T.C. SUPREME
13. Legal Department Main No: 2016/10627
Decision No : 2018/3284
Decision Date : 19.03.2018
RECEIVABLE CASE – WHEN THE AMOUNT REQUESTED IN THE CASE IS OBSERVED
CONSUMER ARBITRATION COMMITTEES OF THE PLACE OF SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE
NOT THAT THE CONSUMER COURTS – THE MERITS OF THE CASE
THE NEED TO BE EXAMINED AND DECIDED ACCORDING TO THE RESULT
SUMMARY: Although, according to the court, Article 68 of Law No. 6502.according to the article, the case requirement
although it was decided to dismiss the case due to his absence; No. 6502, which entered into force on 28.05.2014
The law was not in force on the date of the opening of the case (26.05.2014), the law No. 4077 in the case
the provisions of which must be applied, accordingly; when the amount requested in the case is observed,
the place of resolution of the dispute is not the Consumer Arbitration Committees, but the Consumer Courts
it is understood. In this case, the merits of the case are examined and the decision is made according to the result
when it is necessary, the fact that the case has been duly dismissed with a written justification is the reason for the disruption.
(6502 P. K. m. 68)
Case: At the end of the trial of the receivable case between the parties, the reasons written in the Decriminalization are
appeal by the plaintiff’s lawyer within the period of the sentence given for the dismissal of the case due to
the file was examined on it, talked about and thought about as necessary:
Decision: The plaintiff claims that due to the loan he used, deductions were made from him under different names
by driving, he requested the collection of 1.987,00 TL. The defendant bank attorney has requested the dismissal of the case.
According to the Court, Article 68 of the Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection. according to the article, the request
due to the absence of a case requirement on the grounds that the amount remains within the mandatory limit of the application to the arbitral tribunal
it was decided to dismiss the case from the procedure; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff. The case, used in
the collection of the deduction made under different names due to the loan is related to the request. Although,
68 of the Law No. 6502 by the court.in accordance with the article, the dismissal of the case from the absence of the condition of the case
even if the decision has been made; The Law No. 6502, which entered into force on 28.05.2014, was opened on the date of the case
(26.05.2014) it is not in force, the provisions of the law No. 4077 should be applied in the case, this
according to; when the amount requested in the case is taken into consideration, the Consumer Arbitrator of the place of settlement of the dispute
It is understood that there are Consumer Courts, not their delegations. As such, the merits of the case
while the decision should be made according to the result of the examination, the procedural rejection of the case with written justification
made a decision to be a good aspect.
Conclusion: For the reasons described above, in the interest of the appealed decision to be overturned, HUMK
In accordance with Article 440 / III-1, the decision correction path is closed, unanimously on the day of 19.03.2018
it was decided.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.