Background
The plaintiff purchased a private passenger vehicle second-hand — not directly from the manufacturer, sole importer, or an authorized dealer, but through the secondary market. The vehicle’s chain of title began with a commercial company that originally bought it for business purposes, followed by a transfer to a second limited-liability company, before eventually reaching the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was not shown to have acted for any commercial or professional purpose, sought reimbursement of repair costs incurred in remedying hidden defects in the vehicle. The suit was brought against the vehicle’s Turkish distributor and was grounded in extended-warranty obligations the distributor had allegedly undertaken, as well as in the statutory defect-liability provisions of Law No. 6502 (Consumer Protection Law).
Three Istanbul courts each issued a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, creating a conflict that required the Regional Court of Appeals to designate the competent court. The Istanbul 6th Consumer Court declined, reasoning that because the vehicle’s original purchaser was a commercial entity — and therefore not a “consumer” under Article 3 of Law No. 6502 — the plaintiff, suing in succession to that entity’s rights, likewise could not hold consumer status. The Istanbul 43rd Civil Court of First Instance similarly declined, noting that the first sale had been a merchant-to-merchant transaction and that the plaintiff was proceeding on a subrogation theory against the distributor rather than against the party who sold the car to the plaintiff. The Istanbul 8th Commercial Court of First Instance also declined, taking the opposite view: the plaintiff was not acting for commercial purposes and therefore qualified as a consumer, making the Consumer Court the proper forum.
The Court’s Holding
The 37th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals unanimously resolved the conflict in favor of the Istanbul 6th Consumer Court. The Chamber endorsed the Commercial Court’s underlying analysis and rejected the reasoning of the Consumer Court and the Civil Court. The key principle the Chamber articulated is that jurisdictional competence is determined by whether the plaintiff in the case at hand qualifies as a consumer — not by the status of whoever stood at the beginning of the vehicle’s chain of title. The fact that the original purchaser was a commercial company is legally irrelevant to determining the plaintiff’s own consumer status.
The Chamber found that the plaintiff’s purchase of a private passenger vehicle in the secondary market, without any evidence of commercial or professional motivation, constituted a consumer transaction from the plaintiff’s perspective within the meaning of Article 3 of Law No. 6502. Moreover, the suit was aimed directly at the Turkish distributor under an extended warranty the distributor had given and under the defect-liability regime of the Consumer Protection Law — paradigmatic consumer-law claims. Article 73 of Law No. 6502 vests Consumer Courts with jurisdiction over all disputes arising under that statute, and Article 83(2) makes those jurisdictional rules applicable even where other legislation would otherwise govern.
Applying Articles 21 and 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100), the Chamber designated the Istanbul 6th Consumer Court as the competent court. The decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Under Law No. 6502, the consumer or non-consumer status of a vehicle’s original buyer does not determine the jurisdictional classification of a later buyer’s claim; what matters is whether the current plaintiff acted for commercial or professional purposes in their own acquisition.
- A secondary-market purchaser of a private passenger vehicle who shows no commercial or professional motive qualifies as a “consumer” under Article 3 of Law No. 6502, even if the chain of title passed through commercial entities before reaching them.
- Claims against a Turkish distributor grounded in extended-warranty obligations and statutory defect liability belong before a Consumer Court; neither the Commercial Courts nor the general Civil Courts have jurisdiction, and Law No. 6502, Article 83(2) makes the Consumer Court’s jurisdictional priority effective “even where other legislation provides otherwise.”
- Where multiple courts issue conflicting declarations of lack of jurisdiction, the Regional Court of Appeals resolves the conflict under Articles 21–22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that designation is final.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important and recurring ambiguity in Turkish consumer-protection litigation: when a defective good passes through commercial hands before reaching an individual buyer, courts had split on whether the commercial origin of the chain of title strips the ultimate purchaser of consumer status. The Regional Court of Appeals firmly answers that it does not — the analysis is transaction-specific and plaintiff-focused. For practitioners, this means that secondary-market buyers of vehicles (and, by extension, other goods) who sue distributors or manufacturers under warranty or defect-liability theories can expect their claims to be heard in the more accessible and consumer-friendly Consumer Courts.
The ruling also underscores the broad reach of Article 83(2) of Law No. 6502, which overrides competing jurisdictional provisions in other statutes. Defendants who might prefer Commercial Court proceedings cannot avoid Consumer Court jurisdiction simply because the underlying commercial history of a product is complex. This jurisdictional clarity reduces the scope for strategic forum-shopping through successive declarations of lack of competence.