Background
The plaintiffs sought compensation for damage to their vehicle arising from a traffic accident. The Ankara 11th Commercial Court of First Instance granted the claim, and the defendant appealed.
The appellate court’s file review revealed two procedural defects. First, although the action had been brought partly by plaintiffs acting personally and partly by a parent on behalf of minors, the trial court’s judgment heading did not identify all plaintiffs. Second, one plaintiff, born on August 4, 2007, had been represented through a power of attorney granted by a parent while the plaintiff was a minor but reached adulthood on September 9, 2025, before the trial court rendered judgment. The record contained no power of attorney granted personally by that now-adult plaintiff.
The Court’s Holding
The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal did not decide the merits of the defendant’s appeal. It unanimously returned the file to the trial court under Article 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that the judgment heading could be corrected and the representation issue resolved.
The trial court must give counsel a definite deadline to submit any power of attorney personally granted by the now-adult plaintiff. If a valid authorization is submitted on time, it must be added to the file. If none is submitted, the trial judgment and the defendant’s appellate petition must be served directly on that plaintiff, and the applicable appeal period must be allowed to run. The file must then be sent back to the appellate court in either event.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment heading must accurately identify every party to the action, including minors represented by a parent.
- When a minor plaintiff reaches adulthood during litigation, counsel’s authority cannot rest solely on a power of attorney previously granted by the parent as legal representative.
- An appellate court may return the file without reaching the merits when defects in party identification, service, or counsel’s authority must first be cured.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a party’s attainment of majority can alter representation during pending litigation. Courts and counsel must confirm that an adult party has personally authorized continued representation or ensure that judgments and appellate filings are served directly on that party.
For appellate practitioners, the ruling also shows that defects affecting participation and appeal rights may delay merits review until the record is corrected and all relevant time limits have been observed.