In the concrete case, there was a dispute regarding the applicable law in the disputes arising from the employment contract between the parties. The defendant company argued that the plaintiff was hired to work in Oman and that the Oman Law should be applied in the dispute pursuant to article 27 of the International Private Law (IPL). The Regional Court of Justice saw no harm in the local court's application of Turkish Law because of the defendant's partner company has branches in Turkey. As a result of the appeal of the parties, the lawsuit was evaluated by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, according to the "Choice of Law Agreement" and IPL articles 2.5, 27, 40, 44.
The Court of Cassation as explained the foreign element that makes the legal transaction or relationship related to the law of the different state as; if the worker or employer is a foreigner, employer's business headquarters is located in a foreign country, that the worker habitually carries out his own job in a foreign country or that his business relationship is linked to a foreign country. In accordance with article 40 of the IPL, it has been declared that the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts will be determined by the jurisdiction rules of the domestic law. IPL art. 44 will be applied in cases of employment contract and employment relationship. Accordingly, in disputes arising from the business relationship or individual employment contract, the court authorized where workers are in the workplace in Turkey. It has been stated that the Turkish courts where the employer's place of residence, the worker's place of residence or the usual residence are also authorized in the lawsuits filed by the worker against the employer. In IPL article 2, it is stated that the judge will apply the Turkish conflict of laws rules and the foreign law authorized according to these rules ex officio and it is stated that the judge can seek the assistance of the parties and apply to an expert in determining for the content of the authorized foreign law. Again, in cases where the opportunity to choose the law to be applied according to article 2 (4) is given, it is stated that the substantive law provisions of the chosen law will be applied unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. In accordance with article 27 of IPL, employment contracts, without prejudice to the minimum protection that the worker will have in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the usual workplace law, in cases where the parties are subject to the law chosen by the parties and the parties have not made a choice of law, the workplace law is applied to the employment contract, where the worker does his/her job as usual.
It has been stated that the legislation of the country where the work is worked will be applied in the articles of the work contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant employer regarding the termination, annual leave, overtime, week and general holiday receivables, and that the legislation of the country where the contract is worked on is valid.Accordingly, it is concluded that the parties have made a choice of law agreement. Due to the choice of law agreement, it was understood that Oman Law should be applied in the dispute and from the information and documents in the file, Oman Law is also the usual workplace law. While the dispute subject to the case had to be resolved by obtaining a report from an expert expert in Oman Law, the decision made without following this procedure was found wrong by the Court of Cassation and the decision was reversed. (Case No: 2020/5616 Decision No: 2020/16555 Date: 24.11.2020)