Background
A plaintiff brought a tort compensation claim that was caught between two courts, each declining jurisdiction. The Gaziosmanpaşa 10th Civil Court of First Instance issued a lack-of-jurisdiction ruling on the ground that it lacked authority to sit as a commercial court and that the matter belonged before a commercial court. The Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance then issued its own lack-of-jurisdiction ruling, reasoning that an HSK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) General Council decision dated 3 July 2024 (No. 1271) had established a new Heavy Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) in the Gaziosmanpaşa district, thereby removing Gaziosmanpaşa from the territorial jurisdiction of the Istanbul Commercial Courts of First Instance. The Istanbul court concluded that the appropriate forum was the Gaziosmanpaşa Civil Court sitting with commercial-court status.
Because both courts had each entered a negative jurisdiction ruling, neither would hear the case, creating a jurisdictional deadlock. Under Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK No. 6100), the file was referred to the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 37th Civil Chamber, for authoritative designation of the proper venue.
The core legal question was whether the HSK decision of 3 July 2024 — which created a new Heavy Criminal Court in Gaziosmanpaşa — had the downstream effect of also removing Gaziosmanpaşa from the territorial jurisdiction of the Istanbul Commercial Courts of First Instance, such that a civil court in Gaziosmanpaşa could sit with commercial-court status in its place.
The Court’s Holding
The Regional Court of Appeal held unanimously that the Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance is the proper venue and designated it as such. The court reasoned that the territorial jurisdiction of Istanbul’s Commercial Courts of First Instance had originally been defined by HSK General Council decision No. 608 of 7 July 2021, which tied that jurisdiction to the territorial circuit of the Istanbul Heavy Criminal Courts. The subsequent 2024 HSK decision (No. 1271) did no more than establish a new Heavy Criminal Court for Gaziosmanpaşa; it contained no express provision altering the jurisdiction of commercial courts, and no new jurisdictional rule for commercial courts was introduced alongside it.
Critically, the court noted that there is no Commercial Court of First Instance (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) established at the Gaziosmanpaşa courthouse. In the absence of such a specialized court, a civil court of first instance in Gaziosmanpaşa cannot exercise commercial-court jurisdiction over matters that the legislature has assigned to dedicated commercial courts. Following established practice for specialized courts in Istanbul province, the HSK’s silence on commercial-court jurisdiction in the 2024 decision means the prior allocation remains in force.
Accordingly, Gaziosmanpaşa remains within the territorial jurisdiction of the Istanbul Commercial Courts of First Instance for commercial matters, and the Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance must hear and decide the dispute. The decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An HSK decision creating a new Heavy Criminal Court does not automatically redraw the territorial jurisdiction of Commercial Courts of First Instance unless the decision expressly addresses commercial-court jurisdiction.
- Where no Commercial Court of First Instance exists at a given courthouse, a civil court of first instance at that location cannot substitute for one by sitting “with commercial-court status” under the general rules.
- When two courts of first instance each enter negative jurisdiction rulings, Articles 21–22 HMK require the competent Regional Court of Appeal to designate the proper venue; that designation is final.
- Jurisdictional boundaries for Istanbul’s specialized commercial courts continue to be governed by HSK General Council decision No. 608 of 7 July 2021 until a subsequent decision expressly modifies them.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an ambiguity created by piecemeal HSK administrative decisions that reorganize judicial districts for criminal courts without simultaneously addressing the knock-on effects on specialized civil and commercial courts. Practitioners filing tort or commercial claims in Istanbul’s rapidly expanding peripheral districts — such as Gaziosmanpaşa, Eyüpsultan, Sultangazi, and Arnavutköy — now have clear authority that those claims remain within the jurisdiction of the central Istanbul Commercial Courts of First Instance until the HSK expressly rules otherwise.
More broadly, the ruling reinforces the principle that jurisdictional realignment of specialized courts requires explicit legislative or administrative action; institutional silence cannot be read as implicitly transferring subject-matter competence to courts that lack the requisite specialized status. This has practical significance for litigants and counsel who might otherwise face further procedural delays caused by conflicting local-court interpretations of overlapping HSK decisions.