NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

247 ARBITRATION LAW by way of succession. The Court did not examine for which parties the mandatory use of Turkish will be sought. Although for the case at hand, it would not result in a material change as the insurer was also a Turkish company, but a discussion on this issue would be beneficial as the succession is only one of the situations that would result in changing the parties to an arbitration agreement. Especially, if it would not be mandatory to use Turkish when one of the parties is not of Turkish origin, as stated in the first decision, this discussion would be of utmost importance. Conclusion The effect of Law No. 805 as to the validity of an arbitration agreement remains a current issue although the law itself is very old. Certain discussions on arbitration agreements that were shaped apart from Law No. 805, could be re-addressed because of the cases that combine arbitration agreements and the use of Turkish. Issues, such as incorporating arbitration agreements by reference or succession, might pose additional problems in the context of the mandatory use of Turkish pursuant to Law No. 805. It seems to be a necessity for the legislator to revise Law No. 805 in order to maintain the pro-arbitration approach and to prevent the re-birth of already settled discussions.