Background
The underlying action sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from a traffic accident involving death or bodily injury. A civil court of first instance, sitting in its capacity as a commercial court, concluded that the dispute was a commercial case under Articles 4 and 5 of the Turkish Commercial Code and declined jurisdiction in favor of a separate commercial court of first instance.
The commercial court likewise declined jurisdiction. It reasoned that a decision of the General Assembly of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors defining the territorial jurisdiction of designated commercial courts implicated both territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction. The resulting conflict was referred to the Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal for designation of the court required to hear the case.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Civil Chamber held that the Council’s redefinition of commercial-court boundaries applied only to actions filed after that decision took effect. Applying it to transfer cases already pending before its effective date would contravene the principle of the natural judge.
Because the compensation action had been filed before the relevant effective date, the court in which it was originally brought remained the proper forum. Acting under Articles 21, 22, and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Chamber unanimously designated the civil court of first instance, sitting as a commercial court, to adjudicate the case and directed that the file be routed there through the referring commercial court. The designation was final under Articles 23(2) and 362(1)(c) of the Code.
Key Takeaways
- A later administrative decision redefining the judicial boundaries of commercial courts does not govern actions already pending when that decision takes effect.
- A civil court that was hearing commercial matters in a district without a separate commercial court must continue hearing qualifying pre-existing cases in its commercial-court capacity.
- Transferring a pending case solely because of a later jurisdictional reorganization may violate the natural-judge principle.
Why It Matters
The decision protects continuity in pending litigation when Turkey’s judicial administration changes the geographic reach of specialized commercial courts. It makes the filing date—and specifically whether the action predates the reorganization’s effective date—central to determining which court must proceed.
For litigants in commercial claims arising from traffic accidents, the ruling indicates that a newly designated commercial court does not automatically inherit cases already pending before a civil court acting as a commercial court.