Background
The claimant company entered negotiations to lease the defendant’s fuel station in Çarşamba, Samsun, and transferred TRY 100,000 to the defendant’s bank account on May 13, 2024, with the notation “rental-price deposit.” According to the claimant, the defendant later decided to lease the station to a third party, so no lease was concluded and the payment lacked a continuing legal basis. When the defendant did not return the money, the claimant commenced non-judgment enforcement proceedings and, after the defendant objected, sued to annul the objection, continue enforcement, and obtain compensation for denial of the debt.
The defendant agreed that no lease contract had been formed but maintained that negotiations continued and failed because the claimant did not honor its commitments and ultimately withdrew. The defendant argued that it suffered losses and was therefore not required to return the payment. The Çarşamba 1st Civil Court of Peace declined jurisdiction, reasoning that the unconsummated lease left only a commercial claim between the parties. The Samsun Commercial Court of First Instance also declined jurisdiction, concluding that Article 4(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure assigned the dispute to the civil court of peace. The resulting negative jurisdictional conflict was sent to the regional appellate court for designation of the proper court.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Civil Chamber designated the Çarşamba 1st Civil Court of Peace as the court having jurisdiction. It held that the dispute arose from a lease relationship within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure because the payment was made to secure a contemplated lease and the parties’ disagreement concerned who abandoned the leasing process, the legal character of the payment, and whether it must be returned.
The Chamber determined that formation of a completed lease contract was not necessary for the special jurisdictional rule to apply. The parties’ status as merchants and the possible commercial character of their dealings did not displace the specific rule assigning disputes arising from lease relationships—including related monetary claims—to civil courts of peace. Acting under Articles 21 and 22, the Chamber resolved the jurisdictional conflict unanimously; its decision was final under Articles 23(1) and 362(1)(c).
Key Takeaways
- A dispute over repayment of money transferred as a lease deposit can arise from a “lease relationship” even when the contemplated lease was never concluded.
- Article 4(1)(a) gives civil courts of peace jurisdiction over lease-related disputes regardless of the claim’s value or the parties’ status as merchants.
- Whether the payment must ultimately be returned—and which party caused negotiations to fail—concerns the merits, not the jurisdictional classification of the dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the statutory term “lease relationship” more broadly than “lease contract.” Parties cannot move a dispute into the commercial courts merely by showing that negotiations failed before execution or that both sides are commercial actors.
For cross-border businesses negotiating Turkish leases, the ruling underscores that deposits and other pre-contract payments tied specifically to leasing may fall within the specialized jurisdiction of the civil courts of peace, even when the resulting claim is framed as unjust enrichment or recovery through enforcement proceedings.