Mandatory mediation in equity companies

This study focuses on application of Turkish Commercial Code Art. 5A, which is amended with Code Nr. 7155 in 2018, to equity companies. TCC Art. 5A regulated mandatory mediation for commercial cases with monetary claims at the beginning. However, through amendment with Code Nr. 7445 in 2023, negative declaratory actions, actions for annulment of objections and actions for restitution were taken into scope of this regulation. Mandatory mediation, which can also be named mediation as cause of action according to TCC m. 5A, can be deemed as a new context in Turkish law. Regulated for the first time for some labour law conflicts with Code Nr. 7036 in 2017, mandatory mediation is regulated also for commercial conflicts as well as consumer law conflicts. Thus, it can be observed that scope of mandatory mediation in Turkish law has a tendency to spread within time. Therefore, as a concept subject to various critics, mandatory mediation is to be evaluated in context of equity companies within this study. Although mandatory mediation is considered to be a relatively new concept in Turkish law, in frame of comparative law, it has a long history of application and has been subject to critics for a long time. It is observed that in comparative law, especially in American law, which can be considered as the source, mandatory mediation has been taken into consideration with many aspects. The first chapter of this study conducts an evaluation within this frame and aims to set the criterias for a better application of mandatory mediation. These criterias are important for evaluation in following chapters of this study. In addition, the variations of mandatory mediations and sanctions applied to the acts contrary to mandatory mediations are observed. Mandatory mediation and similar applications in different law systems are also examined. Within light of this examination, ZPO §278 and EGZPO §15a in German law is taken into consideration, as well as ZPO §197 ff. in Swiss law. Both systems do not regulate mandatory mediation and instead, regulated dispute resolution process within their Civil Procedure Codes. Although mandatory mediation is regulated in Itâlîan and French law systems, these regulations have strictly limited scope. American law, the origin of mandatory mediation, applies other means of dispute resolution as well. Moreover, mandatory mediation in American law is not regulated by a code; it is court oriented in general. The common point of these countries is that none of them applies mandatory mediation within a wide scope on commercial disputes. Although mediation cannot be considered as an act of judication, since mandatory mediation is a step before courts, it should be evaluated with regard of principals of civil procedure law. In this context, it is observed that mandatory mediation gave reason to many arguments related to fair trial and access to court. In addition, evaluations on principals pf procedural economy, publicity, power of disposition and honesty are conducted. With regard of principal of publicity, it can be considered that principal of confidentiality of mediation is an advantage. The evaluations on principal of power of disposition are made in frame of substantial and procedural law. Furthermore, taking the features of American civil procedure law, it is concluded that mandatory mediation is not compatible with the role of judge in Turkish law. With regard of principal of honesty, an evaluation in the light of substantial law is also made and it is concluded that rules to maintain honesty in mandatory mediation are not sufficient in Turkish law. As an addition, it is also stated that sanction in Code of Mediation Art. 18A/11 is unproportionate in context of principal of honesty before courts. The second chapter of this study focuses on conditions of TCC Art. 5A. With this regard, a comparative evaluation on commercial actions is made. Commercial actions, regulated with TCC Art. 4 in Turkish law, are regulated in relation with commercial courts in other law systems. With this evaluation, it is noted that in commercial courts, which aims to solve disputes in a cheap, quick and effective manner, gives place to judges who have not a judicial notion in other law systems. In Turkish literature, it is rightly emphasized that such an application is not appropriate for Turkish law. TCC Art. 5A is also examined within frame of civil procedure and commercial law. Within civil procedure law frame, the concept of cause of action is examined, as well as features of TCC Art 5A in relation to claim in actions. Within commercial law frame, since the agreement concluded within mediation is a contract in context of substantial law, the notion of prudent merchant is evaluated. Furtermore, for mandatory mediation demonstrates features within light of Code of Mediation Art. 5 and principal of confidentiality, an evaluation of trade secrets are also conducted. The third and last chapter concentrates on examination of mediation as a cause of action in equity company disputes. Thus, an action named shareholders' action in German law, which is clarified using notion of actio pro socio, is evaluated. According to this evaluation it is concluded that, unlike simple partnerships, shareholders shall submit their claims against legal entity of equity companies and not against other shareholders. Neverthless, it is also observed that in some cases shareholders are entitled to submit the tools of defence of equity companies for interests of company. This evaluation is essential in order to determine the parties of dispute and the persons effected from the agreement reached at the end of mandatory mediation process. Following this evaluation, the kinds of disputes in equity companies, which fall into scope of TCC Art. 5A, are determined and the features demonstrated by them in context of mediation as a cause of action are defined. In order to comply with this evaluation, information on each subject of action is given, features of the relevant actions are explained and in the light of all evaluations, conditions of application of mediation as a cause of action are explained. Finally, in light of evaluations made within this study, our de lege ferenda opinions on mandatory mediation in equity companies are set. Within this frame, since dispute in equity companies are subject to limitations on equity company law and compulsory legal rules, it is stated that they might not always compatible with mediation as a cause of action. In addition, possible problems arisen from lack of legal supervision in mediation process are also mentioned. As a result, it is concluded that, it would be more convenient to regulate court annexed dispute resolution tools, similar with examples of Germany and Switzerland. With regard to bankruptcy proceedings, it is concluded that possible problems in relation to Turkish Code of Bankruptcy and Enforcement Art. 226 are highlighted and it is suggested that, in order to eliminate such problems, necesarry regulations by legislator should be made. Lastly, taking the goals of mediation into consideration, in order to reach these goals effectively, the importance of giving parties the opportunity to be able to choose other means of dispute resolution apart from mandatory mediation, is found to be essential. Thus, dispute resolution process will take place in a quick and cheap manner and parties will have the chance to be able to choose a dispute resolution method that suits their needs and interests.