133 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Hacı KARA According to the BAM decision, “the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is in the nature of a power of attorney agreement. The power of attorney agreement has been included in the scope of Law No 6502, which entered into force on 28.05.2014. The lawsuit was filed on 08.05.2017. According to the provisional article 1 of the Consumer Law No. 6502: “This Lawsuits filed before the effective date of the law will continue to be heard in the court where they were filed”. Therefore, stating that no decision of non-jurisdiction can be given for lawsuits filed before it enters into force. Consumer transaction is also defined in clause I of the article. It included such transportation, power of attorney, brokerage, insurance, banking, working, etc. in the scope of the consumer contracts, which is established between the real person and legal consumers. The duty of the Commercial Courts is regulated in articles 4 and 5 of the TCC No 6102, and the plaintiffs that he was not a trader, accordingly, the relative merits of the case, since it is understood that there is no free lawsuit and there is a consumer transaction between the parties, the court in charge of this case is the consumer court. Considering the date of the dispute between the parties and the effective date of the Act No 6502, the decision of the court that the Consumer Courts are in charge is appropriate since it is a consumer transaction and the consumer Courts are in charge. Since the dispute between the parties remains within the scope of the Law on the Protection of the Consumer, the Consumer Court is responsible for hearing the case. The regulations related to the task are related to public order and are observed ex officio at every stage of the proceedings, even if the parties do not put them forward. There is no vested right in matters related to the task. Considering the reasons for the appeal and the decision made in the examination made within the scope of the file, considering the decision and its justification, it was unanimously decided to reject the appeal law application on the merits, saying that the appeal requests of the plaintiffs were not deemed appropriate, since the decision of the first instance court was in accordance with the procedure and the law.51 As can be seen from the decisions, in some decisions it has been decided that the court in charge of hearing the case is the “Commerci51 http://emsaI.uyap.gov.tr/BilgiBankasiIstemciWeb/, (Date of Access: 28.08.2019).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1