Precedent decision from Yarıgtay for the real estate agent who could not receive his commission!

A real estate agent in Izmir claimed that he could not receive the 104 thousand 250 lira commission fee he was supposed to receive from the house he sold. The incident in question was taken to court. The Supreme Court made an important decision in consumer disputes.

According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Supreme Court made an important decision in the dispute arising from the real estate commission. Stating that the fact that enforcement proceedings have been initiated for the same receivable does not prevent the application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee, the Supreme Court found the decision of the first instance court to be contrary to procedure and law and overturned it in the interest of law. The Supreme Court made an important decision in the case filed regarding the collection of real estate commission, which closely concerns both the real estate sector and the citizens who buy and sell housing.

In the legal process that started over the allegedly unpaid real estate commission for a house sold in Izmir, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the first instance court was contrary to procedure and law and decided to overturn the decision in the interest of law. The decision also clarified the discussions on whether enforcement proceedings and Consumer Arbitration Tribunal applications can be carried out simultaneously, especially in real estate commission receivables. THE DISPUTE STARTED WITH THE SALE OF A HOUSE IN IZMIR According to the file, the dispute started with the allegation that the real estate commission was not paid after a house sale in Izmir in 2025.

Claiming that he could not collect the commission fee, the real estate agent first applied to the Consumer Arbitration Committee. However, the Arbitration Panel decided to reject the application. Thereupon, the real estate agent initiated enforcement proceedings in order to collect his receivables of approximately 104 thousand 250 liras.

The defendant, who bought the house, objected to the commission request and argued that the real estate agent did not act as an intermediary in the sale transaction. The defendant also claimed that the person appearing as the seller in the sales contract is not the real owner of the real estate, therefore the contract cannot be considered legally valid. For these reasons, he argued that both the commission request and the objection to the Consumer Arbitration Panel decision should be rejected.

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REJECTED THE REAL ESTATE AGENT'S REQUEST The first instance court, which evaluated the dispute, cited the fact that enforcement proceedings had previously been initiated at the Aliağa Enforcement Directorate due to the same receivable. The court changed the reasoning of the Consumer Arbitration Panel's rejection decision and approved the decision and rejected the real estate agent's objection. Against the decision of the first instance court, the Ministry of Justice appealed in the interest of law.

In its evaluation, the Ministry stated that the creditor can both initiate enforcement proceedings within the scope of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law and apply to the Consumer Arbitration Committee as long as the dispute remains within the monetary limit. In the application, it was emphasized that these two legal methods do not interfere with each other, and it was stated that it was not lawful for the court to make a decision only on procedural aspects when it should have examined the merits. COURT OF COURT: EXECUTION PROCEEDING DOES NOT OBSTACLE APPLICATION TO THE ARBITRATOR. The Supreme Court, which examined the file, made remarkable evaluations.

The Supreme Court stated that enforcement proceedings were initiated on May 8, 2025, due to the receivable, and the proceedings were stopped on June 10, 2025, upon the objection of the debtor. He then pointed out that an application was made to the Arbitral Tribunal on June 20, 2025, since the amount of the receivable was within the duty limit of the Consumer Arbitration Tribunal. The Supreme Court emphasized that there was no case pending on the same issue at the time the application was made to the Arbitral Tribunal, therefore the conditions for "pending" were not met.

The decision also stated that the initiation of enforcement proceedings in accordance with Article 67 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 does not constitute an obstacle to filing a debt lawsuit or using other legal remedies. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that in disputes within the monetary limit for 2025, consumers and creditors can both resort to enforcement proceedings and appeal to the Consumer Arbitration Panel. Stating that these two legal methods do not constitute an obstacle to each other, the Supreme Court ruled that it was against the procedure and law for the first instance court to conclude the case with different justifications, although it should have decided on the merits of the case.