Background
The claimant owned substations, lighting and transmission poles, and other real property and facilities operated by the defendant under an operating-rights transfer agreement. The claimant alleged that the defendant went beyond electricity distribution by allowing third parties to use those assets for advertising, base stations, radio and television transmitters, and rentals. It sought an initial TRY 1,000 from the resulting revenue, with commercial advance interest running from the collection dates.
The defendant argued that the claim was time-barred and that applicable legislation and Energy Market Regulatory Authority rules permitted distribution companies to retain the disputed revenue. The Ankara 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance dismissed the action. The appellate opinion’s procedural account is internally inconsistent about which party appealed: its introductory and dispositive portions refer to the defendant, while its description of the appeal and asserted grounds identifies the claimant.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that the agreement transferred only the operating rights needed for electricity distribution while expressly preserving the claimant’s ownership. Construed under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the agreement did not create a usufruct or otherwise transfer the full benefits of ownership, including authority to lease the assets for unrelated commercial uses. The defendant therefore lacked authority to rent the claimant’s property for its own account.
The court characterized such unauthorized leasing as “unauthorized management of another’s affairs without a mandate.” Subject to reimbursing any expenses incurred by the defendant, the claimant could recover the rental and advertising revenue. The recoverable amount must be determined by an expert for the ten years preceding the filing date, excluding sums used as subsidies to reduce consumers’ electricity charges.
The court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case. It directed the trial court to obtain the necessary calculation and, because the action was for an initially unquantified claim, give the claimant a peremptory two-week period under Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure to increase the amount demanded. The remand decision was unanimous and final under Article 353(1)(a).
Key Takeaways
- An operating-rights transfer limited to electricity distribution does not, without contractual language to that effect, authorize the operator to exploit the owner’s assets through third-party leases or advertising.
- Revenue from unauthorized rentals may be recovered under the rules governing unauthorized management of another’s affairs, after accounting for the operator’s qualifying expenses.
- The trial court must calculate revenue from the ten-year pre-filing period, exclude amounts used to subsidize lower electricity prices, and allow the claimant to increase its demand under Article 107.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a limited contractual right to operate electricity infrastructure from the broader proprietary right to profit from unrelated uses of that infrastructure. Regulatory treatment of revenue available to a distribution company does not by itself expand the property rights transferred by the parties’ private-law agreement.
The chamber also followed what it described as the Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber’s newer precedent, 2025/6942 E. 2026/3922 K., despite an earlier decision affirming dismissal in a similar dispute. That signals a current shift toward allowing infrastructure owners to claim non-distribution rental and advertising income retained by licensed operators.