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  30 its branch, even when, as mentioned, the dispute was irrelevant to the activity of the branch in Turkey 102 . On the other hand, it was permissible to bring an action in a foreign Court when the company was a defendant 103 . However, after the abolition of this law from 01.07.2012, the Courts of the place of establishment of the branch of a foreign company have jurisdiction only for the disputes arising out of the branch activity, and it should be considered that even for these disputes there is no longer any exclusive the jurisdiction of that Court and, by exten- sion, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts 104 . Moreover, in our view, as the reason for the Turkish case-law based on the above exclusive competence was the protection of customers of the foreign company 105 , after the addition of art. 45 on consumer protection to the Turkish Code of Private International and Proce- dural Law, we consider that such protection is sufficient, any con- tinued acceptance of the above exclusive jurisdiction constitutes a direct discrimination against foreign companies. Lastly, it has been argued in theory that bases of exclusive jurisdiction are founded on reference to domestic law on indus- trial and intellectual property issues enshrined in Turkey. In par- ticular, in disputes arising with a claimant who appears to be the party to the right, either the Courts of the place of residence of the beneficial owner of the Courts of the place where the breach of the protected rights or the effects of the breach occurred 106 . In the case where the plaintiff-beneficiary does not reside in Turkey, the Courts of the city in which the registered rights have been enforced are competent. It is therefore argued that, by their very nature, the bases of exclusive jurisdiction of the Turkish Courts 102 V.R. SEVIG, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku Alanında Yetki Anlaşmasının Ayrıcalığı, in İstanbul Üniversite- si Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, 2000, pp. 181ss 103 A. ÇELIKEL, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Beta Kitabevi, op. cit., pp. 611ss. 104 C. SÜRAL, Hukuk Mahkemeleri Kanunu’nun Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası yetkisine etkisi, in Türk Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2012, pp. 183ss. 105 E. ESEN, Türk hukukunda yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması ve tenfizinde münhasır yetki kavramı, in Μilletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 2002, pp. 195ss. 106 See also article 137 of Legislative Decree 551/1995 on the Protection of Patents (PatKHK), article 49 of Legislative Decree 554/1995 on the Protection of Industrial Designs (EndKHK), article 25 of Legislative Decree 555/1995 on the Protection of Geographical Indications (CoğKHK) and article 63 of Legislative Decree 556/1995 on Trademrk Protection (MarKHK).