DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT AND APPEALS COURT ON DETERMINATION OF LAW'S ORIGIN RELATING TO FOREIGN LABOUR CONTRACT

Gaye Baycık

Makale detayları

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT AND APPEALS COURT ON DETERMINATION OF LAW'S ORIGIN RELATING TO FOREIGN LABOUR CONTRACT

Yazarlar:

Gaye Baycık

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.55-69

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296255

pISSN:

2148-3434

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 For years, it is discussed which countrys law should be implemented to the issues of labour law in which there is at least an element of foreignness. While there were both 9th and 22nd Departments of Supreme Court, Department no.9 was implementing Turkish law, whereas no.22 was implementing chosen law in labour contract. The decision of Department no.22 was in accordance with Law No.5718 article 27. In the end of 2020, president and jury of Department no.22 were assigned to Department no.9 and the decisions were changed. However, the courts of appeal are still making decisions according to the previous jurisprudence of Department no.9 which is breaching article 27 of Law no.5718. In this article, it will be examined the differences of decisions, their justifiations and explained our opinion and advice for amendments of law and Foreign Labour Contract which must be concluded between employer and the employee.

 For years, it is discussed which countrys law should be implemented to the issues of labour law in which there is at least an element of foreignness. While there were both 9th and 22nd Departments of Supreme Court, Department no.9 was implementing Turkish law, whereas no.22 was implementing chosen law in labour contract. The decision of Department no.22 was in accordance with Law No.5718 article 27. In the end of 2020, president and jury of Department no.22 were assigned to Department no.9 and the decisions were changed. However, the courts of appeal are still making decisions according to the previous jurisprudence of Department no.9 which is breaching article 27 of Law no.5718. In this article, it will be examined the differences of decisions, their justifiations and explained our opinion and advice for amendments of law and Foreign Labour Contract which must be concluded between employer and the employee.

 For years, it is discussed which countrys law should be implemented to the issues of labour law in which there is at least an element of foreignness. While there were both 9th and 22nd Departments of Supreme Court, Department no.9 was implementing Turkish law, whereas no.22 was implementing chosen law in labour contract. The decision of Department no.22 was in accordance with Law No.5718 article 27. In the end of 2020, president and jury of Department no.22 were assigned to Department no.9 and the decisions were changed. However, the courts of appeal are still making decisions according to the previous jurisprudence of Department no.9 which is breaching article 27 of Law no.5718. In this article, it will be examined the differences of decisions, their justifiations and explained our opinion and advice for amendments of law and Foreign Labour Contract which must be concluded between employer and the employee.

 Ülkemizde özellikle inşaat sektöründe karşımıza çıkan, Türk işçilerin yurt dışında çalıştırılmak üzere Türkiye İş Kurumu İş-Kur tarafından hazırlanan matbu Yurt Dışı Hizmet Akdini imzalamak suretiyle yurt dışında çalıştırılması halinde iş ilişkisinden doğan uyuşmazlıklara hangi ülke hukukunun uygulanması gerektiği yıllardır öğretide tartışılmış, Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi, özellikle iş hukukunun emredici niteliğini dikkate alarak, taraflarca seçilen hukukun işçinin Türk Hukukundaki haklarını kısıtlaması söz konusu olduğunda MÖHUK 274 uyarınca Türk Hukukunun uygulanması gerektiğine hükmetmiş; Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesi ise, MÖHUK 271 uyarınca seçilen hukukun geçerli olduğunu ve bu halde MÖHUK 274ün uygulanamayacağına karar vermekteydi. Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesinin 02.09.2020 tarihinden itibaren kapatılması ve Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi üye ve başkanlarının çoğunlukla Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesinden oluşması neticesinde, Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesinin 2020 yılı sonlarına doğru MÖHUK 271 uyarınca seçilen hukuku geçerli kabul ettiği görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte İstanbul ve Ankara İstinaf Mahkemelerinin Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesinin önceki içtihadını halen esas aldığı ve Yurt Dışı Hizmet Akdindeki hukuk seçimini dikkate almayarak Türk Hukukunun uygulanmasına karar verdiği görülmektedir. Çalışmamızda bu farklılıklara ve gerekçelerine yer verilecek olup, görüşümüz ve gerekli kanuni değişikliklerinin yapılması önerisinde bulunulacaktır.

Makale detayları

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT AND APPEALS COURT ON DETERMINATION OF LAW'S ORIGIN RELATING TO FOREIGN LABOUR CONTRACT

Yazarlar:

Gaye Baycık

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.55-69

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296255

pISSN:

2148-3434

Labour contract having an element of foreignness

Foreign Labour Contract

article 27 of Law no.5718

law implemented to labour issues

chosen law

validity of chosen law.Yabancılık unsuru taşıyan iş sözleşmesi

Yurt Dışı Hizmet Akdi

MÖHUK 27

iş ilişkisine uygulanacak hukuk

hukuk seçimi

hukuk seçiminin geçerliliği

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Gaye Baycık

Yayıncı: Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar: Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Dergi: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.55-69

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001296255

pISSN: 2148-3434

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Gaye Baycık

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.55-69

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001296255

pISSN:

2148-3434