E-commerce has turned consumer contracting into a cross-border routine: a Turkish consumer buys from a foreign trader, digital content is delivered via cloud infrastructure, payment is processed abroad, and customer support may sit in a different jurisdiction. When a dispute arises—non-delivery, defective goods, subscription billing, warranty issues—the decisive procedural question is:
Which courts have international jurisdiction?
International jurisdiction is not a mere formality. It dictates whether the consumer can realistically pursue a claim, how expensive the process will be, how quickly evidence can be secured, and whether the judgment will later be enforceable. Turkey’s approach is notably consumer-protective, and—importantly—those protections remain highly relevant in online contracting.
This article explains the Turkish framework (MÖHUK and consumer procedure), then briefly compares it with the European model for context.
1) What “International Jurisdiction” Means in Consumer E-Commerce
In Turkish private international law, international jurisdiction addresses when Turkish courts may hear a dispute with a foreign element, and often which Turkish court location is appropriate. Online contracting complicates classic connecting factors like “place of conclusion” or “place of performance,” because clicks, servers, and payment rails may be scattered across multiple countries.
To prevent this complexity from undermining consumer access to justice, Turkish law uses consumer-centric connecting factors—especially the consumer’s residence/habitual residence.
2) The Core Turkish Rule: MÖHUK Article 45 Gives Consumers a Choice
Under Turkey’s Private International Law and Procedural Law Act (MÖHUK), consumer contract disputes benefit from a special jurisdiction rule:
- For disputes arising from consumer contracts, the consumer may sue—at the consumer’s option—either (i) in the Turkish courts of the consumer’s domicile/habitual residence or (ii) in the Turkish courts where the other party’s workplace/domicile/habitual residence is located.
- If a lawsuit is brought against the consumer, the competent court is the Turkish court where the consumer’s habitual residence in Turkey is located.
This is particularly powerful in online contracting: a foreign trader’s standard terms often try to push disputes into a distant forum. Article 45 keeps the consumer’s “home forum” realistically available.
Why habitual residence matters online
Online formation can be technically ambiguous—where was the contract “made” when acceptance occurred via clickwrap? MÖHUK’s emphasis on the consumer’s habitual residence helps neutralize server-location arguments and keeps the jurisdiction analysis grounded in the consumer’s real life center.
3) Choice-of-Court Clauses in Online Terms: How Far Do They Go?
Many e-commerce websites include a clause like: “All disputes shall be resolved exclusively by the courts of X country.” In consumer settings, these clauses often raise fairness and enforceability concerns.
MÖHUK permits jurisdiction agreements in principle, but it explicitly protects consumers:
- MÖHUK Article 47(2) states that the jurisdiction of courts designated under Articles 44, 45, and 46 cannot be eliminated by agreement.
So, a website clause that attempts to strip the consumer of Article 45 protections is not expected to defeat the consumer-protective jurisdiction framework in Turkey.
Additionally, Turkey’s Civil Procedure Code (HMK) limits jurisdiction agreements mainly to disputes between merchants or public legal entities, which reinforces the idea that click-through jurisdiction clauses may not easily bind ordinary consumers.
4) Domestic Venue Support: Consumer Cases Can Be Filed Where the Consumer Lives
After establishing that Turkish courts have international jurisdiction, a practical question follows: Where in Turkey can the case be filed?
Turkey’s Consumer Protection Act (Law No. 6502) provides a strong venue option:
- Consumer lawsuits may also be filed in the consumer court located at the consumer’s domicile.
This aligns neatly with MÖHUK’s consumer-centric approach and strengthens access to justice for online disputes, where delivery location or performance location might otherwise become contentious.
5) Three Online-Specific Pitfalls in Cross-Border Consumer Litigation
(A) Identifying the correct defendant: platform vs. seller
Marketplace models often blur the contractual counterparty. The platform may be incorporated in one country, while the actual seller is based elsewhere. International jurisdiction strategy depends on correctly identifying the defendant and proving the contractual chain (seller identity, invoice, order confirmation, terms acceptance screen, payment record).
(B) Digital services/subscriptions and “place of performance”
For SaaS, streaming, in-app purchases, and digital content, “performance” is not a physical delivery. While this can create forum disputes in some legal systems, MÖHUK’s reliance on consumer domicile/habitual residence for consumer contracts reduces the practical impact of that ambiguity.
(C) Evidence in online disputes
E-mails, SMS confirmations, screenshots, payment provider receipts, cargo tracking, refund workflows, and customer support logs are often the backbone of proof. Early evidence preservation is especially important if a foreign trader may later contest the transaction history.
6) Comparative Note: The EU “Directed Activities” Approach
For broader context, European Union jurisdiction rules under Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012) protect consumers similarly by allowing consumers to sue in their home forum and restricting traders from suing consumers outside the consumer’s domicile in many scenarios.
In online cases, the key concept is whether the trader “directed” commercial activities to the consumer’s Member State. The Court of Justice of the European Union held in Pammer/Hotel Alpenhof that mere website accessibility is not enough; courts look for indicators of targeting (language/currency choices, international delivery, marketing aimed at the state, international customer base references, etc.).
While Turkish law does not copy the EU “directed activities” test verbatim, the practical insight remains valuable: online “targeting” facts help establish real connections and can influence how courts assess the dispute’s center of gravity.
7) Practical Guidance for Businesses Selling to Turkish Consumers
From a risk-management perspective, a cross-border e-commerce business should assume that a Turkish consumer may sue in Turkey and potentially in the consumer’s home venue.
To reduce disputes and strengthen defensibility:
- keep seller identity and contact information transparent,
- ensure terms are clear and accessible (especially returns, delivery timelines, digital content rules),
- maintain auditable transaction records (orders, payments, confirmations),
- avoid “unreachable” dispute clauses that function mainly as deterrence—these often backfire procedurally.
Conclusion
International jurisdiction in online consumer contracts is designed to prevent cross-border complexity from becoming an access-to-justice barrier. In Turkey, MÖHUK Article 45 grants consumers strong jurisdictional choices and anchors claims in the consumer’s domicile/habitual residence, while lawsuits against consumers are tied to the consumer’s habitual residence in Turkey. MÖHUK Article 47(2) further prevents parties from contracting out of these protections. Alongside this, Law No. 6502 allows consumers to file in the consumer court where the consumer lives, strengthening practical enforceability in e-commerce disputes.
Yanıt yok