ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

159 ARBITRATION LAW “... in light of the fact that the contract has been drafted in English, contrary to Article 4 of Law No. 805, the defendant can- not rely on an arbitration clause drafted in English, …” This is contradictory as the Court of Cassation rejects the ap- plication of the arbitration clause, but allows the application of other provisions of the contract. In this respect, it is important to note that the choice of law clause was enforced, but the arbitration agreement was not. As the court has not provided its legal reasoning, it is difficult to determine the grounds the decision is based upon, and what kind of distinction was drawn between these clauses. Conclusion This decision of the Court of Cassation will surely raise debate. However, as Law No. 805 is not applicable in cases where a contract is signed between a Turkish party and a foreign party, the arbitra- tion agreements included in contracts which are written in a foreign language should not be deemed contrary to this Law. The conflicting decisions rendered by the Turkish courts in relation to the application of Law No. 805 are, unfortunately, not helpful. The Turkish party in this case, whose jurisdictional objection was rejected, has requested a correction of the decision. The Court of Cassation is expected to be more flexible and arbi- tration-friendly in cases concerning the validity of arbitration agree- ments included in contracts which are written in a foreign language and executed between Turkish and foreign parties thus, outside the scope of Law No. 805.