The Constitutional Court, with its decision No. 2015/109E.
2016/28K. dated 7 April 2016 published in the Official Gazette No.
29701 dated 3 May 2016 (the "Decision")
annulled two provisions regarding administrative fines stipulated
in Petroleum Market Law No. 501510 (the
"Law"). Article 19.2.a stipulating a TRY
600,000 administrative fine where the dealer fails to continue its
activities in a way that it is understood that the dealer is
marketing the product of the new distributor (provided under
Article 7/4) and; Article 19/2/c stipulating a TRY 800,000
administrative fine should the owner of the dealership license
deliver fuel to distributors other than the distributer it is
connected to, from the gas station (provided under Article 8/3)
have been canceled to become effective within nine months from the
date of publishing of the Decision.
The 13th Chamber of Council of State
(Danıştay) has transmitted the lawsuit file to
the Constitutional Court and requested the cancellation of the two
provisions mentioned above, stating that the administrative fines
implemented by administrative authorities to preserve the public
order in a specific area of activity, or to regulate a specific
industry are called regulatory fines and are generally provided in
a proportioned manner or by manner of a upper – lower limit.
The relevant sections of Articles 7 and 8 also call for regulatory
fines. Article 19 of the Law on the other hand, stipulates fixed
administrative fines; which does not allow for considerations on
the economic size or grade of the company; or on the way or the
degree of the offense conducted.
The Constitutional Court has found the determination of such
fixed administrative fines in violation of Article 2 of the
Constitution regarding the State governed by rule of law, and the
principle of equity, and has canceled the mentioned provisions.
Recent Court of Appeals decision on the jurisdiction of English
The 11th Chamber of the Court of Appeals, in its decision No.
2014/15681E. 2015/11244K. dated 28 October 2015, ruled that merely
stipulating the jurisdiction of "English courts" is not
enforceable under Turkish Law as the term "English
courts" lacks specificity. In this sense, as the term
"English courts" is found to be vague, the contracting
parties must also specify in the contract the specific court in
which the disputes are to be resolved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a judgment harking back to the principles in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that the manufacturer of a defective product installed to prevent fire was not liable...
A year-long arbitration pilot scheme to provide a cost-effective, straightforward and quick method of solving legal disputes between claimants and participating members of the press commenced on the 26th July 2016.
Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread – the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy.
Each year businesses around the world face a growing number of risks that could potentially jeopardize hundreds of billions of euros.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).