Background
The plaintiffs sought material damages for loss of financial support and non-pecuniary damages arising from a fatal traffic collision. A fuel tanker allegedly suffered brake failure and struck a minibus from behind, after which the tanker caught fire. The collision and fire killed the minibus driver and passengers and severely burned another passenger. The plaintiffs alleged that the tanker driver was wholly at fault and sought recovery from the insurer within the applicable policy limits.
The Şanlıurfa 1st Commercial Court of First Instance granted most of the plaintiffs’ claims, awarding various amounts of loss-of-support and non-pecuniary damages with advance interest, while rejecting certain claims in whole or in part. The insurer appealed, arguing among other things that no proper pre-suit application had been made, that the damages calculation used the wrong actuarial method, that any reconciliation in the criminal proceedings should be investigated, and that only statutory interest from the filing date could be imposed.
The Court’s Holding
While the appeal was pending, the plaintiffs’ attorney, acting under specific authority in the powers of attorney, filed a relinquishment of the action because the parties had settled. The insurer stated that it did not seek litigation costs or attorneys’ fees. The appellate court explained that, under Articles 310 and 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a claimant may relinquish a claim at any time before the judgment becomes final. Relinquishment is completed when the claimant’s unconditional and unequivocal unilateral declaration reaches the court; neither the defendant’s nor the court’s consent is required, and the declaration produces the consequences of a final judgment.
Without examining the insurer’s remaining appellate arguments, the court vacated the trial court’s judgment under Article 353(1)(b)(2) and dismissed the action because of the post-judgment relinquishment. It left the plaintiffs’ litigation expenses with them, awarded no attorneys’ fees in light of the parties’ requests, allocated the mandatory mediation expense to the plaintiffs, and left the insurer’s appellate expenses with the insurer. The decision was unanimous and remained open to appeal to the Court of Cassation within two weeks after service.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant may relinquish an action after judgment, provided the judgment has not yet become final.
- An authorized claimant’s clear, unconditional relinquishment becomes effective upon reaching the court and does not require consent from the opposing party or the court.
- Because the relinquishment ended the dispute on the merits, the appellate court vacated the damages judgment and dismissed the action without addressing the insurer’s substantive appellate grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural effect of settling a Turkish civil case while an appeal is pending. A properly authorized post-judgment relinquishment can eliminate the underlying award and end the case before appellate review of liability, damages methodology, or interest.
It also underscores that relinquishment is not merely an administrative withdrawal: because it carries final-judgment consequences, the claimant’s intention must be unmistakable, unconditional, and supported by specific authority where counsel makes the declaration.