A decision in which a Turkish court states that it is not the competent court does not decide the dispute, and a party abroad who reads it as a loss will act on the wrong assumption. The document does two things instead: it names the court that is competent, and it starts a short period within which somebody has to ask for the file to be moved. Both come from the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), and both depend on a distinction that English tends to erase, since Turkish has two separate words where English often uses one.
Two Turkish words, one English word
Görev is the allocation of a case according to its subject matter, and it is a condition of the action under Article 114(1)(c). Yetki is the allocation according to place, and it is a condition of the action only where the rule is exclusive (Article 114(1)(ç)). A decision is accordingly a görevsizlik kararı or a yetkisizlik kararı, and the two are not interchangeable: the first sends the case to a different kind of court, the second to the same kind of court in a different place. Renderings such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of venue keep them apart, and whichever pair is chosen, the Turkish name goes in brackets at the first mention so that a later reference in the file can be traced.
Raised by the court, or only in the defence
Where venue is exclusive, the court is obliged to investigate of its own motion, until the end of the case, whether it has venue, and the parties may raise the point at any time (Article 19(1)). Where venue is not exclusive, the objection has to be raised in the statement of defence, and the objecting party names the court with venue or, where there are several, the one it chooses; otherwise the objection is not taken into account (Article 19(2)). If the defendant does not object in time and in due form, the court where the action was brought becomes the court with venue (Article 19(4)). Such an objection is a preliminary objection (Article 116(1)(a)), and all preliminary objections must be raised in the statement of defence or they cannot be heard; they are examined after the conditions of the action and are dealt with like preliminary issues (Article 117). A defence filed abroad therefore has one chance to make this point.
The decision names another court
Article 19(3) requires a court giving a decision of lack of venue to indicate the court which does have venue. So the document holds two institutional names, and telling them apart in English decides where a party writes next. Both are rendered with their Turkish names in brackets, and the city and number of the court are never altered.
Two weeks to move the file
Article 20(1) is the operative provision for the party. Once a decision of lack of jurisdiction or of venue has been given, one of the parties has two weeks to apply to the court that gave it and ask for the file to be sent to the competent court; otherwise the action is deemed not to have been brought, and the court that gave the decision rules on that of its own motion. The two weeks are counted from the date of service where the decision is final when given, from the date the decision became final where no remedy was used within the period, or from the date of service of the decision rejecting the remedy. The wording of this sentence has moved: the Constitutional Court annulled a phrase in it by its decision of 10 February 2016, E:2015/96, K:2016/9, and Law No. 7251 of 22 July 2020 added the words on a decision that is final when given. An older decision therefore states the rule of its own day, and the translation follows the text in front of it. The court receiving the file then sends summonses to the parties of its own motion (Article 20(2)).
Rejected on procedure, not decided on the merits
These decisions belong to a family whose English names are easy to confuse. Where a court establishes that a condition of the action is missing, it rejects the action on procedural grounds, and where the deficiency can be cured it first grants a definite period to cure it (Article 115(2)); a deficiency not noticed before the merits were entered into and cured by the time of judgment cannot lead to rejection (Article 115(3)). A rejection on procedural grounds is not a decision that the claim is unfounded, and the English text says which of the two it is. Nothing in such a decision says who was right about the dispute.
What the translation has to make visible
Three things carry the whole document: which of the two allocations was missing, which court was named as competent, and from which date the two weeks were counted. A translation that renders the heading as a dismissal, or that leaves the second court unnamed, turns a procedural stop into an apparent defeat. Weeks stay weeks, no last date is calculated, and the deemed consequence in the final sentence is rendered at full strength. Acte Tercüme translates Turkish decisions of lack of jurisdiction and of venue, and the applications made on them, into English.