Supreme Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2013/1203
Decision Number: 2014/442
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 06/27/2012
NUMBER: 2012/310-2012/310
Following the trial concerning the “material damages” case between the parties, upon review of the Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance’s decision dated 14.06.2011 and numbered 2009/168 E., 2011/213 K. regarding the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case, the plaintiff and defendants requested the Supreme Court ME representatives on 13. The Court of Appeals ME representatives requested the case. The decision of the Legal Department dated 07.03.2012 and numbered 15783/5615 E., K. states that
(…The plaintiff purchased the vehicle sold by the defendant Fahrettin in the second-hand car market from the other defendant Erol, who was Muzaffer’s representative, on 18.03.2007 for 33,000.00 TL and 10,000.00 TL, gave it to Muzaffer, and gave the defendant Muzaffer 23,000.00 TL.
He claims that when he went to have the vehicle inspected by the other defendant company before purchasing it, they verbally confirmed that there were no problems with the vehicle, that he suffered financial loss due to service fees because the vehicle constantly broke down, and that as a result, the vehicle was damaged.
Muzaffer, Erol, and Fahrettin, who claim to have learned on February 12, 2009, that the main problem stemmed from flooding, requested that the contract be retroactively terminated and that they be compensated for negative damages, that the vehicle price of 33,000.00 TL be collected from from Volan Küçükyılmaz Ltd. Şti.
The defendants requested that the case be dismissed.
The court decided to partially accept the case, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff and the defendant ME.
1- Pursuant to Article 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the court shall deliver its judgment at the end of the hearing. In any case, the interpretation of the judgment shall be made by reading the outcome of the judgment in the hearing minutes. In cases where only the outcome of the judgment is announced due to compelling reasons, the reasoned decision shall be written within one month from the date it is delivered.
Pursuant to Article 297/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, each claim in the conclusion section of the judgment, together with the judgment rendered, the obligations and rights granted to the parties, must be clearly indicated under a serial number in a manner that does not give rise to doubt or hesitation. Pursuant to Article 298/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the reasoned decision cannot be contrary to the implied outcome of the judgment. This is because there is no legal possibility for the judge who wrote and announced the short decision and withdrew from the case to change this decision. The fact that the brief decision and the reasoned decision are different creates a situation that is contrary to the openness of the trial, Article 141 of the Constitution, and the aforementioned mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, this matter relates to public order, and compliance is a duty imposed on the judge by law. In the specific
case, when the court ruled, the short decision accepted the case partially by the defendant Muzaffer, with the condition that the vehicle be returned, and accepted 33,000.00 TL in expenses. It was decided that 33,000.00 TL, the price of the vehicle, plus legal interest accruing from the date of the lawsuit, would be collected from the defendant Muzaffer. It is clear that the ruling in the reasoned decision and the ruling in the brief decision are contrary to the principles and provisions of the law, which require that the brief decision and the reasoned decision explained above be consistent with each other.
As explained above and as adopted in the Decision on Joinder of Cases dated 10.04.1992 and numbered 1991/7, 1992/4, the court has issued a new decision without adhering to the brief judgment, but in a manner that resolves the contradiction between the brief judgment and the reasoned judgment and does not create any hesitation in enforcement. The conflicting ruling had to be overturned for it to be accepted.
2- Based on the grounds for overturning, it was deemed unnecessary to examine the other appeals of the plaintiff and defendant ME.
As a result of the retrial, the court dismissed the case in its previous decision.
As a result of the review conducted by the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals, it was understood that the objection to the decision to uphold the judgment was filed within the time limit, and the documents in the file were read and their necessity was discussed:
The case concerns a claim for material damages.
The local court’s decision to partially accept the case was overturned by the Special Chamber upon appeal by the plaintiff and defendant ME representatives, based on the grounds stated in the heading section above; the Court upheld its previous decision.
The ME representatives of the plaintiff and defendants object to the decision to uphold the ruling. At the meeting of the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals, the nature of the dispute and the issue of whether the case should be heard and decided by the Consumer Court or the Court of First Instance was considered as a preliminary issue.
Regarding the jurisdiction, the following explanations are useful.
It is useful to make the following explanations regarding jurisdiction.
Article 1 of the Consumer Protection Law No. 4077, as amended by Law No. 4822, titled “Purpose,” explains the purpose of the Law. (TKHK No. 4077) states in Article 1, titled “Purpose,” that the purpose of the Law is explained, and in Article 2, titled “Scope,” it states that “This Law covers all consumer transactions in which the consumer is one of the parties in the goods and services markets, in line with the purposes stated in Article 1.” Article 3 of the Law defines goods as movable property subject to trade, real estate for residential and vacation purposes, and intangible goods such as software, sound, images, and similar items prepared for use in electronic environments.
Sales personnel include real or legal persons, including public legal entities, who offer goods to consumers within the scope of their commercial or professional activities.A consumer is defined as a natural or legal person who acquires, uses, or benefits from a good or service for non-commercial or non-professional purposes.
For a legal transaction to be evaluated under the scope of Law No. 4077, there must be a legal transaction between the parties defined above regarding the sale of goods and services under the law. In the specific dispute, since it is alleged that the defendant (…..Mot. Taşıtlar. Truz. İnş. Ltd. Şti.),
which provides vehicle maintenance and repair services, provided an expert opinion service to the plaintiff (the buyer) regarding whether there were any defects in the vehicle purchased from the other defendants, it is understood that the relationship between the parties falls within the scope of Law No. 4077. Article 23 of Law No. 4077
Article 23 of Law No. 4077 stipulates that all disputes regarding the application of this law shall be heard in consumer courts. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, … Mot. Vehicles. Truz. İnş. Ltd. Şti., arises from the pre-sale expert opinion service and falls within the scope of the Consumer Protection Law, therefore the case is being heard by the Consumer Court.
Considering the status of the other defendants, it may be thought that, as a rule, the general court has jurisdiction; however, in cases where proceedings in the general court and the special court must be heard together, the case must continue in the special court, and therefore, for these defendants, the case must be heard in the Consumer Court. Furthermore, the regulations regarding jurisdiction are of a nature that concerns public order and must be applied at every stage of the proceedings, even if the parties do not raise them.Furthermore, regulations concerning jurisdiction are of a nature that affects public order and are considered ex officio at every stage of the proceedings, even if the parties do not raise them.
There are no acquired rights in matters concerning jurisdiction. In this case, while the court should have ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and referred the case to the consumer court, the decision rendered pursuant to this provision is contrary to procedure and law.
Therefore, while the local court should have taken this situation into account and ruled accordingly, its insistence on the previous decision is contrary to procedure and law.
Based on this different reasoning, the decision to insist must be overturned; other appeals have not been examined based on the grounds for reversal.
CONCLUSION :
1- The appeals of the plaintiff and defendant ME representatives have been accepted, and the decision to resist has been removed from the proceedings in accordance with Article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the grounds for reversal, it was stated that there was no need to re-examine the other appeals regarding the merits of the case at this stage. Pursuant to the article, the decision was made unanimously on 02.04.2014, with the possibility of correction within 15 days from the notification of the decision.