Name Change Competent Court Supreme Court Decision
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
17th CIVIL CHAMBER
E. 2014/1591
K. 2014/2198
T. 20.2.2014
* NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CASES WHERE PROVISIONS ARE CONTAINED IN SPECIAL LAWS (Request for Name Change – Provision in the Civil Procedure Code Stating that it is a Non-Contentious Matter and Shall Be Heard in the Conciliation Court / Provision in the Population Services Law Stating that it Shall Be Heard in the Civil Court of First Instance)
* REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF NAME (The Request Does Not Fall Under Non-Contentious Proceedings – To Be Heard in the District Court)
* REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF NAME IN THE POPULATION REGISTER (Correction cases related to population records shall be filed at the competent District Court where the person requesting the correction resides)
* COMPETENT COURT FOR NAME CORRECTION REQUESTS (Requests to Change Names in Population Records Are Not Subject to Non-Contentious Jurisdiction – The Civil Court of First Instance Has Jurisdiction/Cannot Be Heard in the Conciliation Court)
* CORRECTION ACTION RELATING TO POPULATION REGISTRATION (Action for Change of Name – The Civil Court of First Instance is the Competent Court)
6100/m.382, 383
4721/m. 27
5490/m.36
SUMMARY: The case concerns the plaintiff’s request to change their name in the population registry. The Population Services Law stipulates that correction cases related to population records must be filed in the competent District Court of First Instance where the person requesting the correction resides. The plaintiff’s request does not fall under the scope of non-contentious proceedings and, in accordance with the aforementioned Law, it must be heard by the District Court, as determined by the Supreme Court of Appeals’ General Assembly of Civil Law in its decision dated 25/12/2013, case no. 2013/18-464, decision no. 2013/1698. Therefore, the dispute must be heard and resolved by the Civil Court of First Instance.
CASE: All documents in the file sent for the determination of the competent court due to the separate decisions of lack of jurisdiction issued by the Ağrı Peace Court and the Ağrı Civil Court of First Instance regarding the request for name correction between the parties were examined, and the necessary considerations were made:
DECISION: The case concerns the plaintiff’s request to change his name from “Gülhan” to “Şerzan” in the population registry. The Peace Court, however, ruled that, pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) of the Population Services Law No. 5490, stated that correction cases related to population records must be filed at the competent district court where the person requesting the correction resides, and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction on the grounds that there was a clear provision in the special law on this matter. The District Court ruled that the request to change the name and surname is regulated as a non-contentious judicial matter under Article 382/2-a-2 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, and that the competent court for non-contentious judicial matters is the Peace Court under Article 383 of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore ruled that it lacks jurisdiction. The request for a name change is regulated as a non-contentious judicial matter under Article 382/2-a-2 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100. According to Article 383 of the HMK, unless otherwise specified, the court of jurisdiction for non-contentious proceedings is the Peace Court. Pursuant to Article 27 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a request for a name change may be made to the judge on the basis of a valid reason. On the other hand, Article 36(1)(a) of the Population Services Law No. 5490 stipulates that correction cases related to population records shall be filed with the competent civil court of first instance in the place of residence of the person requesting the correction. The same law also contains provisions regarding names and surnames in paragraph (b). The plaintiff’s request does not fall under the scope of non-contentious proceedings and, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the Law, it has been determined by the Supreme Court of Appeals’ General Assembly of Civil Law in its decision dated December 25, 2013, with case number 2013/18-464 and decision number 2013/1698, that the case shall be heard by the Civil Court of First Instance. Therefore, the dispute falling under Article 36/1-a-b of Law No. 5490 must be heard and resolved by the Civil Court of First Instance.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above; in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, it was decided by unanimous vote on February 20, 2014, that the Ağrı Civil Court of First Instance shall be designated as the competent court.