Ismail Esin has experience
 advising clients in arbitration, litigation, mergers and acquisitions,
 privatization and real estate matters. He is ranked by leading publications for
 his experience in mergers and acquisitions, commercial arbitration and
 commercial litigation and has written extensively on these topics. He has also
 lectured on real estate law, law of obligations and mergers and acquisitions
 law at Marmara, Galatasaray and Bilgi Universities and currently lectures at
 Yeditepe University on mergers and acquisitions. Dr. Esin advises banks,
 multinational companies, governments and private equity funds on investments
 and major projects in Turkey, the Middle East and the CIS. His work focuses
 primarily on the retail, energy, infrastructure, construction, telecommunications,
 real estate and healthcare industries.

&nbsp; Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Real Estate

Mergers &amp; Acquisitions

Private Equity

Dispute Resolution

&nbsp; 

Languages

Turkish

English

&nbsp; 

Memberships

Admitted to Istanbul Bar, 1998.

Esin Attorney Partnership

Partner

It is time to take a look back at the first months of 2023 and digest the recent updates and developments happening in the world of international arbitration. Recent court decisions present the new trends and shed light to the future of international arbitration.

Esin Arbitration Quarterly

As we enter the last quarter of 2022, changes and developments continue to occur in the world of international arbitration. On one hand, jurisprudence on the different aspects of international arbitration is expanding with the decisions of arbitral tribunals and courts. On the other hand, remarkable developments are occurring with regards to investment arbitration especially due to the monumental changes regarding the protection of energy investments.

Arbitration Quarterly

&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Recent development&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The Decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments dated 3 June 2022 and no. 2021/1 E., 2022/3 K. (“Unification of Judgments Decision“) was published in the Official Gazette on 26 November 2022. Pursuant to the Unification of Judgments Decision, even if the debtor against whom an execution proceeding has been initiated objects to the proceeding through their attorney, the statement of claim for the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings to be filed by the creditor must be served to the principal (the debtor), not the attorney.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>&lt;br>&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>What does this development mean?&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The debtor against whom execution proceeding has been initiated may stop the proceeding by objecting to the payment order within the time limit. In this case, the creditor must file a lawsuit for the annulment of objection in order to ensure the continuation of the suspended proceeding. There was a difference of opinion among different chambers of the Court of Cassation as to whether the statement of claim for the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings should be served to the principal or the debtor’s attorney. While the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation was of the opinion that the service should be made to the attorney, the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, the 3rd, (closed) 15th and (closed) 22nd Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation were of the opinion that the service should be made to the debtor, not to the attorney. The 9th and 13th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (closed) had decisions in both directions. With the Unification of Judgments Decision, these differences of opinion were resolved and it was decided that the statement of claim in the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings to be filed by the creditor should be served on the debtor, not the attorney.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In the reasoning of the Court of Cassation General Assembly on the Unification of Judgments, the Court briefly states: Pursuant to Article 67/1 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code, the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings is a lawsuit subject to general provisions, and accordingly, the proceedings will be conducted as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Pursuant to Articles 122 and 317 of the CCP, the service of the statement of claim to the principal is regulated as a mandatory provision. Therefore, it is ruled that the statement of claim must be served on the principal (debtor), not the attorney. Pursuant to these grounds, the service of the statement of claim in the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings case on the attorney instead of the defendant debtor will constitute a violation of the mandatory provisions of the CCP. Unification of Judgements Decision provides clarity on this issue and it is binding for the General Assembly and chambers of the Court of Cassation, and courts.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;br>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>Conclusion&lt;/strong>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 1.5;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">There were conflicting opinions among various chambers of the Court of Cassation as to whether the statement of claim for the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings should be served to the attorney or the debtor. This conclusion reached in the Decision of the Board of the Unification of Case Law resolved the contradictions. Accordingly, even if the debtor against whom an execution proceeding is initiated objects to the execution proceeding through their attorney, in the action for annulment of the objection to be filed by the creditor, the statement of claim must be served to the principal (the debtor).&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

There were conflicting opinions among various chambers of the Court of Cassation as to whether the statement of claim for the actions for the annulment of objections to the execution proceedings should be served to the attorney or the debtor. This conclusion reached in the Decision of the Board of the Unification of Case Law resolved the contradictions. Accordingly, even if the debtor against whom an execution proceeding is initiated objects to the execution proceeding through their attorney, in the action for annulment of the objection to be filed by the creditor, the statement of claim must be served to the principal (the debtor).

Lawyers İsmail G. Esin

İsmail G. Esin

Esin Arbitration Quarterly

Arbitration Quarterly

New Decision by the Court of Cassation General Assembly to Unify the Conflicting Judgments