How free are we on social media? How do our posts affect our professional business life? A striking decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court enlightened the answer to these questions.
Last year, the Court of Appeal (“Court”) handed down a landmark decision in a claim related to the setting-aside of an arbitral award, where the question was whether it was the arbitration institution (in this case, the ICC) or the Turkish courts, which were competent to extend the time-limit of the arbitral proceedings.
Justice is the cornerstone of societies and ensuring justice starts with protecting the right of access to the courts. However, sometimes, even seemingly final court decisions may be disregarded in the event of a violation of the right of access to the courts.
As the validity of an arbitration agreement is a complex and multifaceted topic that requires an extensive and thorough analysis, we focus on what makes an arbitration agreement non-exclusive and the validity of such agreements according to the Turkish case-law.
On 28 July 2021, law numbered 7333 (“Law”) which consists of amendments to certain laws was published in the Official Gazette. The Law includes a significant amendment on Check Law regarding the stay of execution of criminal sentences arising from unpaid checks.
In its decision 4A_332 / 2020 of April 1, 2021, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dealt with a set-aside motion in respect of the replacement of an arbitrator who was alleged to be biased.
Turkish Constitutional Court’s (the “Court”) decision numbered 2016/6292 constitutes a critical precedent with regard to the violation of the right to property.