Background
The plaintiff sought pecuniary damages arising from a traffic accident. Because the plaintiff was born on July 7, 2007, the plaintiff’s parents had authorized counsel to act on the plaintiff’s behalf while the plaintiff was a minor.
The plaintiff reached adulthood on July 7, 2025, ending parental custody and the authority derived from the parents’ power of attorney. The Ankara 8th Commercial Court of First Instance nevertheless issued its decision on May 12, 2026. The record contained no power of attorney personally granted by the now-adult plaintiff, although the judgment and one defendant’s appellate petition were served on counsel, who also filed an appellate petition.
The Court’s Holding
The 35th Civil Chamber did not decide the merits of the damages dispute. It returned the file to the trial court so that the defect concerning counsel’s authority and the related service and appellate procedures could be addressed.
The trial court must give counsel a peremptory deadline to submit any power of attorney issued by the adult plaintiff. If one is timely produced, it must be added to the file. If none is produced, the judgment, the defendant’s appellate petition, and counsel’s appellate petition must be served on the plaintiff personally; the plaintiff must also be asked whether the plaintiff approves counsel’s appellate petition, and the applicable appeal period must then be allowed to expire. The file must be returned to the appellate court in all events. The chamber ruled unanimously under Article 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A power of attorney granted by parents on behalf of a minor does not, without more, establish counsel’s authority after the child reaches adulthood and parental custody ends.
- When the record lacks a power of attorney from the now-adult party, the trial court must allow counsel a definitive period to produce one.
- If counsel cannot establish authority, relevant decisions and appellate filings must be served personally on the adult party, who must be asked whether the party ratifies counsel’s appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a litigant’s attainment of majority can create a representation defect requiring affirmative procedural correction. Courts and counsel must verify that authority initially derived from parental representation has been replaced by authorization from the adult party.
It also shows that an appellate court may return a file without addressing the merits when uncertainty over counsel’s authority affects valid service, ratification of an appellate filing, and calculation of the appeal period.