Background
A child was severely injured on August 2, 2023, when an unsecured soccer goal fell on him while he was playing on a field managed by the defendant residential-site management. The claimants alleged that the accident caused multiple fractures to the child’s skull and face, facial paralysis, permanent scarring and deformity, and continuing medical, rehabilitative, educational, and care needs.
The child and his parents sued the site management and its insurer for material and non-pecuniary damages based on the accident. The pleaded material losses included loss of earning capacity, impairment of economic prospects, caregiver costs, uncovered paramedical expenses, and educational expenses. The child sought TRY 500,000 in non-pecuniary damages, and each parent sought TRY 250,000 in their own right. The Bakırköy 7th Commercial Court of First Instance dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the peace civil courts were competent.
The Court’s Holding
The 63rd Civil Chamber vacated the jurisdictional ruling and remanded for a new hearing under Article 353(1)(a)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that the trial court had not collected evidence essential to deciding which court had jurisdiction—specifically, the land-registry records and management plan needed to determine whether condominium ownership or a construction servitude existed at the property when the injury occurred.
The appellate court explained that the claim against the site management could fall under the Condominium Law, while the insurer’s alleged liability arose from the insurance contract and would ordinarily belong in the commercial court. If condominium ownership existed—or, where a construction servitude existed, at least two-thirds of the independent units were actually in use at the time of the accident—the Condominium Law would apply and the peace civil court would have jurisdiction over disputes arising from that regime. The trial court must also consider severing the non-pecuniary-damages claims because, under the cited Court of Cassation approach, a peace civil court hearing a condominium-law case may decide material damages only, leaving jurisdiction over non-pecuniary damages to be assessed between the general civil and commercial courts.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not assign a tort and insurance dispute to the peace civil court under the Condominium Law without first establishing the property’s legal status and, where relevant, its level of actual occupancy at the time of the injury.
- Joining a site management and its insurer does not eliminate the need to analyze the distinct legal source of each defendant’s alleged liability.
- If the Condominium Law governs, material and non-pecuniary damages may require separate jurisdictional treatment and possible severance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that jurisdiction in Turkish residential-complex injury cases can depend on property records and occupancy facts, not merely on the defendant’s description as a site management. A jurisdictional dismissal entered before those facts are established is vulnerable on appeal.
For claims combining premises liability, insurance coverage, and both material and non-pecuniary damages, counsel should anticipate a claim-by-claim jurisdictional analysis and the possibility that closely related demands will be severed between different courts.