Court Of Cassation Decision On Compensation Case
T.C. JUDICIARY
20th Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/747
Decision: 2016/2361
Decision Date: 29.02.2016
COMPENSATION CASE – THE WORK SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN RETURN FOR LAND SHARES REQUIRES HIGH LEVEL TECHNOLOGY – IT REFERS TO NARROW SCOPE WORK CONTRACTS SUCH AS BUILDING CABINETS AND REPAIRING VEHICLES
SUMMARY: The lawsuit is related to the claim for compensation for breach of the construction contract in return for land. Considering that the work subject to the construction contracts in return for land shares requires high level technology and that there are also immovable sale promises and construction contracts within the scope of the contract, it should be accepted that the legislator in the Law No. 6502 refers to narrow-scope work contracts such as building kitchens, cabinets and repairing vehicles for the sole purpose of use and consumption, and that construction contracts in return for land are not within this scope.
(6502 S. Code Art. 3, 73) (818 S. Code Art. 155) (6100 S. Code Art. 2, 21, 22)
Case: In the case between the parties, all documents in the file sent for the determination of the place of jurisdiction due to the fact that Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of First Instance and Bakırköy 3rd Consumer Court of First Instance decided not to have jurisdiction separately, were examined and considered accordingly:
Decision:
The lawsuit is related to the claim for compensation for breach of the construction contract in return for flats.
Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of First Instance ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute falls within the scope of Law No. 6502 and that the consumer court has jurisdiction.
Bakırköy 3rd Consumer Court, on the other hand, ruled for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the plaintiff is the land owner and the defendant is the contractor and there is no consumer relationship within the meaning of Law No. 6502.
Article 3/1-(l) of the Law No. 6502, which entered into force on 28.05.2014, includes “work contracts established between real or legal persons and consumers” within the scope of consumer transactions. Article 73/1 of the Law stipulates that consumer courts are authorized to hear cases arising from consumer transactions.
Article 3 of the Law No. 6502 does not provide any explanation for the inclusion of work contracts within the scope of the law. However, considering the systematics of the law, it is understood that what is meant by the work contracts mentioned in the law is the work contracts concluded between the real and legal person and the consumer for non-commercial and non-professional purposes, for the sole purpose of use and consumption for personal needs. Construction contracts in return for land shares are a unique type of work contracts regulated under Articles 155 et seq. of the Code No. 818. One party to these contracts is the land owner and the other party is the contractor. In such contracts, it is understood that the landowner does not comply with the definition of consumer in Article 3/1-k of the Consumer Law.
The purpose pursued for the landowner in construction contracts in return for land share is to utilize his land, not to acquire a house for use. For this reason, it should not be overlooked that the motive of the land owner when signing a construction contract in return for land share is different from the motive of the consumer defined in Law No. 6502. Considering that the work subject to the construction contracts in return for land share requires high-level technology, and that there are also immovable sales promises and construction contracts within the scope of the contract, it should be accepted that the legislator in Law No. 6502 refers to narrow-scope work contracts such as building kitchens, cabinets and repairing vehicles for the sole purpose of use and consumption, and that construction contracts in return for land are not within this scope.
In this case, since the dispute in the case at hand does not fall within the scope of Law No. 6502, the case should be heard and concluded at the Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of First Instance in accordance with the general provisions pursuant to Article 2 of the CCP.
Conclusion For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 29.02.2016 to determine Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of First Instance as the place of jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the CCP No. 6100.