ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

157 ARBITRATION LAW ish commercial enterprises as to the usage of Turkish. Simply stated, the Law requires Turkish companies and enterprises to use Turkish in all transactions, agreements, correspondences, accounts and books. This old law contains only nine articles, and its application does not extend to contracts which are to be performed outside of Turkey. The Court of Cassation has previously declared that in respect of a contract signed in a foreign language, the validity of the contract should be examined pursuant to Law No. 805 2 . In cases of non-compliances with the said Law, a judicial fine may be imposed in accordance with Article 7 of the Law. There are two points that we wish to highlight within the context of the validity of arbitration agreements: The first is that where one of the contracting parties is a foreign company, there is no requirement for agreements to be signed in Turkish. The obligation to use Turkish is limited to transactions and communications. Although there are different interpretations of the word “transaction,” and some argue that this includes agreements, the debate is ongoing. However, it seems plausible to argue that it does not include agreements as, in the preceding article the regulator expressly states “agreements,” and it seems that this exclusion was intended by the drafters. Secondly, Article 4 stipulates that documents that are prepared contrary to the provisions of this Law shall not be taken into account in favor of companies and commercial enterprises. Since the deci- sion that is analyzed below, makes reference to this article, a question arises: Is arbitration more favorable than courts that would result in a jurisdictional objection not being considered, as it is not drafted in Turkish? The Facts This newsletter will only examine the section related to the ju- risdictional objection based on an arbitration clause contained in the 2 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation decision, 4.12.2007, No: 2006/89 E. 2007/15338 K.