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

29  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, p. 9-68, Setembro-Dezembro. 2020  med to exist 98 and on the other hand on the probability of such prohibition in cases where the provisions applied by the foreign Court were more favorable from those of Turkish law and there- fore does not affect the protection of the consumer 99 . In our view, it can be argued as a contradiction that a Court proceedings in a foreign country is in itself a barrier to the consumer as he is charged both with extra costs and with practical difficulties (eg translation of documents, failure to produce witnesses) which may thus deprive him of the opportunity of proper defense. As regards insurance contracts, art. 46 of Turkish Code of Private International and Procedural Lawprovides that the Courts of the place of residence are exclusively competent for actions against the insurer (sigorta ettiren), the insured person (sigortalı) or the beneficiary of the insurance (lehdar) or habitual residen- ce of such persons if he is in Turkey. Again, however, the restric- tion on the enforcement of foreign judgments is applicable only to those persons and not to the insurer 100 . In addition, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts has been deemed to have in- troduced art. 10 of the Aliens of Societes Anonymes and Capital Companies Act 101 , according to which a foreign company with a branch in Turkey could sue for any dispute (whether related to the branch) exclusively in the Courts of the place of establishment of the branch. That exclusivity was, however applicable only to third parties who were dealing with the non-resident company. That is, foreign insurance companies in respect of disputes arising from contracts in which extradition of a foreign Court had been agreed could not claim their insured persons, since the case-law conside- red that there was exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the bran- ch in Turkey. They could also not plead lack of jurisdiction or local lack of jurisdiction in actions brought against them at the place of 98 G. GÜNGÖR, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Tüketicinin Kοrunması, Yetkin Yanınları, Ankara 2000, pp. 173ss. 99 E. NOMER, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, op. cit., pp. 486ss. 100 Y. 11. HD 19.06.1997, Ε.3609/Κ.5636, in Yasa Hukuk Dergisi, 1998, pp. 80ss. 101 See: O “Ecnebi Anonim ve Sermeyesi Paylara Bölünmüş Şirketler Ecnebi Sigorta Şirketleri Hakkında Kanunu Muvakkat” of the year 1914, which was a residual of Ottoman legislation, was established with the entry into force of the new Turkish Commercial Code (CCT) on 01.07.2012.