The Court of Appeals in its judgment dated 13 April 2009 (File No: 2009/1438 E. 2009/2153 K.) discussed the validity of a disputes clause, which both provides for arbitration and assigns the court of jurisdiction to hear a possible dispute. In this case the plaintiff and the defendant were party to an agreement that contained an arbitration clause indicating that any disputes between the parties would be resolved by arbitration, while also assigning Istanbul courts as the courts of jurisdiction. Following a dispute between the parties, the plaintiff submitted the dispute before the local court. However, the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the local court based on the arbitration clause executed between the parties. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and ruled that the arbitration clause was inapplicable as it also assigned the local courts as the courts of jurisdiction and thereby blurred the parties’ intention to arbitrate.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals ruled that since the parties to such an arbitration clause did not manifest their clear intention to arbitrate, the dispute should be resolved by the court.