\u015eirket ana s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce uzla\u015fma yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu tutuldu\u011fu durumlarda, bu t\u00fcr bir giri\u015fim yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, \u015fimdilik kabul edilemez olarak reddedilmelidir. Uzla\u015fma yarg\u0131lamas\u0131n\u0131n, olgularla ilgili son s\u00f6zl\u00fc duru\u015fman\u0131n kapan\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan \u00f6nce ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesi halinde de davan\u0131n kabul edilebilirli\u011fi yeniden kazan\u0131lmaz.<\/p>\n
Suhrkamp Verlag GmbH & Co. KG ile Insel Verlag GmbH & Co. KG \u015firketlerinin hissedarlar\u0131, \u00e7e\u015fitli hissedar kararlar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi konusunda ihtilaf i\u00e7indeydiler. \u015eirketlerin ana s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine g\u00f6re, taraflar ancak iki ay i\u00e7inde bir uzla\u015fma prosed\u00fcr\u00fc y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra mahkemelere ba\u015fvurabilirdi. Ayr\u0131ca, \u015firket s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, hissedarlar kararlar\u0131na itiraz davalar\u0131n\u0131n ilgili tutanaklar\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131ndan itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcyordu. Dava, \u015firket s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen uzla\u015fma prosed\u00fcr\u00fc y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclemeden a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Daval\u0131lar, talebin k\u0131smen kabul edildi\u011fi ilk derece karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 Frankfurt am Main B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi\u2019ne temyiz ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r. Mahkeme, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce \u015firket s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen uzla\u015fma prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n zaten kabul edilemez oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndedir.<\/p>\n
Ana s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, bir uzla\u015fma h\u00fckm\u00fc niteli\u011findedir. Eyalet kanunlar\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen uzla\u015fma veya arabuluculuk usulleri ile ilgili olarak, Frankfurt am Main Y\u00fcksek B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, Federal Adalet Divan\u0131\u2019n\u0131n izinden giderek, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmadan \u00f6nce uzla\u015fma giri\u015fiminde bulunulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndedir. B\u00f6yle bir giri\u015fimde bulunulmadan a\u00e7\u0131lan dava, \u015fimdilik kabul edilemez olarak reddedilmelidir. Kabul edilebilirlik daha sonra yeniden kazan\u0131lmaz; zira bu t\u00fcr uzla\u015fma i\u015flemlerinin amac\u0131, mahkemelerin y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc hafifletmek ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 h\u0131zl\u0131 ve maliyet etkin bir \u015fekilde \u00e7\u00f6zmektir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir dezavantajdan korkmas\u0131na gerek kalmaks\u0131z\u0131n, dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra da uzla\u015fma giri\u015fimi yap\u0131labilseydi, bu ama\u00e7 ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilemezdi. Ayn\u0131s\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f uzla\u015fma usulleri i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erlidir: bu usuller de ancak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen prosed\u00fcr, dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 engelliyorsa ve i\u00e7 \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n kamuoyuna a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nl\u00fcyorsa bir amaca hizmet eder. Uzla\u015fma h\u00fckm\u00fc, kararlara itiraz i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen s\u00f6zle\u015fmesel s\u00fcre ile birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, \u00f6zellikle anonim \u015firketler kanununda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ve GmbH kanunu kapsam\u0131nda en az\u0131ndan g\u00fcvenilir bir \u015fekilde kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilen bir ayl\u0131k itiraz s\u00fcresi \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, makul olmayan, adaletsiz veya dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ge\u00e7ersiz olarak de\u011ferlendirilmemelidir. Genel olarak, bu h\u00fck\u00fcmler kapsam\u0131nda bile, uzla\u015fma prosed\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ba\u015flatmak i\u00e7in sadece yakla\u015f\u0131k bir ay kalm\u0131\u015f olsa bile, hissedar\u0131n dava a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mayaca\u011f\u0131na karar vermesi i\u00e7in h\u00e2l\u00e2 \u00fc\u00e7 ay\u0131 vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Uygulama notu: Frankfurt am Main Y\u00fcksek B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi de uzla\u015fma h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile tahkim h\u00fck\u00fcmleri aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131m\u0131 ele almak zorunda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tahkim h\u00fck\u00fcmleri devlet mahkemelerine ba\u015fvurmay\u0131 hari\u00e7 tutarken, uzla\u015fma h\u00fckm\u00fc yaln\u0131zca devlet mahkemelerindeki yarg\u0131lamadan \u00f6nce \u00f6zel bir usul\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir. Bu iki madde t\u00fcr\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131m, bi\u00e7imsel gereklilikler a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan s\u00f6zle\u015fme haz\u0131rlama uygulamalar\u0131nda \u00f6zellikle \u00f6nemlidir: uzla\u015fma maddeleri belirli bir bi\u00e7im gerektirmeden kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilirken, Alman Medeni Usul Kanunu\u2019nun 1031. maddesi tahkim maddeleri i\u00e7in \u00f6zel bir bi\u00e7im \u00f6ng\u00f6rmektedir.<\/p>\n
Frankfurt am Main B\u00f6lge Y\u00fcksek Mahkemesi, 6 May\u0131s 2014 tarihli karar \u2013 5 U 11671 = BeckRS 2014, 09185
\nKaynak: NJW-Spezial 18\/2014<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Where the articles of association require an attempt to conduct conciliation proceedings before an action is brought, an action filed without such an attempt must be dismissed as inadmissible for the time being. Nor does admissibility revive if the conciliation proceedings are conducted before the close of the final oral hearing on the facts. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":55742,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-en"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t