Background
The appeal arose from a damages action decided by the Ankara West 1st Commercial Court of First Instance on June 17, 2026. Two of the plaintiffs were born on September 17, 2007, and had been represented during the proceedings through a power of attorney granted by their parent acting under parental legal custody.
Those plaintiffs reached adulthood on September 17, 2025, ending parental legal custody before the trial court entered judgment. The appellate record contained no power of attorney issued by the now-adult plaintiffs to the lawyer, yet the trial court’s judgment was served on that lawyer.
The Court’s Holding
The 35th Civil Chamber did not decide the merits of the defendants’ appeals. It returned the file to the trial court under Article 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that the defect concerning the adult plaintiffs’ representation and service could be addressed.
The trial court must serve the lawyer with a notice setting a definite deadline to submit any power of attorney granted by the two adult plaintiffs. If one is timely submitted, it must be added to the record. If none is submitted, the trial court must serve the original judgment, any supplemental decision, and the defendants’ appellate petitions directly on the two plaintiffs, then wait for their own appellate period to expire before returning the file to the Regional Court of Appeal in all events.
Key Takeaways
- Parental legal custody—and the associated authority to arrange representation for a child—ends when the child reaches adulthood.
- A lawyer previously authorized through a parent must produce authority from a plaintiff who became an adult during the litigation.
- If no new power of attorney is produced, the relevant decisions and appellate petitions must be served directly on the adult plaintiffs, and their appellate period must be allowed to run.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a party’s attainment of adulthood during litigation can require renewed authority for counsel and fresh service directly on that party. Service on counsel whose authority is not established in the record cannot substitute for the prescribed corrective procedure.
The ruling is procedural only: it returns the record for completion of representation, service, and appellate-period requirements without resolving the underlying damages claims or the merits of the defendants’ appeals.