T.C. JUDICIARY
19th Civil Chamber
Basis: 2016/2068
Decision: 2016/10869
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF OBJECTION – THE COURT FOUND THAT THE OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE – THERE WAS NO OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION DULY MADE IN DUE TIME IN THE CASE – IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECIDE TO DISMISS THE OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION – REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The court shall dismiss the objection of jurisdiction as it is not admissible (Art. 19/f.II of the CCP). Since there is no objection of jurisdiction duly filed in due time, the court should decide to reject the objection of jurisdiction, while deciding that the court lacks jurisdiction has necessitated the reversal of the judgment.
(Art. 67 of the Law No. 2004) (Art. 19 of the Law No. 6100)
Case and Decision: At the end of the trial of the cancellation of the objection case between the parties, the file was examined and the file was examined upon the appeal of the decision given for the lack of jurisdiction of the court for the reasons written in the judgment by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time period.
The plaintiff attorney claimed that a sales contract was made between his client company and the defendant regarding the purchase and sale of iron, the price of the iron was paid in advance, but the defendant did not deliver the iron, and the defendant objected to the proceeding without a judgment initiated for the collection of the iron prices given in advance, and demanded and sued for the cancellation of the objection, the continuation of the proceeding and the decision to be made for 20% execution denial compensation.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the plaintiff’s claims were not true and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Court ruled that the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court in due time, stated that the competent court is the Fethiye courts, that the place of performance of the contract and the defendant’s domicile court is the Fethiye courts in the case at hand, and that the petition of the lawsuit was dismissed procedurally due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court, and that the competent court is the Fethiye Civil Court of First Instance as a commercial court, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The lawsuit petition was served to the defendant on 16.09.2014, the defendant’s attorney requested the extension of the response period for two weeks with the petition dated 30.09.2014 (titled our first objections) and the service of the additional documents to the lawsuit petition on the grounds that they were not served, objected to jurisdiction, but did not indicate the competent court. The court rejected the request on the grounds that the annotation on the notification document regarding the service of the lawsuit petition was erroneous and that the extension of the time to respond was not requested in due time.
In the petition of objection to this interim decision, an objection of jurisdiction was also made, but the competent court was not indicated. With the interim decision dated 22.12.2012, the court decided to extend the time to respond for two weeks from the notification. With the petition dated 12.01.2015, the defendant’s attorney again objected to the jurisdiction and this time indicated Fethiye Courts as the competent court.
In cases where the jurisdiction is not conclusive, in order for the court to hear the objection of jurisdiction, the defendant must indicate the competent court according to its own opinion, or if there is more than one competent court, one of them must be indicated in this objection. Otherwise, the court shall dismiss the objection of jurisdiction as it is not admissible (Art. 19/f.II CCP). Since there is no objection of jurisdiction duly filed in due time in the concrete case within the process explained above, it is contrary to the procedure and the law to decide that the court lacks jurisdiction as written, while the objection of jurisdiction should be rejected.
Conclusion For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 16.06.2016 that the decision of the court shall be DISMISSED and the advance fee shall be refunded upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.