The Concept of Legal Interest:
Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, which entered into force on October 1, 2011, recognizes legal interest as a condition for bringing a lawsuit. A person whose rights have been violated may apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However, for the plaintiff to be able to request legal protection, they must have an interest worthy of protection. The plaintiff’s right to file a lawsuit is not sufficient for them to request legal protection from the court.
The person filing the lawsuit must also have a legal interest in doing so. As a rule, legal interest is presumed in construction lawsuits and performance lawsuits. The plaintiff is not obliged to declare and prove legal interest in such lawsuits. However, in case of doubt, the existence of legal interest is subject to examination. In case of a negative determination, the plaintiff must have legal interest in filing the lawsuit. The plaintiff must declare, explain, and, if necessary, prove that they have a legal interest in filing a negative determination lawsuit.1 If the plaintiff cannot prove that they have a legal interest in filing a negative determination lawsuit, the lawsuit must be dismissed on the grounds that the legal interest required for the lawsuit does not exist.
II. Conditions of Proof in Negative Determination Lawsuits
If the plaintiff-debtor claims that the debt in question does not exist and requests the court to determine that no such claim exists, the defendant-creditor is obligated to prove the existence of the debt. The plaintiff-debtor claims that the debt is invalid due to one of the circumstances invalidating consent (error, fraud, duress), they are obligated to prove their claim. If the debtor claims that the debt they have accepted has ended for a reason such as payment, the burden of proof naturally falls on them.
In a negative determination lawsuit, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship lies with the defendant/creditor, and the creditor must prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). If the debtor has acknowledged the existence of a legal relationship but claims that this legal relationship is different from what is stated in the document, the burden of proving that the legal relationship they claim exists falls on the plaintiff debtor. This is because the plaintiff debtor, while acknowledging the existence of the document, claims that it is based on a different legal relationship, essentially acknowledging the existence of a legal relationship.
“Supreme Court of Appeals 20th Civil Chamber, 2019/2494 E., 2019/3652 K., T. 27.05.2019;”
The case should be evaluated considering that the burden of proof lies with the defendant, except in exceptional cases such as negative determination cases filed under Article 72 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and cases related to policies. If the debtor denies the existence of the debt, the burden of proof falls on the creditor, even if they are the defendant. If the debtor claims that the debt, which they acknowledge exists, has been extinguished for a reason such as payment, the burden of proof naturally falls on them.
As can be seen, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship lies with the defendant/creditor, and the creditor must prove the existence of the legal relationship (the debt). For these reasons, the court concluded that it was not correct to dismiss the case in this manner, considering that the plaintiff objected to the defendant/creditor’s authority to pursue the claim and the nature of the debt, that the defendant primarily had the authority to pursue the claim, and that the debt subject to enforcement proceedings must be proven with the evidence to be presented.
Consequently, pursuant to Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code, the burden of proof in a negative determination lawsuit generally lies with the defendant, who must prove the existence of the claim. However, if the debt has become invalid due to special reasons, namely circumstances that invalidate the intent, the burden of proof shifts, and the plaintiff-debtor must prove the existence of this circumstance.
Negative Record in Bills of Exchange – Negative Decision Case – Burden of Proof
The above-mentioned entry in the policy indicates that the policy was issued in exchange for delivered goods. In other words, the drawer (the person who issued the promissory note) states that I have received the goods with this promissory note and that I have fulfilled my obligation by paying the price of the goods.
Supreme Court
General Assembly of the Court of Cassation
Ref. No: 2013/2402
“Text of Justice”
Following the trial concerning the “negative determination lawsuit” between the parties, the Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace issued its decision dated 01.02.2012, E:2010/1442, accepting the case.
Upon the request of the parties’ attorneys for the review of the decision numbered K:2012/92, the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, with its decision dated 29.01.2013 and numbered E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601;
(… The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his clients purchased goods worth TL 3,377.75 from the defendant company as a gift for N.A., a relative of his clients, in exchange for an invoice dated April 6, 2010, and that they also selected a number of items for themselves and received a total of TL 6,000 from the defendant company.