Background
A commercial dispute arising from a work contract was filed on 27 November 2025 at the Gaziosmanpaşa On-duty Commercial Court. Two lower courts issued conflicting rulings on jurisdiction. Gaziosmanpaşa’s Sixth Civil Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and referred the case to Istanbul’s Eleventh Commercial Court. Istanbul’s Eleventh Commercial Court then ruled it also lacked jurisdiction, reasoning that no separate commercial court exists in Gaziosmanpaşa and therefore the case should be heard by Gaziosmanpaşa’s civil courts acting in a commercial capacity.
The jurisdictional confusion arose from two High Court of Judges (HSK) decisions: Decision 608 (7 July 2021) established that Istanbul Commercial Courts’ territorial jurisdiction corresponds to Istanbul’s High Criminal Court jurisdiction; and Decision 1271 (3 July 2024) created a High Criminal Court in Gaziosmanpaşa but did not explicitly address whether Commercial Court jurisdiction was affected.
The Court’s Holding
The Istanbul Regional Court determined that Istanbul’s Eleventh Commercial Court possesses proper jurisdiction. The court reasoned that although a High Criminal Court was established in Gaziosmanpaşa by Decision 1271, this decision addressed only criminal court boundaries and did not modify the jurisdictional scope of Commercial Courts. The prior Decision 608 governing Commercial Court jurisdiction remained unchanged.
Critically, the court noted that no independent commercial court has been established in Gaziosmanpaşa. Consequently, Gaziosmanpaşa district remains within the territorial jurisdiction of Istanbul’s Commercial Courts for all commercial disputes. The Gaziosmanpaşa civil court cannot hear the case in a commercial capacity because the matter falls outside its jurisdiction. The court therefore determined that Istanbul’s Eleventh Commercial Court is the proper forum and should hear and resolve the dispute.
Key Takeaways
- Commercial court jurisdiction is determined by separate HSK decisions independent of criminal court boundary changes.
- The establishment of new criminal courts in a district does not automatically alter commercial court territorial jurisdiction.
- Gaziosmanpaşa remains within Istanbul Commercial Courts’ jurisdiction for commercial disputes absent an explicit HSK decision reassigning it.
- Parties filing commercial claims must file in the proper territorial jurisdiction, which may extend beyond district boundaries.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies jurisdictional boundaries that directly affect access to courts and venue selection in Turkish commercial litigation. It establishes that administrative reorganization of the court system—such as establishing new criminal courts—does not implicitly redistribute commercial court jurisdiction. Parties and practitioners must rely on the specific HSK decisions governing each court category.
The ruling reinforces the principle that commercial court jurisdiction exists as a unified system across Istanbul despite geographical expansion of the criminal court system. This prevents forum shopping and ensures consistent application of commercial law across the region.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.