Supreme Court decision that "enforcement proceedings and receivables cases do not constitute a pending relationship"

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals found it unlawful to reject the receivables lawsuit filed by a real estate agent following the enforcement proceedings initiated on the claim that the commission fee was not paid, on the grounds that the enforcement file was pending. According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, a real estate agent in Izmir initiated enforcement proceedings on the grounds that he could not collect the commission fee from the relevant person after the sale of a house he brokered, and then applied to the consumer arbitration committee. Following the rejection decision of the consumer arbitration committee, the real estate agent filed a lawsuit to have his demand met and to decide on the dispute on its merits.

Izmir 7th Consumer Court, which presided over the trial, decided to reject the case, citing the fact that the plaintiff real estate agent initiated enforcement proceedings before her complaint against the defendant. After the decision became final, the Ministry of Justice requested an appeal in the interest of law, on the grounds that the plaintiff could both pursue enforcement and appeal to the consumer arbitration committee, and therefore the local court decision was unlawful. The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which reviewed the appeal, overturned the local court decision in the interest of law, without affecting the outcome.

In the decision of the chamber, it was stated that the subject of the dispute was that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the issue after initiating the enforcement proceedings. In the decision, it was stated that among the conditions of the case, a second lawsuit cannot be filed on the same issue while there is a pending file, and it was stated that for disputes under 149 thousand liras as of the date of the case, the plaintiff can pursue both enforcement and litigation, and that these will not constitute a pending case against each other. In addition, in the decision, it was stated that the plaintiff objected to the enforcement proceedings initiated by the real estate agent, and that after the suspension of the enforcement proceedings, the consumer appealed first to the arbitral tribunal and then to the court within the scope of the receivables case.

"Considering that both legal possibilities do not constitute a continuation of each other, it is against the procedure and law to make a decision in writing, although the decision should be made by going into the merits of the case (by the court), and the Ministry of Justice's appeal request for the sake of the law regarding this aspect has to be accepted. The statement was included."