A görevsizlik kararı (decision of non-jurisdiction) is a ruling by a Turkish civil court that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction (görev) over the case. Subject-matter jurisdiction is fixed by law and is a matter of public order (Law No. 6100, Article 1), so the court examines it on its own initiative. The file is not sent on automatically: a party must apply to the same court within two weeks and ask for it to be sent to the competent court, otherwise the action is deemed not to have been brought (Article 20). Lack of territorial competence is a separate ruling, the yetkisizlik kararı.
Anyone involved in a lawsuit in Türkiye, whether as a Turkish national or as a foreign individual or company, will sooner or later encounter procedural rulings that can change the direction of the case without ever touching its merits. One of the most consequential of these is the görevsizlik kararı, the decision of non-jurisdiction. This ruling does not decide who is right or wrong; it decides that the court in which the case was filed is not the court that the law assigns to hear it. Because the Turkish court system is divided into general courts and a growing number of specialised courts, and because the rules governing this division are mandatory and cannot be altered by the parties, a wrongly chosen court is a surprisingly common and surprisingly costly mistake. This guide explains what a decision of non-jurisdiction is, how it differs from a decision of lack of territorial competence, what happens to the case after the ruling, the strict two week deadline that follows, and how the decision can be challenged, all under the Code of Civil Procedure, Law No. 6100, as currently in force.
The Turkish term görev, in the context of civil procedure, refers to the allocation of disputes among different types of courts according to their subject matter and, historically, according to the value of the claim. A görevsizlik kararı is therefore a judicial determination that the dispute, by its nature, belongs to a different type of court: for example, that a claim filed before a civil court of first instance, asliye hukuk mahkemesi, should in fact have been filed before a commercial court, a labour court, a consumer court, or a civil court of peace, sulh hukuk mahkemesi.
The rule exists to protect the structure of the judiciary rather than the interests of any one litigant. Specialised courts are created by the legislature precisely because certain categories of dispute call for judges with particular expertise and for procedures tailored to that field. Allowing a party to bypass that allocation by filing in a court of its own choosing would defeat the purpose of the specialisation. For this reason the law treats subject-matter jurisdiction as a rule of public order, kamu düzeni, with all the consequences described in section 3 below.
A frequent source of confusion, including in material written for foreign readers, is the tendency to describe the decision of non-jurisdiction as covering both the type of court and its geographic location. Turkish procedural law draws a sharp line between these two concepts, and the consequences of each are different.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, görev, answers the question of which kind of court must hear the dispute. It is governed by Articles 1 to 4 of Law No. 6100 and by the special laws establishing each specialised court. A ruling that a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction is a görevsizlik kararı.
Territorial competence, yetki, answers the question of which court, among courts of the same type, is competent by reason of location, typically the court of the defendant's domicile under Article 6 of Law No. 6100, subject to the special rules in Articles 7 to 16. A ruling that a court lacks territorial competence is a yetkisizlik kararı. Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial competence is in most cases not a matter of public order: the parties may agree on a competent court by a jurisdiction clause under Article 17, and an objection to territorial competence must generally be raised in the defendant's answer under Article 19 or it is lost. Only where the law designates an exclusive, kesin, territorial competence, as it does for disputes over immovable property under Article 12, is the territorial rule mandatory and examined by the court of its own motion.
The two rulings share the same procedure after they are issued, which is why Article 20 of Law No. 6100 deals with both together, but the grounds on which they rest and the way they must be raised are entirely distinct.
Article 1 of Law No. 6100 states that the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courts is regulated only by statute and that the rules governing it are a matter of public order. Three practical consequences follow from this single sentence.
The court must verify its own subject-matter jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings, from the moment the petition is filed until judgment, without waiting for either party to raise the issue. A defendant who has not objected, or who has actively consented to the court, does not thereby cure the defect.
Because the rule is statutory and protects the public interest, no contract, jurisdiction clause, or procedural agreement can confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a court that the law does not give it. A clause in a commercial contract naming the civil court of first instance in Istanbul will not prevent that court from declining jurisdiction in favour of the Istanbul commercial court if the dispute is commercial in nature.
Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised by either party at any point in the proceedings and is one of the grounds the Regional Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation examine of their own motion. A judgment on the merits delivered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is open to being set aside for that reason alone, regardless of whether the outcome was substantively correct, which is why identifying the correct court before filing is not a formality but a fundamental step in case strategy.
Under Article 2 of Law No. 6100, the civil court of first instance, asliye hukuk mahkemesi, is the court of general jurisdiction: it hears every dispute concerning assets and personal rights that the law does not assign elsewhere. Article 4 lists the matters reserved to the civil court of peace, sulh hukuk mahkemesi, including disputes arising from lease relationships, partition of jointly owned property, protection of possession, and a number of non-contentious matters. Alongside these two general courts, a series of specialised courts have been created by special legislation, and it is the boundary between these courts that generates most decisions of non-jurisdiction in practice.
| Court | Principal Legal Basis and Typical Disputes |
|---|---|
| Civil court of first instance, asliye hukuk | Article 2 of Law No. 6100; all civil disputes not assigned to another court, including most tort and general contract claims |
| Civil court of peace, sulh hukuk | Article 4 of Law No. 6100; lease disputes, partition, possession, many non-contentious matters |
| Commercial court of first instance, asliye ticaret | Articles 4 and 5 of the Commercial Code, Law No. 6102; commercial disputes, company law, negotiable instruments, disputes between merchants arising from their commercial enterprises |
| Labour court, iş mahkemesi | Law No. 7036; disputes arising from employment relationships and social security matters |
| Consumer court, tüketici mahkemesi | Article 73 of the Consumer Protection Law, Law No. 6502; disputes arising from consumer transactions above the arbitration committee threshold |
| Family court, aile mahkemesi | Law No. 4787; divorce, custody, maintenance, and other family law matters |
| Civil court for intellectual and industrial property rights | Industrial Property Law, Law No. 6769, and Law No. 5846; trademark, patent, design, and copyright disputes |
| Cadastral court, kadastro mahkemesi | Law No. 3402; disputes arising from cadastral determinations |
Where no specialised court has been established in a particular judicial district, the civil court of first instance or the civil court of peace, as designated by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, sits in that capacity. A ruling by such a court that it is hearing the case in its capacity as, for example, the commercial court rather than the general civil court is not a decision of non-jurisdiction but an internal allocation, although the distinction can still affect which procedural rules apply. For specific dispute types such as consumer matters, dedicated rules determine the competent court and the monetary thresholds, and these thresholds are updated regularly, so the figures should always be verified for the year in which the case is filed.
Under Article 114 of Law No. 6100, subject-matter jurisdiction is one of the conditions of the action, dava şartı, that the court must verify before proceeding to the merits. In the ordinary course, the court examines this condition during the preliminary examination stage, ön inceleme, under Articles 137 to 142, and issues the decision of non-jurisdiction at that point if the defect is apparent. The defendant may, and in practice should, draw the court's attention to the issue in the answer to the petition, but the court's duty to examine it does not depend on an objection.
Because the defect concerns public order, the court can also issue a decision of non-jurisdiction later in the trial, for example where the nature of the dispute only becomes clear after evidence has been taken, or where a higher court has in the meantime clarified the allocation of jurisdiction in a similar case. The timing of the decision does not change its content, but it does affect how much of the work already done can be preserved, as explained in section 7 below.
The decision of non-jurisdiction is a final procedural decision, usule ilişkin nihai karar, and must be reasoned in the same way as any other judgment under Article 297 of Law No. 6100. It must identify the legal basis for the finding that the court lacks jurisdiction and must name the court it considers competent. Under Article 331, paragraph 2, the court issuing a decision of non-jurisdiction does not rule on the costs of the proceedings; the costs are decided by the court that ultimately determines the merits of the case. A decision that fails to state its reasoning, or that fails to designate the competent court, is defective and provides grounds for appeal.
This is the stage at which cases are most often lost through inattention. A decision of non-jurisdiction does not, by itself, transfer the case to the competent court. The transfer must be requested, and the request is subject to a strict deadline.
Under Article 20 of Law No. 6100, as amended by Law No. 7251 in 2020, one of the parties must apply to the court that issued the decision and request that the file be sent to the competent court within two weeks. The starting point of the two week period depends on the status of the decision: where the decision is final at the moment it is issued, the period runs from notification; where it becomes final because no appeal was filed within the appeal period, the period runs from the date it became final; and where an appeal was filed and rejected, the period runs from notification of the rejection decision. Either party may make the application, and in practice the plaintiff, who has the greater interest in keeping the case alive, is the party that must be vigilant.
If no application is made within the two week period, the court rules that the case is deemed not to have been filed, davanın açılmamış sayılması. This is not a dismissal on the merits, so the plaintiff is in principle free to file a fresh action before the competent court, but all the procedural benefits of the original filing date are lost, including its effect on limitation periods and on interest. Where a limitation period or a preclusive deadline has expired in the meantime, the loss of the original filing date may be fatal to the claim.
Where the application is made in time, the court that issued the decision sends the file to the court it designated as competent, and the parties are not required to pay a fresh filing fee. The case continues before the competent court as a continuation of the original action, not as a new one. The competent court notifies the parties of the first hearing date and the proceedings resume.
Where the file is transferred in time under Article 20, the case is treated as having been filed on the date of the original petition, so the interruption of the limitation period achieved by that filing is preserved. Where instead the case is deemed not filed, Article 158 of the Code of Obligations, Law No. 6098, provides a safety net: if an action is rejected because the court lacked jurisdiction or competence and the limitation period has expired in the meantime, the creditor is granted an additional period of sixty days to file the action anew. This provision mitigates, but does not eliminate, the risk, because it applies to limitation periods, zamanaşımı, and not to every preclusive deadline, hak düşürücü süre, created by special legislation.
Evidence lawfully gathered by the first court, including expert reports, witness statements, and documents obtained from third parties, forms part of the file transferred to the competent court. The competent court is not bound to re-examine the evidence from scratch, but it retains full discretion to order supplementary evidence, to appoint a new expert, or to re-hear witnesses where the nature of the dispute before a specialised court requires a different approach. In practice, a decision of non-jurisdiction issued late in the proceedings therefore results in some, but rarely all, of the earlier work being repeated.
An interim injunction, ihtiyati tedbir, granted by the court that later declares itself without jurisdiction does not automatically lapse with the decision of non-jurisdiction. The measure remains in effect until the competent court reviews it, and a party seeking its continuation or lifting should raise the matter promptly before the competent court once the file arrives.
Because a decision of non-jurisdiction halts the trial and restarts it elsewhere, it is sometimes raised by defendants primarily as a delaying tactic, and sometimes filed by plaintiffs in the wrong court deliberately in order to obtain an interim measure quickly from a less specialised bench. Turkish courts are alert to both practices. A defendant who raises an unfounded jurisdictional objection gains little, since the objection is decided quickly at the preliminary examination stage, and a plaintiff who files in the wrong court knowingly risks the two week deadline, the loss of the original filing date, and an adverse costs decision from the court that finally decides the merits. The sound approach for both sides is to resolve the jurisdictional question before filing, and, where the allocation is genuinely uncertain because the dispute straddles two categories, to file in the court that the most recent case law of the Court of Cassation designates and to address the issue openly in the petition.
A decision of non-jurisdiction is a final procedural decision and is subject to appeal, istinaf, before the Regional Court of Appeal under Article 341 of Law No. 6100. The appeal must be filed within two weeks of notification of the reasoned decision. Where the Regional Court of Appeal finds that the first instance court did in fact have jurisdiction, it sets the decision aside under Article 353, paragraph 1, and returns the file to that court to continue the proceedings. Where it agrees that the court lacked jurisdiction, it rejects the appeal, and the two week period under Article 20 then begins to run from notification of the rejection.
Whether a decision of the Regional Court of Appeal concerning jurisdiction can be taken further to the Court of Cassation, Yargıtay, depends on the general rules in Articles 361 and 362 of Law No. 6100, including the monetary threshold for cassation appeals, which is updated annually. For disputes below the threshold, the Regional Court of Appeal's decision on jurisdiction is final.
Occasionally two courts each decline jurisdiction over the same case, a negative conflict, or each assert it, a positive conflict. Articles 21 to 23 of Law No. 6100 address this situation through the designation of the competent court, merci tayini: the parties or the court itself apply to the common superior court, which determines which court must hear the case, and that determination is binding. Where the conflict is not between two civil courts but between the civil and the administrative jurisdictions, for example where a civil court and an administrative court each decline a claim involving a public authority, the matter is resolved by the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi, under Law No. 2247.
Although this guide focuses on civil litigation, the same concept exists in the other branches of the Turkish judiciary. In criminal proceedings, Articles 3 to 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271, allocate cases among criminal courts of peace, criminal courts of first instance, and heavy penal courts according to the offence and the penalty it carries; a criminal court that finds itself without jurisdiction issues a decision of non-jurisdiction and sends the file to the competent court directly, without the two week application mechanism of civil procedure. In administrative proceedings, Article 15 of the Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 2577, provides that where a case belonging to the civil courts is filed before an administrative court, the petition is rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the claimant must file anew before the civil court, with the original filing date preserved for deadline purposes where the new case is filed within the period prescribed by that law. The practical lesson is the same in each branch: the identity of the competent court is the first question to resolve, not the last.
It translates as a decision of non-jurisdiction, specifically a ruling that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the type of dispute before it.
Görevsizlik concerns the type of court, for example commercial rather than general civil; yetkisizlik concerns the geographic location of the court. The first is a matter of public order; the second, in most cases, is not.
No. Under Article 1 of Law No. 6100, subject-matter jurisdiction is fixed by statute and cannot be altered by agreement, consent, or silence.
No. The court must examine its own subject-matter jurisdiction of its own motion at every stage, although a timely objection in the answer to the petition is strongly advisable.
No. One of the parties must apply to the court that issued the decision within two weeks under Article 20 of Law No. 6100 and request that the file be transferred.
The case is deemed not to have been filed. A fresh action may be brought, but the original filing date and its effect on limitation periods are lost.
No. Where the transfer is requested in time, the file is sent to the competent court without a new filing fee, and the proceedings continue as the same action.
Yes. It is a final procedural decision and can be appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal within two weeks of notification under Article 341 of Law No. 6100.
No. It is purely procedural and says nothing about the merits; the competent court decides the substance of the dispute.
Under Article 331, paragraph 2, of Law No. 6100, the court issuing the decision of non-jurisdiction does not rule on costs; the court that finally decides the merits does.
Generally yes, until the competent court reviews it; the interested party should raise the matter before the competent court as soon as the file arrives.
Where the file is transferred in time, the original filing date is preserved. Where the case is deemed not filed, Article 158 of the Code of Obligations grants an additional sixty days to file anew, although this does not cover every preclusive deadline under special laws.
This negative conflict is resolved through the designation of the competent court by the common superior court under Articles 21 to 23 of Law No. 6100; conflicts between civil and administrative jurisdictions go to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.
The concept exists under Articles 3 to 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the criminal court sends the file to the competent court directly without the two week application requirement of civil procedure.
Yes. The rules apply equally to all litigants, and a foreign claimant unfamiliar with the division between commercial, consumer, labour, and general civil courts in Türkiye is particularly exposed to filing in the wrong court and to missing the two week transfer deadline.
By determining the competent court before filing on the basis of the governing statutes and the most recent case law of the Court of Cassation, and, where the allocation is uncertain, by addressing the question openly in the petition.
The decision of non-jurisdiction is one of the quieter but more unforgiving features of Turkish civil procedure. It rests on the principle, set out in Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the allocation of disputes among the courts is a matter of public order that no party can waive and no court can ignore. Its practical significance lies less in the ruling itself than in what follows it: the two week deadline under Article 20 to request transfer of the file, the loss of the original filing date if that deadline is missed, and the resulting exposure to limitation periods that may have expired in the meantime. For foreign litigants in particular, the division of the Turkish judiciary into general and specialised courts is unfamiliar territory, and the identification of the correct court is a question to be settled before the first petition is drafted rather than discovered after the first hearing.
For an assessment of which court has jurisdiction over a specific dispute, or for assistance with an active decision of non-jurisdiction, an appeal, or a transfer application under Article 20, our legal team can review your case and advise on the procedural steps available under the current law.
See also: Consumer Courts in Turkey, Davadan Feragat: Case Withdrawal in Turkish Law, Reasoned Decisions (Gerekçeli Karar) in Turkish Law and Tehiri İcra: Deferred Enforcement in Turkey.
