings despite the existence of an arbitration agreement was inconsistent with the parties’ expressed intent to arbitrate and that arbitral tribunals are not competent to render decisions binding upon execution authorities. It was also submitted that an action for annulment of objection should not be equated with a standard action for recovery of debt.
The claimant further asserted that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award compensation for unjustified denial of debt and that such a decision was contrary to public policy. It was argued that the action for annulment of objection is a remedy specific to execution law and that compensation for unjustified denial of debt is neither contractual in nature nor based on substantive law. Accordingly, the claimant contended that such compensation falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. The claimant emphasized that compensation for unjustified denial of debt is a sanction envisaged within the compulsory execution system and serves a public interest function, whereas arbitral tribunals are competent only to resolve disputes arising under private law.
Moreover, the claimant maintained that the arbitral tribunal addressed the jurisdictional objection as a preliminary issue and ruled, by way of an interim decision, that it had jurisdiction. However, one of the arbitrators issued a dissenting opinion specifically with respect to jurisdiction over the claim for compensation. The claimant argued that, pursuant to Article 14 of the IAL, dissenting opinions must be included in the final award and that the failure to incorporate the dissent—despite its appearance in the interim decision—constituted a violation of the rights to be heard and to a fair trial. On this basis, the claimant sought the annulment of the arbitral award.
Assessment by the Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation
The Regional Court of Appeal, which examined the annulment action brought against the arbitral award, established that the parties had agreed upon Turkish law as the applicable law under the terms of their contract. In this context, the court found that Turkish law does not contain any provision prohibiting a creditor from initiating ex parte execution proceedings in respect of a claim subject to an arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that, both in legal practice and in doctrine, the prevailing view holds that a creditor may initiate execution proceedings even where a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
The court further observed that execution proceedings do not constitute a lawsuit in the procedural sense and that prior to the debtor’s objection to the payment order, no arbitrable dispute has yet arisen. However, once such an objection is raised and a legal dispute materializes, the creditor is required to pursue the matter through arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement concluded between the parties. On the basis of this reasoning, the court concluded that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the action for annulment of objection.
With respect to the compensation for unjustified denial of debt, the court emphasized that this form of compensation is specific to execution law. It is designed to discourage the unnecessary occupation of courts and execution offices, and constitutes a special type of compensation that may be awarded contingent upon the outcome of the action for annulment of objection. In the case at hand, the court found that, since the dispute did not pertain to matters of public policy and the compensation in question was ancillary in nature, the arbitral tribunal was also competent to adjudicate this aspect of the claim.
The court further stated that the underlying dispute was, in essence, a claim grounded in substantive law and therefore, pursuant to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, should have been resolved within the framework of arbitral proceedings. Consequently, the tribunal that was competent to decide on the principal claim in the action for annulment of objection was likewise authorized to rule on the associated claim for compensation for unjustified denial of debt. On these grounds, the court concluded that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to award such compensation was in conformity with the law.
With regard to the dissenting opinion, the court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 14/A, paragraph 4 of the IAL, arbitral awards must include any dissenting opinions. However, it noted that the absence of a dissenting opinion’s reasoning is not expressly listed as a ground for annulment under Article 15 of the IAL. The court further observed that the arbitral award had been rendered by majority vote, that the subject matter of the dissent had been acknowledged in the reasoning of the award, and that additional explanations were provided in a supplementary decision. In light of these considerations, the court held that the omission of the dissenting opinion’s reasoning from the final award did not constitute a violation of public policy and, therefore, did not amount to a ground for annulment. Accordingly, the court rejected the application for annulment.
Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation reviewed the case and concluded that the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was procedurally and legally sound. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling.
Conclusion
The decision under review is of particular significance as it affirms the arbitrability of the action for annulment of objection, a special remedy arising from execution law. It is also noteworthy in that it accepts that compensation for unjustified denial of debt, which originates from compulsory execution law and is ancillary to the action for annulment of objection, may be awarded in arbitral proceedings.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
International arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving complex cross-border disputes. Yet despite its advantages—neutrality, enforceability, flexibility—arbitration is frequently criticized for being too slow, too expensive, and too procedurally heavy. Often, parties proceed through hearings and...
Emergency arbitration addresses the need for interim protection before the arbitral tribunal is constituted in institutional arbitrations. Arbitral institutions establish short timeframes to ensure parties can obtain interim relief quickly. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) requires that the emergency...
For arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration to produce legal effects in foreign jurisdictions, they must be subjected to proceedings for “recognition” and “enforcement.” This process is governed by the New York Convention as well as by the provisions of the Law on Private International Law...
Arbitrability, the determination of whether a specific subject matter can be resolved through arbitration, constitutes a fundamental aspect of arbitration within the scope of international commercial dispute resolution. This concept draws a delicate balance between party autonomy—a fundamental principle of arbitration...
The recognition, enforcement, and annulment of foreign court and arbitral awards in Türkiye are processes in which public policy emerges as one of the most critical criteria for review, both in theory and in practice. The Court of Cassation decisions determine the direction of case law regarding the scope and...
On 16 December 2024, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) released its third batch of challenge decisions covering the period from 22 July 2017 to 31 December 2022. The LCIA has also issued a detailed commentary that identifies key legal themes and analytical trends, offering practitioners...
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its report on the dispute resolution statistics for 2023 (“Report”) , shedding light on the evolving landscape of international arbitration...
Syndicated loans undoubtedly hold a significant position among global financing models. In 2023 alone, 3,655 syndicated loans were provided to companies in the US, with their total value reaching USD 2.4 trillion...
Preliminary attachment refers to the temporary seizure of a debtor's assets to secure a creditor's claim. While it serves as a vital instrument for safeguarding the rights of creditors, it is subject to specific and stringent conditions under Turkish law to prevent any potential misuse...
One of the most important reasons for parties to choose arbitration is the opportunity to freely choose their arbitrators. This freedom granted to the parties also distinguishes arbitration from proceedings before state courts, where the parties are deprived of the power to determine the judges who will conduct the...
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on October 12, 2022, that national courts have jurisdiction over objections to provisional measures in international arbitration disputes...
The declaration of intent to resolve disputes through arbitration is the fundamental constituent element of an arbitration agreement. To speak of a valid arbitration agreement, the parties' intention to arbitrate must emerge in a way that leaves no room for dispute...
In the wake of the evolving dynamics of commercial transactions, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute Foundation (NAI) announced new arbitration rules . 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules are in force as of 1 March 2024 and will be applicable on proceedings filed on or after this date...
With the global shift to online activities, domain names play a crucial role in identifying businesses. It is more common than ever for a domain name to be registered that is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark...
The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...
Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.
In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...
Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...
On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...
Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...
In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...
Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...
It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...
Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...
Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...