fbpx

The International Arbitration Review, Turkey Chapter, 6th Edition

Articles -

I  INTRODUCTION

The use of arbitration as an ADR method in Turkey is on the rise, especially for international disputes. There is also a growing demand for the use of domestic arbitration, however, domestic parties mostly prefer court litigation for cultural and financial reasons and because of the way court and arbitration system is structured in Turkey.

The establishment Arbitration of the IstanbulCentre, which aims to attract not only disputes involving Turkish parties but also disputes from the region including the Middle East, Balkans and Caucasus, will encourage arbitration. The purpose is to attract more foreign investment and strengthen Istanbul’s position as a regional and international finance centre supporting new and efficient ways to resolve commercial disputes.

Arbitrations worth billions of dollars to which Turkey or Turkish companies are party were much debated last year in legal circles worldwide, which shows the role arbitration plays for Turkey and Turkish companies and the higher level of attention that arbitration should receive in Turkey.

On the other hand, as Turkey is a party to some of the major international conventions on arbitration, enforcement of arbitration awards is governed in accordance with those internationally recognised rules it remains that local interpretation of restrictions to enforcement is still a big problem. Turkey ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration in 1991 and the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals ofOther States in 1987. These conventions constitute a part of the Turkish arbitration legislation.

Even though arbitration legislation in Turkey is catching up with the international standards  and is  almost  identical  to  the  jurisdictions who  are  known  as  arbitration arises friendly, the problem in Turkey when it comes to the execution of the arbitration awards whether these are interim reliefs, injunctions or final awards.

In addition, the lack of uniformity in the way in which or to the extent Turkish courts intervene in arbitral proceedings has always been a major issue. This is mostly due to the fact that there is still no specialised chamber at the Turkish Court of Appeals, the unfortunate result of which is that different chambers take different views about identical matters. Without precedents guiding the Turkish courts, it seems that arbitration awards that need to be enforced in Turkey will always suffer from the unpredictable court reviews.

Initiatives regarding the Istanbul Arbitration Center could, however, be seen as a signal to policymakers, the business community and practitioners about the need for an arbitration centre in particular and for arbitration in general.

i  Legal framework

The most general provision on arbitration can be found in Article 125 of the Constitution where it is indicated that ‘National or international arbitration may be suggested to settle the disputes which arise from conditions and contracts under which concessions are granted concerning public services. Only those disputes involving foreign elements can be solved by international arbitration.’

In principle therefore, both domestic and international arbitration exists under Turkish law.

The main source of legislation on international arbitration in Turkey is the International Arbitration Law No. 4686 of 5 July 2001 (TIAL) . The TIAL applies in case a foreign element exists and seat of arbitration is in Turkey or the provisions of the TIAL are chosen by the parties or the arbitrators as the applicable law. Being mostly inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, the TIAL contains some differences that are based on Swiss international law. Accordingly, the general principals of the UNCITRAL Model Law are also the general principals of international arbitration under Turkish law, such as the equality of the parties, the autonomy of the parties, very limited intervention of the courts, impartiality and independence of the arbitrator. 2

The TIAL contains seven chapters including those about arbitration agreements, election, liability and authorities of arbitral tribunals and arbitral proceedings.

ii  Domestic arbitration law

Domestic arbitration is mainly regulated in Article 407 of the Civil Procedural Law (CPL), which provides that the disputes that do not contain any foreign element and where Turkey is selected as the place of arbitration, then the provisions of the CPL on arbitration will be applied. The articles of the CPL governing arbitration are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

However, domestic arbitration in Turkey is not well developed at all. In fact, fewer than 1 per cent disputes are taken to arbitral venues. The reason for this may be that the amounts involved in the majority of commercial disputes in Turkey is relatively low so parties hesitate to take their issues to arbitration with cost concerns. Also, culturally Turkish parties do not prefer ADR methods, even though they are not satisfied with the way in which Turkish courts handle the cases. This article will mostly be concerned with international arbitration in Turkey.

Arbitration agreements under Turkish law

For an arbitration agreement to be regarded as valid, first, there should not be any question regarding the intentions of parties to arbitrate. On many occasions parties discuss the conditions of their intention to arbitrate when the dispute arises. As the intention is crucial, a simple, clear and straightforward clause in this respect is always preferable.

Secondly, it is important that the parties draft an arbitration agreement that complies with the chosen law. A problem arises, however, if the parties have not made a choice or the choice of law is not clear enough.

In such a case, the TIAL comes into playas the arbitration clause should be in line with the TIAL. The TIAL makes it obligatory for the parties to express their decision to arbitrate in writing, which makes an arbitration clause in the contract or a separate written arbitration agreement inevitable.

For the form requirement to be deemed to have been met there should be an arbitration agreement that is signed by the parties; the arbitration agreement should exist in the form of a letter, telegraph, telex, fax or electronic format between the parties.

Even if there is no arbitration agreement in writing, if the defendant does not object in his or her response petition to the existence of an arbitration claim raised by the plaintiff, the arbitration agreement is accepted to have existed.

Third, the arbitration agreement must be in relation to an arbitral matter (disputes relating to rights in rem over an immoveable property in Turkey and disputes arising from issues that cannot be made subject to the will of the parties are considered non-arbitral). Turkish courts generally take a prudent view as to what constitutes an ‘arbitration agreement’ under Law No. 4,686; the courts insist on a clear intention of the parties to refer a dispute to arbitration. For example, clauses predicting that the disputes that cannot be solved by arbitral resolution should be solved by national courts are interpreted by courts as contradictory and therefore invalid.

According to the TIAL, as, in many jurisdictions parties are allowed to sign separate arbitration agreements even if their commercial contract is verbal. This occurs by and large at the time of dispute as the parties agree that they have a dispute that needs a resolution but feel at the same time that court litigation may not be an effective way.

Withs regard to the separability principle,underTurkish law,as in many other jurisdictions, an arbitration clause is considered to be separate and independent from the agreement even if it is inserted into the contract. The direct result of this principle is that the arbitration clause could be valid and parties can rely on it even if the agreement itself is decided to have been null and void.

The foreign element

Under Turkish law the foreign element exists in cases where:

a  the parties are domiciled or their habitual residence or their workplaces are in different countries;

b  the parties’ domiciles or their workplaces are in countries different to those determined in the arbitration agreement, different to the seat of arbitration when it will be ascertained according to the agreement, or different to the country where an important part of the obligation will be fulfilled or with which the dispute is highly associated;

c  any of the shareholders of the parties have brought foreign capital to Turkey in accordance with the regulations on incentives on foreign capital or have made credit or guarantee contracts for the fulfilment .of the agreement on which the arbitration agreement relies; and 

d  the agreement or the relationship to which the arbitration agreement is related is signed for the purposes of transfer of goods or capital from one country to another.

Number of arbitrators and appointment method

Following Article 7 of the TIAL, parties are free to agree on the number of arbitrators and the method of their appointment,however, the number of arbitrators must be an odd number. In cases where parties have not determined the number of arbitrators the number of arbitrators will be three.

Arbitrators can be selected only from among natural persons. In cases where the parties fail to agree on the sole arbitrator to be appointed; the competent civil court of first instance can make the appointment upon the application of a party. The competent court is the civil court of first instance where the defendant’s domicile or habitual residence or workplace is. Otherwise, the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance will be the competent court.

If there are to be three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator and those arbitrators appoint the third, who will be the chair. The appointment will be made by the civil court of first instance again, upon the request of a party if two arbitrators appointed by the parties cannot agree on the third or a party fails to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days as of the receipt of request of the other party in that respect.

The decisions of the civil court of first instance on the appointment of arbitrators are final and binding.

Procedure

The parties can freely choose the procedural rules or can make reference to a specific law to the rules of international or institutional arbitration provided that they comply with the obligatory rules of the TIAL. If there is no agreement between the parties in this respect arbitrator or the tribunal shall run the proceedings in accordance with the rules of the TIAL.

The parties can be represented by foreign natural and legal persons at arbitral proceedings. However, foreign persons cannot represent parties at applications made to the court in relation to the arbitration proceedings.

The seat of arbitration will be determined by the parties or by the arbitration institution that the parties have chosen. In case of no agreement in that respect, the arbitrator or the tribunal determines the seat depending on the particular nature of each case.

The parties are free to choose the language of the proceedings provided that the language they choose is recognised by the Turkish Republic. If the parties do not agree on the language, the arbitrators choose the language of the arbitral proceedings.

Unless agreed otherwise by the parties, the arbitral tribunal is under the obligation to hold a hearing upon the request of a party.

The arbitrator or arbitral tribunal will decide on the merits of the case according to the law chosen by the parties. When interpreting and completing the agreement, the commercial practices and customs recognised by the law chosen are taken into consideration by the arbitrators or the arbitral tribunal. The fact that parties designated the law of a particular country does not mean that its conflict of rules or procedural rules will be used, it only means that its substantive law will be apply unless otherwise agreed on and expressed by the parties.

In cases where the parties have not agreed on the applicable law, the tribunal willapply the law of the country that has the closest connection to the disputes.

A sole arbitrator takes a decision on the substance of the dispute within one year of his or her appointment unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The tribunal gives a decision on the substance within one year as of the issuance of the minutes of the arbitral tribunal. Parties may extend the term of arbitral proceedings by mutual agreement. In where cases there is no agreement about the need to extend the proceeding the competent civil court of first instance may extend the proceedings upon the application of a party. The tribunal grants its decision by majority unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Appealing and challenging international arbitration awards

There isno appeal procedure for international arbitration awards on the merits of the dispute. The only possibility is to make an application for the purposes of setting aside the award. The application for setting aside the award is made before the competent civil court of first instance. An award may be set aside only if any of the following grounds exist:

a  a party to the arbitration agreement is incompetent;

b  the arbitration agreement is invalid according to the law parties designated or according to Turkish law if the parties have not designated a law; 

c  the parties have not appointed the arbitrator or the tribunal in accordance with procedure set out in the agreement or with the procedure set forth in the TIAL;

d  if the award is not given within the term of arbitration;

e  if the arbitrator or the tribunal takes a decision without complying with the law  about their competence or incompetence;

f  if the arbitrator or the tribunal gives an award outside scope of the arbitration agreement, or did not cover all the requests in their award, or exceeded its competence in the award;

g  if the arbitral proceedings were run without allowing parties to settle or if the arbitral proceedings were run without complying with the procedural rules of the TIAL, which influenced the merits of the award;

h  if the principle of party equality is not respected;

i  if the dispute expected to be handled by arbitratorortribunalisnotsuitable forarbitration; or

j  if the award is against public policy.

Applications for setting aside the award can be filed within 30 days before the competent civil court of first instance as of the notification of an award or the decision of correction, interpretation or completion. Application for setting aside the award automatically stays the enforcement. The parties to an international arbitration can partially or completely waive their rights to claim the cancellation of the arbitration award.

Recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards

As mentioned above, Turkey ratified the New York Convention in 1991, and so the national courts apply the provisions of the New York Convention for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign awards granted in the territory of a foreign member country. Also, Turkeyto is party a large number of international conventions as well as bilateral agreements that should be taken into consideration. While Turkish courts are not allowed to review the merits of arbitration, the courts can become an obstacle if they widely interpret the grounds for refusal of enforcement in the Turkish International Civil and Procedure Law No. 5718 dated 12 December 2007 (TICPL) even though they are listed in the TICPL on a numerus clausus basis.

II  THE YEAR IN REVIEW

Turkey is the 18th largest economy in the world, with a GOP of almost U5$800 billion. Over the last three years, Turkey has been one of the fastest-growing economies, with an ambitious target to become one of the 10 largest economies in the world by 2023, the centenary of the foundation of the Turkish Republic. Turkey must reform its judicial system in order to achieve its target of joining the ranks of the world’s top-10 economies by 2023 and it has been doing so for the last 10 years. Crucial legislative changes have been made so far. The government has made numerous constitutional amendments and renewed many of the laws. Among the changed laws are the Criminal Code, the Law of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, the Juvenile Law, the Law of Misdemeanour, the Commercial Law,the of Obligations, the Civil Procedures Law and the Notification Law. In 2011 and 2012, three major reform packages were passed in order to make the Turkish judicial system more efficient and transparent. On 20 November 20 14 the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted the Istanbul Arbitration Centre Code, authorising the creation of an arbitration centre in Istanbul (the Istanbul Arbitration Centre), and this came into force on 1 January 2015.

i   Developments affecting international arbitration

The Draft Law on the Istanbul Arbitration Center is the most significant subject of the year in Turkish arbitration law. The draft law is submitted to the General Assembly on 25 March 2013 and if the draft becomes statutory, an international arbitration institution will be founded in Istanbul. The purpose of the project is to create one of the most active centres in Turkey, the Middle East and Europe. There is also a civil initiative for the establishment of the Istanbul Arbitration Center Association, which will become active after the legalisation of the said arbitration centre.

Arbitration institutions in Turkey attract neither a considerable number of disputes nor disputes of a significant amount. While the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institution may be the most renowned institution, the number of arbitrations seen by it is low. Other institutions, including the Turkish Union of Chambers, the Commodity Exchanges Court ofArbitration, the Ankara Chamber ofCommerceArbitration Institution and the Izmir Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institution, are used just as much.

However, the government is due to pass a law on the establishment of the Istanbul Arbitration Center, which is planned to function within the Istanbul Finance Center. There are big hopes that Istanbul Arbitration Center will attract a large number of local and foreign arbitrations but only time will tell whether this will be the case.

Turkish courts are heavily overloaded, which is why court proceedings in Turkey are quite slow. Turkey is the countrymost criticised for the slow rate of civil proceedings by the European Court of Human Rights. The system does not direct parties to settlement or ADR. Ninety-seven per cent of dispures are resolved by courts. For a system that is trusted, effective, fast, cheap and supports ADR, a well-established arbitration centre is essential. Whether the Istanbul Arbitration Center will be a regional success, however, remains to be seen.

ii  Arbitration developments in local courts

Last year was no different to previous years in the sense that the execution of interim relief and injunctions or final awards of arbitration was problematic. Courts have had the tendency to act as review boards for the tribunals even though the legal framework does not allow such interpretation. Last year there were also examples of a lack of uniformity in the way in which or the extent to which Turkish courts intervene in arbitral proceedings.

The main reason for this could be that there is no court or chamber at the court of appeals determined as the specialised court for arbitration. This could have helped to reach and maintain a standard in the practice. Right now, the practice heavily relies on the judges of commercial courts in Istanbul and Ankara who are familiar with rules and regulations about the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

As the practice of arbitration in Turkey is in the development stage, the most significant cases on arbitration are about the enforcement or annulment of the awards rendered in foreign countries.

The New York Convention is the principal source for the enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards. Interpretation of Turkish Court of Appeals regarding Clause 5/2 of the NewYork Convention addressing awards that are contrary to public policy has not, however, been settled yet.

In principle Turkish courts are not allowed to intervene in arbitral proceedings. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. The problem, however, is the varying interpretation of those exceptions different by courts when they are asked to intervene, which limits the independence and effectiveness of arbitration.

As a rule,if the parties have a valid arbitration clause about the matter from or in relation to which a dispute has arisen, the courts have no jurisdiction apart from the circumstances set out in the TIAL, which are by and large ancillary in nature and for supportive purposes. Intervention of the courts can occur before, during or after the proceedings.

Before the initiation of the proceedings, the parties can apply to the courts about a dispute that is subject to arbitration with a request of preliminary injunction and seizure.

If requested,during the arbitration proceedings courts can assist the tribunal with respect to the enforcement of interim orders or relief granted by the tribunal when a party fails to comply with such orders or relief. If parties or the party-appointed arbitrators fail to appoint the arbitrator and chair respectively, when asked, courts can appoint the arbitrator and chair depending on the request. They can collect evidence too, as the arbitrators do not have such powers. The courts can also intervene regarding whether parties or arbitrators can be relieved if they cannot reach a decision and can extend the term of arbitration if the award cannot be given within the term.

The courts assist the tribunals for the service award to the parties. They also have authority to certifY an award for it to be enforceable and can set aside an award when asked if the circumstances listed on a numerus clausus basis occur.

Another problematic issuethatarose again last yearisthe wayinwhich preliminaryorders – interim injunction and relief – were given by courts when arbitral proceedings are questioned.

Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, an arbitrator or the tribunal is, in principle, permitted to award a preliminary order or interim relief. However, such interim relief cannot be enforced directly by enforcement offices or administrative bodies. If a party fails to comply with the type of interim relief given by the arbitrator or the tribunal, the other party could apply to the court for it to issue the same relief, which can be unlike the former, and can be executed by enforcement offices or administrative bodies. This is why applying to a court for an interim measure rather than to the arbitrator or tribunal is more time-effectiveandresult-oriented.

Parties are free to request preliminary and interim relief, before orduring the arbitral proceedings, which will not be regarded as a breach to the arbitration agreement under Turkish law.

There are two interim measures regulated under Turkish law: interim junction, regulated under provisions of the CPL; and interim seizure, regulated under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 dated 19 June 1932 (EBC). The interim seizure is a special type of interim injunction.

According to the EBC, an interim seizure decision can be given in favour of the creditor for debts due, provided that the debt is not secured by a pledge. It should be proven before the court that there is a debt due by submitting the relevant documents such as invoices, written statements of the counterparty, etc. It may be easier to obtain a precautionary attachment decision if the due debt is substantiated with a document such as cheque or bond.

In order to obtain an interim seizure decision for debtsthatare not due, thecreditor must prove that the debtor is preparing to conceal and transfer its assets or preparing to escape and the debtor does not have a fixed address .

The court determines an obligatory security to be deposited unless there is a court order or a documentthat has the force of a court order in this respect. The amount and form of the security is at the discretion of the court. The settled practice in this respect is collection of around 15 per cent of the receivable subject to the dispute.

According to the CPL, interim injunction decisions can be given in favour of the creditor, in case there is a risk that it would be impossible or highly difficult for the applicant to acquire his or her rights due to a change in the current conditions. Moreover, the court will also grant such a decision if it is likely that severe damage would occur to the applicant due to any delay in acquiring his rights.

The applicant is to determine the grounds for making such a request, in addition to the nature of the precaution he or she is seeking; and prove his or her claim to a certain extent. Similarly with the interim seizure, the applicant has to submit an appropriate deposit (around 15 per cent of the receivable subject to the dispute) in order to prevent any loss thatmight be incurred by the counterparty and third parties, in relation to the interim measure imposed. If there is sufficient evidence proving the applicant’s right, the court may decide not to request such deposit.

Although in principle the court grants its decision after hearing the parties, if there is any urgency, it may refrain from hearing the counter party. After the creditor receives the precautionary judgment, he or she applies to the authorised enforcement office within one week and requests the implementation of the precautionary judgment. Pursuant to Article 397 of the CPL, the applicant has to file a lawsuit within two weeks starting from his orher request for enforcement of the judgment. The procedure to be followed with regard to interim seizures is the same, except that period the time is seven days from the date the seizure decision is enforced.

In practice the courts would refrain from granting a seizure decision unless there is concrete evidence that supports receivables of the creditor, therefore an application for an interim injunction would be more advisable in cases where evidence is weaker.

The creditor has to commence the arbitration proceedings within two weeks starting from creditor’s request for execution of the judgment (in case of precautionary injunction) and seven days as of the execution of the seizure decision of the court (in case of seizure injunction).

iii  Investor-state disputes

Turkey Signed the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention) on 24 June 1987 and the Convention entered into force on 2 April 1989.

So far, a handful of disputes to which Turkey is a party went to trial before ICSID and some legal actions brought before ICSID against contracting states by Turkish companies.

Four of those cases brought against Turkey were concluded in previous years. Currently, the only pending case before ICSID is:ARB/08/13 (Alaplz Elektrik BY’). The ARB/11128  Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands BV case was decided on 10 March 2014 and  the ARB/068 Libananco case was decided on 22 May 2013.

ARBI08/13 (Alaplz Elektrik BV)

This case is between a Dutch company and Turkey under the Energy Charter Treaty and the Netherlands- Turkey bilateral investment treaty. The claim is related to the electricity concession agreements. The value of the case isUS$100 million. The tribunal was constituted in March 2009 and the arbitral tribunal rendered its award on 16 July 2012. Attached to the award was a dissenting opinion by arbitrator Marc Lalonde. Alaplı Elektrik filed an application for the annulment of the award on 16 November 2012 and the annulment procedure is still ongoing.

ARB/I1/28 (Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands BV)

The institution of the arbitration proceedings was requested on 28 October 2011. The dispute concerns allegations that actions takentheby respondent deprived the claimant of the entire value of its real estate development projects. The tribunal determinedtohearas a preliminary questionobjectiononlythe respondent’s namelytojurisdiction, that theclaimant has failed to respect the mandatory negotiation period set out in Article 8(2) of the BIT. The tribunal, however, rejected the respondent’s claimsonthe basisthe thatclaimant had sought to resolve the dispute to a sufficient extent through consultations and negotiations after giving notice of the dispute. The tribunal rendered its award on 10 March 2014 and dismissed the claimant’s claims.

ARB/06/8 (Libananco Holdings Co Limited v. Republic of Turkey)

In this case, Libananco has claimed its majority stake in <;:ukurova Elektrik Anonim ~irketi andKepez ElektrikTurkAnonim ~irketi under the Energy Charter Treaty. Thevalue of the case is US$lO billion. The Turkish media is interested in this case as the claimant party was related to the Turkish Uzan family, which operated 11 Turkish dams and power plants, and Turkey questioned the status of Libananco as a foreign investor. The arbitral tribunal rendered its award on 2 September 2011. On 6 May 2013 the adhoc committee declared the proceeding closed in accordance withICSIDArbitrationRules 5.3 and 38/-(1) and on 22 May 2013 the ad hoc committee issued its decision on annulment.

Some examples of the actions brought against invested states by Turkish investors are:

a  case No. ARB 03/29 (Baymdtr Infaat Turizm Tiearet ve Sanayi ASv. Pakistan): award rendered on 27 August 2009;

b  case No. ARB 06/16 (Barmek Holding ASv. Azerbaijan): settlement agreed by the parties and settlement recorded at their request in the form of an award (award embodying the parties’ settlement agreement rendered on 28 September 2009, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(2)); and

c  four recent ICSID claims by Turkish companies against Turkmenistan for unpaid bills for construction work:

  • case No. ARB 1% 1 (Kilie Insaat Ithalat Ihraeat Sanayi ve Tiearet Anonim Sirketi v. Turkmenistan): pending (each party filed observationsonthe otherparty’s submission on costs on 18 January 2013);
  • case No. ARB 10/24 (Irkale Insaat Limited Sirketi v.  Turkmenistan):pending (the claimant filed a counter-memorial on jurisdiction and a reply on the merits on 22 April 2013);
  • case No. ARB 11120 (Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan): pending (the tribunal holds a hearing on 11 March 2013); and
  • case No. ARB 12/6 (Muhammet r;ap6- Sehil Infaat Endustri ve Tiearet Ltd Sti v. Turkmenistan: pending (the claimants filed a counter-memorialonjurisdiction on 29 April 2013)).

III  OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

The international conventions to which Turkey is a party and local legislation for arbitration suggest that Turkey is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. However, the way in which those rules are applied, particularly by local courts, may become misleading.

The widespread lack of uniformity regarding the application of rules about arbitration in the TIAL, the CPL and the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law among Turkish courts makes the future of arbitration practices in Turkey difficult to predict.

Unless specialised courts in big cities like Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir are established and, more importantly, a chamber in the Court of Appeals is designated for disputes relating solely to arbitration, things are unlikely to improve.

Otherwise parties of arbitration will remain in doubt when they apply to court about their arbitration, be it an application for preliminary orders or set-aside applications, or an application for recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards, as they cannot predict the outcome.

The move toward the establishment of the Istanbul Arbitration Center raises hopes among business and legal circles that a well-established and well-positioned local arbitration centre serving the region will contribute to the practice of arbitration in Turkey.

First published by The International Arbitration Review in Jul 01, 2015.


Stay Informed

Subscribe to stay up to date on the latest legal insights and events of your choice.