Revista da EMERJ - V. 22 - N.3 - Setembro/Dezembro - 2020

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  28 The same limitation also applies to disputes arising from certain contracts for which the legislature has reserved greater protection to the place it considers to be economically weak 92 . In particular, articles 44, 45 and 46 of Turkish Code of Private Inter- national and Procedural Law establish exclusive jurisdiction in Turkish labor, consumer and insurance disputes where the de- fendant is the employee, consumer or insured, respectively 93 . For these contracts, a possible conferral of jurisdiction by virtue of a special clause is in accordance with art. 47 par. 2 void in favor of the weaker party, thus confirming the absolute nature of exclusi- ve jurisdiction in favor of those persons 94 . In labor disputes, art. 44 of Turkish Code of Private Inter- national and Procedural Law provides that in disputes arising out of an individual employment contract or employment re- lationship, if the place where the normal work is provided in Turkey, the Court of that place is competent. According to the case law, this competence of the Turkish Courts is exclusive and any other foundation of jurisdiction is void in favor of the em- ployee. It follows that a foreign judgment given in a labor dis- pute against a worker who resident and habitually worked in Turkey can not be executed in Turkey 95 , whereas a foreign judg- ment may be enforced on a worker’s claim against an employer for work done in Turkey 96 . Accordingly, in consumer contracts, a foreign judgment against the consumer 97 , if the consumer had his habitual residen- ce in Turkey can not be executed, as the Court of the place of his habitual residence has exclusive jurisdiction under Turkish law (art. 45 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Law). In Turkish theory, there has been a reflection on the extent of this restriction, in which cases exclusive jurisdiction is dee- 92 Z. AKICI, C.D. GÖYAYLA, Milletlerarası Aile Hukuku, Vedat Kitapçılık, op. cit., pp. 210-211. 93 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 486ss. 94 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 547ss. 95 Y. HGK 05.06.1998, E12-287/K.325 (Kazancı Hukuk Otomasyonu). 96 Υ. 9. HD 09.12.1991, in İş Hukuku Dergisi, 1992, pp. 150ss. 97 N. EKŞİ, Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi, Beta, İstanbul 1996, pp. 178ss.