Cases Filed Due To Service Defects Must Be Replaced With Full-Fledged Lawsuits In Accordance With The Administrative Courts Organization Law, And Therefore Fall Under The Jurisdiction Of Administrative Courts.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
Following the trial regarding the claim for material and moral compensation arising from a traffic accident between the parties, the decision to partially accept the claim, as stated in the ruling, was appealed by the defendant’s
attorney within the prescribed time limit. The case file was reviewed, and the following decision was reached:
-D E C I S I O N
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s vehicle, which collided with a concrete pole 50 cm above the road surface on the road for which the defendant was responsible for construction and maintenance, was totaled in the accident, that the plaintiff was also
injured, that the accident occurred due to the defendant’s failure to provide necessary and sufficient signage on the road where construction work was ongoing, and that the defendant was at fault, and requested
reserving the right to claim additional damages, the plaintiff’s attorney requested the defendant to pay 1,000.00 TL. and 5,000.00 TL in moral damages, along with legal interest accruing from the date of the accident, from the defendant; on May 30, 2014, the plaintiff increased their claim for material damages to 27,000.00 TL.
The defendant’s counsel argued that the administrative court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim for compensation based on negligence in the performance of duties, that the defendant administration was not at fault in the accident, and that the accident occurred due to the plaintiff’s speed in an area where construction was ongoing and all necessary
signage was in place, and therefore the plaintiff has no right to claim compensation, and defended the dismissal of the case.
The court, based on the allegations, defenses, proceedings, and evidence presented, ruled as follows: The plaintiff’s claim for material compensation is granted, and 27,000.00 TL, plus legal interest from the date of the incident, shall be collected from the defendant; the plaintiff’s claim for moral damages was partially accepted, and 2,000.00 TL, plus legal interest accruing from the date of the incident, was ordered to be collected from the defendant; the ruling was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
1-The case concerns the cost of vehicle damage resulting from a traffic accident and a claim for moral damages due to alleged bodily injury.
The concept of the judicial process refers to which branch of the judicial system within a legal system a case will be heard in. The issue of which branch of the judicial system will hear the dispute is
a general condition of the case and must be considered by the court ex officio. …, which is obligated to provide public services, is not subject to private law provisions for damages caused during the provision of public services. Lawsuits filed due to service defects
must be brought as full-fledged lawsuits in accordance with Article 2 of the Law on Administrative Litigation Procedures. Rules of jurisdiction are related to public order and must be considered ex officio by the court. Essentially, the liability of the vehicle operator is regulated in Articles 85 and following of the KTK No. 2918
regulate the liability of the vehicle operator, while the liability of the administration arising from service defects is excluded from the scope of this law.
In the present case, the plaintiff’s attorney has filed this lawsuit against the defendant … based on service defects.
In this situation, the court should have decided to dismiss the case on procedural grounds due to the absence of a condition for the lawsuit in accordance with Article 115/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), as the legal remedy is not permissible under Article 114/1-b of the HMK. However, the decision as written is not considered correct.
2-Based on the scope and form of the reversal judgment, it is deemed unnecessary at this time to examine the defendant’s other appeals.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the defendant’s counsel’s appeals are accepted and the judgment is REVERSED; for the reasons explained in paragraph (2), there is no need to examine the defendant’s counsel’s other appeals
objections are not currently subject to review, and the advance fee shall be refunded to the defendant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on June 5, 2017.