Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court of Appeals
Law Division
2015/9657
2016/10945
November 8, 2016
Article 4721/m.989
CASE: Following a petition filed on March 7, 2014, by the plaintiff’s attorney against the defendant, requesting the determination and registration of vehicle ownership, the court rendered a decision on April 8, 2015, accepting the claim. The defendant’s attorney requested a hearing before the Supreme Court of Appeals to review this decision. The defendant’s attorney appeared for the hearing scheduled for November 8, 2016. The plaintiff did not attend. The hearing commenced. After deciding to accept the appeal petition, which was found to be filed within the time limit, and after hearing the oral statement of the party present, the hearing was adjourned. The case file was then reviewed. The case was reviewed based on the report prepared by the investigating judge and the documents in the file, and the following was considered:
DECISION: The case concerns the determination and registration of vehicle ownership. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed the judgment.
The plaintiff stated that the vehicle, which belonged to him, was taken from him against his will, that a public prosecution was initiated against third parties for fraud, that the vehicle was first transferred to a third party, then to another third party, and finally to the defendant, and that these transfers were invalid. Therefore, he requested the determination that the vehicle belongs to him and its registration in his name.
The defendant argued that he was a bona fide third party and that he purchased the vehicle from a dealership, and that the case should be dismissed.
The court concluded that the defendant acted in good faith; however, considering the situations of the owner who lost the vehicle against his will and the defendant who purchased the vehicle in good faith, the court… The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, accepting the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff’s grievance should be given priority and that the defendant did not present a defense claiming that the vehicle was purchased from an auction or a car dealership.
Article 989 of the Turkish Civil Code, titled “Action for the Protection of Movable Property,” states: “A possessor whose movable property has been stolen, lost, or otherwise taken from them against their will may file an action for the protection of movable property against anyone holding that property within five years. If the movable property was acquired in good faith from an auction, market, or similar seller of goods, an action for the protection of movable property against the first and subsequent acquirers in good faith may only be filed on the condition that the price paid is returned.”
As can be understood from the text of the article, if a third party in good faith acquires something that has been taken from its owner without their consent from an auction, market, or a person selling such goods; The right of the original owner to win a restitution lawsuit against this person or subsequent acquirers is subject to a condition. In such cases, the price paid by the bona fide third party to acquire the property must be returned to them by the plaintiff, i.e., the original owner. If this condition is not met, the court cannot accept the restitution lawsuit filed by the original owner. (Judgment of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals, dated 25/09/2002, Case No. 2002/4-608, Decision No. 2002/643)
In the concrete case, the defendant stated that they purchased the vehicle in question from a person named … who is a car dealer, in other words, from … Automotive; as evidence, they presented the notarized sales contract dated 28/04/2011 regarding the transfer of the vehicle and the tax registration information of … who is not a party to the lawsuit. In the letter dated 24/11/2014 written by the Malatya Tax Office to the court; It has been reported that the company registered under tax number … started its retail trade of automobiles and light motor vehicles on July 17, 2009, and that this activity is still ongoing. Therefore, it is understood that the defendant acquired the vehicle from someone selling such goods. Furthermore, the court also accepts that the defendant acted in good faith. There is no claim or evidence to the contrary within the case file. Therefore, the plaintiff can only reclaim the vehicle from the defendant by paying its price. While the court should have ruled in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of the price, the fact that this was not taken into consideration when rendering the judgment is not in accordance with procedural rules and law, therefore the decision must be overturned.
Furthermore, registration is an administrative act, and the cancellation of the registration in the traffic registry and the decision to register a new one constitutes a decision that compels the administration to take action. However, a decision that compels the administration to take action cannot be made in a judicial court. The court should have limited itself to determining ownership; it is incorrect to order the cancellation of the vehicle registration record and the subsequent registration and recording.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, the appealed decision is REVERSED, and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the 1,350.00 TL court attorney fees awarded in favor of the defendant. The advance court fee shall be refunded upon request. This decision was made unanimously on November 8, 2016.