Introduction
Jurisdiction clauses are among the most important provisions in Turkey-related international commercial contracts. They determine which court will hear future disputes, which procedural system will apply, how quickly a party may obtain interim measures, and whether the final decision can be enforced against assets located in Turkey. For international businesses, a jurisdiction clause is not merely a technical boilerplate provision. It is a strategic risk-management tool.
Turkey is a major jurisdiction for cross-border trade, manufacturing, logistics, construction, energy, infrastructure, distribution, agency, technology, finance and foreign investment. Many commercial contracts involving Turkey contain foreign elements: a foreign shareholder, a Turkish distributor, goods shipped through Turkish customs, payment in foreign currency, performance in multiple jurisdictions or assets located in Turkey. In these circumstances, the parties must decide in advance whether disputes will be resolved before Turkish courts, foreign courts or arbitral tribunals.
The main statute governing international jurisdiction in Turkish private law matters is Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law, commonly referred to as MÖHUK. The official text of Law No. 5718 states that it regulates the applicable law for private law transactions and relationships containing a foreign element, the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions.
Jurisdiction clauses in Turkey-related contracts should therefore be drafted with Turkish private international law, Turkish civil procedure, commercial litigation rules, mandatory mediation, arbitration law and enforcement practice in mind. A clause that appears valid from a foreign law perspective may still create procedural complications in Turkey if it conflicts with Turkish exclusive jurisdiction rules, mandatory procedural requirements or enforcement conditions.
1. What Is a Jurisdiction Clause?
A jurisdiction clause is a contractual provision by which the parties agree that disputes arising from or connected with their contract will be heard by a particular court or courts. For example, a contract may provide that “Istanbul courts and enforcement offices shall have jurisdiction,” or that “the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction.”
Jurisdiction should not be confused with governing law. A governing law clause determines which legal rules apply to the substance of the contract. A jurisdiction clause determines which court will decide the dispute. A contract may choose Turkish law but give jurisdiction to German courts. It may choose English law but give jurisdiction to Istanbul courts. It may also choose a foreign law and Turkish courts at the same time, although this may create practical difficulties if the foreign law must be proven before a Turkish court.
Jurisdiction should also be distinguished from arbitration. A jurisdiction clause refers disputes to state courts. An arbitration clause refers disputes to arbitrators. In international commercial practice, it is common for parties to mistakenly include both a court jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause without clarifying which one prevails. This can lead to preliminary disputes before the merits are even considered.
A properly drafted dispute resolution section should therefore answer three questions clearly: Which law governs the contract? Which court or tribunal will hear the dispute? Where and how will the final decision be enforced?
2. Why Jurisdiction Clauses Matter in Turkey-Related Contracts
Jurisdiction clauses are especially important in Turkey-related disputes because enforcement planning often determines the commercial value of a claim. A party may win a lawsuit abroad, but if the debtor’s assets are in Turkey, the foreign judgment generally cannot be directly executed in Turkey without recognition or enforcement proceedings.
Turkish enforcement practice distinguishes between the foreign judgment itself and the Turkish court decision granting enforcement. A foreign civil judgment must generally satisfy the statutory requirements of Law No. 5718 before it can be executed in Turkey, including finality, reciprocity for enforcement, absence of Turkish exclusive jurisdiction, due process, and compatibility with Turkish public policy.
This means that the jurisdiction clause selected at the contract stage may later determine whether the creditor can collect efficiently. If the contract gives jurisdiction to a foreign court, the successful party may need to file a separate enforcement lawsuit in Turkey. If the contract gives jurisdiction to Turkish courts, the claimant may obtain a directly enforceable Turkish judgment, but the litigation will proceed under Turkish procedural rules and may require mandatory mediation in certain commercial monetary claims.
Therefore, the best jurisdiction clause is not always the clause that appears most neutral or familiar. The correct clause depends on the location of assets, type of dispute, need for interim relief, language, evidence, enforceability, procedural speed and bargaining position of the parties.
3. Turkish Courts’ International Jurisdiction
In Turkish private international law, the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is primarily determined under Law No. 5718. In broad terms, Turkish courts may have international jurisdiction where Turkish domestic jurisdiction rules point to a competent Turkish court, unless a special international jurisdiction rule applies.
This approach is important because many Turkey-related disputes are not resolved by asking only whether the contract contains a Turkish jurisdiction clause. Turkish courts may have jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile, place of performance, place of branch activity, location of assets, subject matter of the dispute or other procedural connecting factors. In commercial disputes, the nature of the transaction and the status of the parties may also affect the competent court.
The Turkish Commercial Code is also relevant because it defines commercial provisions and commercial matters. Article 1 of the Turkish Commercial Code states that provisions in the Code and special provisions in other laws concerning transactions and acts relating to a commercial enterprise are commercial provisions; where there is no commercial provision, the court decides according to commercial customs or, failing that, general provisions.
In practice, many international commercial disputes involving merchants, commercial enterprises, invoices, supply contracts, distribution agreements, shareholder disputes or negotiable instruments are heard before Turkish commercial courts of first instance. However, the exact court must be determined case by case, especially where the dispute involves intellectual property, labor, consumer, maritime, insurance, construction, insolvency or enforcement law elements.
4. Jurisdiction Clauses Choosing Turkish Courts
Parties to a Turkey-related international commercial contract may choose Turkish courts as the dispute resolution forum. This may be especially useful where the counterparty is Turkish, the debtor’s assets are in Turkey, the goods are located in Turkey, interim attachment may be needed in Turkey, or enforcement is expected to take place in Turkey.
A Turkish court jurisdiction clause should be precise. A vague clause such as “Turkish courts shall be competent” may be better than silence, but it may still leave uncertainty about which city and which type of court will hear the case. A stronger clause may identify the courts of a specific city, such as Istanbul, Ankara or Izmir, and should be drafted in a way that is compatible with Turkish procedural law.
For example:
“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Istanbul Courts and Enforcement Offices.”
However, this wording should not be used mechanically. In Turkish procedural practice, parties may agree on a competent court under certain conditions, but subject-matter jurisdiction, mandatory venue rules and exclusive jurisdiction rules cannot always be modified by contract. The clause should be reviewed in light of the parties’ merchant status, type of dispute and relevant procedural rules.
Where the contract is bilingual, the Turkish version of the jurisdiction clause should be carefully drafted. Translation errors can cause serious problems. For example, “exclusive jurisdiction,” “competent court,” “venue,” “enforcement office,” “arbitration,” and “applicable law” are distinct concepts and should not be translated loosely.
5. Jurisdiction Clauses Choosing Foreign Courts
Parties may also choose foreign courts for Turkey-related international commercial disputes, provided that the requirements under Turkish private international law are met. Under MÖHUK, foreign court jurisdiction agreements are generally possible in disputes containing a foreign element and not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.
This is a common structure in contracts where a foreign supplier, lender, investor or parent company wants disputes to be heard in its home jurisdiction. For example, a Turkish distributor and a European manufacturer may agree that German courts will have jurisdiction. A Turkish borrower and a foreign lender may choose English courts. A Turkish buyer and a foreign seller may choose Swiss courts.
However, a foreign court jurisdiction clause should be evaluated together with enforcement. If the defendant’s assets are in Turkey, a judgment obtained from the chosen foreign court will usually require recognition or enforcement before Turkish courts. In enforcement proceedings, Turkish courts do not normally retry the merits, but they examine whether the statutory conditions for enforcement are satisfied.
Foreign court clauses should therefore be drafted with future Turkish enforcement in mind. The clause should be clear, exclusive if intended, and connected to a court that can issue a final civil judgment capable of enforcement. It should also avoid choosing a court that has no genuine connection to the parties or the dispute, because lack of connection may become relevant if the defendant objects during enforcement proceedings.
6. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts
One of the most important limitations on foreign jurisdiction clauses is the concept of exclusive jurisdiction. If a dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts, a foreign court judgment may face enforcement obstacles in Turkey.
Exclusive jurisdiction is particularly relevant in certain matters strongly connected to Turkish sovereignty, public registers, immovable property, insolvency, enforcement proceedings, and some status or public-order-related issues. In commercial practice, the most obvious risk arises in disputes concerning rights in rem over immovable property located in Turkey. Foreign court clauses should be avoided or carefully limited where the dispute may directly affect Turkish real estate rights, land registry records or matters reserved to Turkish courts.
The enforcement framework under Law No. 5718 also treats exclusive jurisdiction as a key requirement. Turkish courts may refuse enforcement if the foreign judgment concerns a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts.
For international commercial parties, the practical lesson is clear: do not assume that a foreign court clause will be respected for every Turkey-connected dispute. If the subject matter has a mandatory Turkish forum, the clause may not achieve the intended result.
7. Exclusive and Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Jurisdiction clauses may be exclusive or non-exclusive. An exclusive jurisdiction clause means that only the selected courts may hear disputes. A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allows the selected courts to hear disputes but does not necessarily prevent proceedings in another competent jurisdiction.
The distinction matters. If the parties want certainty, they should expressly state that the chosen courts have exclusive jurisdiction. If they want flexibility, especially for debt collection or interim measures, they may prefer non-exclusive jurisdiction.
For example, a lender may want English courts to have jurisdiction but may also want the right to sue the borrower wherever assets are located. In that case, a unilateral or asymmetric jurisdiction clause may be considered. However, asymmetric clauses should be reviewed carefully under the relevant law and enforcement strategy because their validity may differ between jurisdictions.
In Turkey-related commercial contracts, the parties should avoid ambiguous phrases such as “the parties may apply to Istanbul courts” unless non-exclusive jurisdiction is clearly intended. Ambiguity may lead to tactical litigation, parallel proceedings and jurisdictional objections.
8. Jurisdiction Clauses and Arbitration Clauses
One of the most common drafting errors in international commercial contracts is the inclusion of both a court jurisdiction clause and an arbitration clause without explaining their relationship.
For example, a contract may state in one article that “all disputes shall be finally settled by arbitration,” but another article may state that “Istanbul courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.” This creates a contradiction. One party may file arbitration, while the other may argue that state courts have jurisdiction. The result may be delay, cost and procedural uncertainty.
If arbitration is intended, the clause should be drafted as an arbitration clause, not as a court jurisdiction clause. The Istanbul Arbitration Centre’s model clause provides that disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract shall be finally settled through arbitration under the Istanbul Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules.
If state court jurisdiction is intended only for interim measures, enforcement, set-aside proceedings or support of arbitration, the contract should say so expressly. For example, the parties may provide that disputes will be resolved by arbitration, but that either party may apply to competent courts for interim injunctions, interim attachments or enforcement measures.
International arbitration in Turkey is generally governed by International Arbitration Law No. 4686 where the dispute has a foreign element and Turkey is selected as the seat of arbitration, or where the parties otherwise refer to that law. Therefore, arbitration clauses involving Turkey should be drafted separately and coherently, with attention to seat, institution, language, number of arbitrators and governing law.
9. Mandatory Mediation and Jurisdiction Clauses
Commercial litigation in Turkey may be affected by mandatory mediation. Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code introduced mandatory mediation as a pre-condition for certain commercial lawsuits involving monetary receivables and compensation claims. Legal commentary on the provision explains that if a lawsuit within the scope of mandatory commercial mediation is filed without first applying to mediation, the court may dismiss the case on procedural grounds.
This point is important for jurisdiction clauses selecting Turkish courts. Even if the contract validly gives jurisdiction to Istanbul commercial courts, the claimant may still need to complete mandatory mediation before filing the lawsuit if the dispute falls within the statutory scope. In other words, jurisdiction and admissibility are separate issues.
Mandatory mediation is generally not a substitute for jurisdiction. It is a pre-litigation procedural step. The parties may still proceed to court if mediation fails. However, failure to complete the process may result in loss of time, dismissal and additional costs.
If the contract contains an arbitration agreement, the relationship between mandatory mediation and arbitration must be analyzed separately. Some commentary notes that mandatory mediation provisions do not apply where there is an arbitration agreement or another mandatory alternative dispute resolution method under special legislation. For this reason, dispute resolution clauses should be drafted after considering whether the parties want court litigation, arbitration or a multi-tier mechanism.
10. Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses
Many international commercial contracts include multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. These clauses may require negotiation, senior management meetings, mediation and then court litigation or arbitration. They are useful where the parties want to preserve commercial relationships and avoid immediate litigation.
A typical clause may provide:
“Before initiating court proceedings, the parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute through good faith negotiations between senior representatives. If the dispute is not resolved within thirty days, either party may commence proceedings before the competent courts.”
Multi-tier clauses must be clear. The contract should specify whether negotiation or mediation is mandatory or optional, how long the process will last, who must attend, and whether the clause suspends litigation rights. If the clause is too vague, one party may use it only as a delay tactic.
In Turkey-related disputes, multi-tier clauses should also be coordinated with statutory mandatory mediation. If Turkish commercial mediation is already a pre-condition, the contract should not create confusing or duplicative steps unless the parties deliberately want a longer escalation process.
11. Interim Measures and Jurisdiction Clauses
Interim measures are often decisive in commercial disputes. A claimant may need to freeze assets, prevent disposal of goods, preserve evidence, stop payment under a guarantee, protect intellectual property, prevent transfer of shares, or secure receivables. Jurisdiction clauses should therefore be evaluated together with interim relief strategy.
If assets are located in Turkey, Turkish courts may be important even if the main dispute is subject to foreign courts or arbitration. A foreign court judgment obtained years later may be commercially useless if the debtor has already transferred its Turkish assets. Therefore, the contract should preserve the right to apply for interim measures before competent courts where assets or evidence are located.
A dispute resolution clause may state that the selected court or arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over the merits, but that either party may apply to any competent court for interim or conservatory measures. This type of wording can reduce arguments that an interim application violates the jurisdiction clause.
12. Foreign Judgments and Enforcement in Turkey
A jurisdiction clause choosing foreign courts should always be assessed together with Turkish enforcement law. A foreign civil judgment is not automatically enforceable in Turkey. A party seeking enforcement must file an enforcement action before the competent Turkish court.
Under Law No. 5718, foreign judgments in civil matters must be final under the law of the rendering country, and Turkish courts examine statutory enforcement conditions. These include, among others, reciprocity, absence of exclusive Turkish jurisdiction, due process, proper service or representation where challenged, and compliance with Turkish public policy.
The enforcement court does not conduct a full merits review. The defendant is generally limited to statutory objections. Commentary on Turkish enforcement practice also explains that Turkish courts may not alter the substance of the foreign judgment, although partial enforcement may be possible if part of the judgment violates enforcement requirements.
For creditors, the key practical point is timing. Enforcement proceedings can delay collection, especially if the debtor appeals the Turkish enforcement decision. Therefore, a foreign court jurisdiction clause may be appropriate where neutrality is critical, but it should not be chosen without considering the debtor’s Turkish assets.
13. Recognition versus Enforcement
Recognition and enforcement are related but not identical. Recognition gives legal effect to a foreign judgment in Turkey, often allowing it to be relied upon as a binding determination. Enforcement allows compulsory execution through Turkish enforcement offices.
If the foreign judgment orders payment, delivery of property or performance of an obligation, enforcement is usually required. If the judgment is declaratory, recognition may be sufficient. Turkish enforcement commentary explains that judgments containing performance orders are typically enforced, while declaratory judgments may be recognized.
This distinction matters when drafting jurisdiction clauses. If the likely dispute is a monetary claim against a Turkish debtor, the creditor should ask whether it is commercially efficient to obtain a foreign judgment and then enforce it in Turkey. If the likely dispute concerns declaratory rights, corporate status or contractual interpretation, recognition may be relevant but may not provide immediate collection.
14. Service of Process and Due Process Risks
Proper service is a frequent issue in enforcement of foreign judgments in Turkey. Turkish enforcement law requires respect for the defendant’s right of defense. If the defendant was not duly summoned or represented in the foreign proceedings, enforcement may be challenged.
Recent commentary on enforcement of foreign judgments in Turkey emphasizes that proper service of judicial documents is one of the key requirements for enforceability, and failure to duly serve documents requiring defendant action may cause Turkish courts to reject enforcement.
For international contracts, this means the notice clause and jurisdiction clause should work together. The contract should include accurate addresses, service language, email notification rules, courier methods, registered mail provisions and obligation to notify address changes. Although contractual notice provisions do not replace formal court service rules, they can help reduce factual disputes over knowledge and communication.
15. Jurisdiction Clauses in Distribution, Agency and Franchise Agreements
Distribution, agency and franchise agreements frequently involve Turkey-related jurisdiction issues. A foreign supplier may want its home courts to hear disputes, while the Turkish distributor or agent may prefer Turkish courts. The correct choice depends on the nature of the claims.
If the dispute concerns unpaid invoices, delivery obligations or termination compensation, court selection and enforcement must be planned carefully. If the Turkish distributor holds inventory, customer data, trademarks, domain names or local receivables, the foreign supplier may need interim measures in Turkey. If the Turkish party claims compensation under mandatory or protective rules, Turkish courts may still become relevant depending on the facts.
Jurisdiction clauses in these agreements should also be coordinated with intellectual property, competition, confidentiality, post-termination and non-compete provisions. Where the relationship affects the Turkish market, mandatory Turkish regulatory considerations may arise even if a foreign court is selected.
16. Jurisdiction Clauses in Shareholder and Joint Venture Disputes
Foreign investors entering Turkey through joint ventures should pay close attention to jurisdiction clauses in shareholder agreements, articles of association and ancillary contracts. Inconsistent dispute resolution clauses across transaction documents can create serious problems.
For example, a shareholders’ agreement may choose foreign courts, while the articles of association point to Turkish courts or contain no dispute resolution clause. A share purchase agreement may provide for arbitration, while a pledge agreement over Turkish shares may require Turkish law and Turkish enforcement procedures. These inconsistencies may lead to parallel proceedings.
Shareholder disputes may also involve corporate registers, trade registry records, board decisions, share transfers, capital increases, director liability, minority rights and company books. Some issues may be closely connected to Turkish corporate law and Turkish courts, even where the broader investment contract has a foreign element.
The safest practice is to map all transaction documents together and ensure that dispute resolution clauses are consistent or intentionally differentiated.
17. Jurisdiction Clauses in Construction and Infrastructure Contracts
International construction contracts involving Turkey often contain complex dispute resolution provisions. Projects may involve Turkish employers, foreign contractors, subcontractors, public entities, design consultants, performance bonds, advance payment guarantees, delay penalties, variation claims and technical expert evidence.
In construction disputes, speed and interim relief may be critical. A contractor may need payment security; an employer may need to call a performance bond; a subcontractor may need to preserve evidence at the site. If the project, site, assets and evidence are in Turkey, selecting foreign courts may create practical difficulties even if commercially preferred by one party.
Arbitration is frequently used in international construction contracts, but if the parties choose court jurisdiction, they should identify whether Turkish courts or foreign courts are better suited for technical evidence, site inspections, interim measures and enforcement.
18. Drafting Mistakes to Avoid
The most common mistakes in Turkey-related jurisdiction clauses include:
First, using vague wording such as “disputes shall be resolved under Turkish law” without identifying the court or tribunal.
Second, confusing governing law with jurisdiction.
Third, including both arbitration and court jurisdiction clauses without hierarchy.
Fourth, selecting foreign courts for disputes that may fall within Turkish exclusive jurisdiction.
Fifth, choosing a foreign court without considering enforcement against Turkish assets.
Sixth, failing to specify whether jurisdiction is exclusive or non-exclusive.
Seventh, using English-only wording in contracts that may need to be used before Turkish courts, banks, notaries or authorities.
Eighth, failing to coordinate dispute resolution clauses across framework agreements, purchase orders, invoices, general terms and annexes.
Ninth, ignoring mandatory mediation for commercial monetary claims before Turkish courts.
Tenth, failing to preserve the right to apply for interim measures in Turkey.
These mistakes are preventable. The dispute resolution clause should be drafted by considering the likely dispute, expected defendant, asset location, evidence location, applicable law and enforcement route.
19. Sample Jurisdiction Clauses
A Turkish exclusive jurisdiction clause may read:
“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including its validity, interpretation, performance, breach or termination, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Istanbul Courts and Enforcement Offices.”
A foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause may read:
“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales, without prejudice to either party’s right to seek interim or conservatory measures before any competent court.”
A Turkish non-exclusive jurisdiction clause may read:
“The Istanbul Courts and Enforcement Offices shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Nothing in this clause shall prevent either party from bringing proceedings before any other court having jurisdiction under applicable law.”
A court-support clause for arbitration may read:
“Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may apply to any competent court for interim, conservatory or enforcement measures.”
These are illustrative clauses only. The proper wording should be adapted to the contract type, parties, governing law, enforcement strategy and dispute profile.
20. Practical Checklist for International Businesses
Before agreeing to a jurisdiction clause in a Turkey-related commercial contract, the parties should answer the following questions:
Where is the counterparty incorporated?
Where are the counterparty’s assets located?
Will interim measures be needed in Turkey?
Is the dispute likely to involve Turkish real estate, public registers or exclusive jurisdiction?
Is the claim likely to be a commercial monetary claim requiring mandatory mediation before Turkish courts?
Will a foreign judgment need recognition or enforcement in Turkey?
Is arbitration more suitable than court litigation?
Does the contract contain a separate governing law clause?
Are all transaction documents consistent?
Does the notice clause support proper communication and service planning?
Is the clause bilingual, and does the Turkish version accurately reflect the intended legal meaning?
These questions should be answered before signing, not after the dispute arises.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction clauses in Turkey-related international commercial disputes require careful legal and strategic analysis. A jurisdiction clause determines not only where a lawsuit will be filed, but also how evidence will be examined, whether interim measures are available, how procedural objections will be handled, and whether the final decision can be enforced efficiently.
Turkish law generally recognizes party autonomy in international commercial relationships, but this freedom is not unlimited. Exclusive jurisdiction, mandatory procedural rules, public policy, mandatory mediation, due process and enforcement conditions may affect the practical outcome. A foreign court clause may be valid in principle, but it may create an additional enforcement stage in Turkey. A Turkish court clause may simplify enforcement against Turkish assets, but it may require compliance with Turkish procedural conditions.
For foreign companies and Turkish businesses involved in cross-border commerce, the safest approach is to draft jurisdiction clauses deliberately. The clause should be clear, consistent, enforceable and aligned with the commercial structure of the transaction. In international trade, a poorly drafted jurisdiction clause can turn a strong claim into a slow and expensive procedural battle. A well-drafted clause, by contrast, can protect bargaining power, reduce uncertainty and improve the likelihood of effective recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a jurisdiction clause in a Turkey-related commercial contract?
A jurisdiction clause is a contractual provision identifying which court will hear disputes arising from or connected with the contract. In Turkey-related international commercial contracts, it may select Turkish courts, foreign courts or operate alongside an arbitration clause.
Can parties choose foreign courts in contracts involving Turkish companies?
Yes, parties may generally choose foreign courts in disputes containing a foreign element, provided that the dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Turkish courts and the clause satisfies applicable legal requirements.
Can a foreign court judgment be directly enforced in Turkey?
Generally, no. A foreign civil judgment must usually be recognized or enforced by a Turkish court before it can be executed against assets in Turkey.
What is the difference between jurisdiction and governing law?
Governing law determines which legal rules apply to the substance of the contract. Jurisdiction determines which court will decide the dispute.
Are Turkish courts always competent if one party is Turkish?
Not necessarily. Turkish courts may have jurisdiction depending on Turkish private international law and procedural rules, but a valid foreign jurisdiction clause may limit Turkish jurisdiction unless exclusive Turkish jurisdiction or other mandatory rules apply.
What happens if a contract has both arbitration and court jurisdiction clauses?
If the clauses conflict, the parties may face preliminary disputes over the proper forum. The contract should clearly state whether arbitration or court litigation applies, and whether courts may be used only for interim or enforcement measures.
Does mandatory mediation affect jurisdiction clauses in Turkey?
Yes. For certain commercial monetary claims before Turkish courts, mandatory mediation may be a pre-condition before filing a lawsuit. A valid Turkish jurisdiction clause does not automatically remove this procedural requirement.
Should foreign companies choose Turkish courts or foreign courts?
There is no universal answer. Turkish courts may be preferable where assets, evidence or interim measures are in Turkey. Foreign courts may be preferred for neutrality or familiarity. The decision should be made together with enforcement planning.
Yanıt yok