Supreme Court Decision

1st Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/3281 E., Decision No. 2024/5433 K.

"Case Law Text"

COURT: Konya Regional Court of Appeals, 6th Civil Chamber CASE
NUMBER: 2021/509, Decision Number: 2023/324
JUDGMENT: Rejection of the application on its merits
FIRST INSTANCE COURT: Konya 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance
CASE NUMBER: 2016/733 E., 2020/647 K.

Following the trial in the compensation case between the parties, the First Instance Court decided to dismiss the case.

Following an appeal by the plaintiff's attorney, the Regional Court of Appeals rejected the application on its merits.

The Regional Court of Appeal's decision was appealed by the plaintiff's attorney; after a preliminary examination regarding finality, time limits, appeal conditions, and other procedural deficiencies, the appeal petition was accepted, and after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge, the documents in the file were examined and the necessary considerations were made:

CASE I
The plaintiff's attorney stated in the lawsuit that their client had obtained commercial loans from the defendant bank on various dates and in different amounts, namely a commercial loan of 83,000.00 TL with a 24-month repayment period and a total repayment of 98,981.67 TL, and a commercial loan of 92,000.00 TL with a 24-month repayment period and a total repayment of 109,714.66 TL. The lawsuit further stated that the Competition Board, in its decision dated March 8, 2013, file number 2011-4-91, decision number 13-13/198-100, had ordered 12 banks, including the defendant bank, to collude in price fixing for loans and credit cards between August 21, 2017 and September 22, 2011 cartel It was determined that the banks had created a situation where they had increased their interest rates, thereby causing harm to their customers and making unfair profits. The administrative fine imposed as a result of this was appealed by the banks, and the appeal was rejected by the Ankara 2nd Administrative Court on February 20, 2015, with case number 2014/2000 E. and 2015/258 K. An appeal was filed against this rejection, and the 13th Chamber of the Council of State upheld the rejection decision on December 16, 2015, with case number 2015/4548 E. and 2015/4616 K. The aforementioned decision revealed that the 12 banks in question had increased their interest rates, thereby causing harm to their customers and making unfair profits. The decision also found that these 12 banks had increased their interest rates in their credit/credit card services cartel The lawyer argued that the free market conditions were disrupted because interest rates were determined jointly by the creditors, that interest rates increased, and therefore, unusually high interest rates were applied to loans and credit cards taken out during the specified period, affecting his client's loans cartel The plaintiff claims that they suffered losses due to paying high interest because the loan was used during the period in question, and that according to Articles 57 and 58 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the resulting damages. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the defendant be ordered to pay three times the amount of the damages inflicted on their client, plus advance interest of 100.00 TL, reserving the right to claim further amounts, in accordance with Articles 57 and 58 of Law No. 4054.

II. ANSWER
In its response, the defendant's attorney argued that the finalization of the annulment lawsuit filed in Ankara 2nd Administrative Court under case number 2014/2000 E. should be awaited, that the lawsuit is time-barred, that the conditions for claiming material compensation have not been met, that as of the date of the lawsuit, there was no element of unlawful act and no damage suffered by the plaintiff, that there is no causal link between the damage and the act, that there is no fault requiring liability on the part of the bank, and that the conditions for the compensation requested by the plaintiff, up to three times the amount, have not been met, and therefore requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.

III. FIRST INSTANCE COURT DECISION
The First Instance Court's decision, dated and numbered as stated above, determined that the plaintiff had obtained commercial vehicle loans from the defendant bank's Karatay/Konya Branch in 2008, based on general loan agreements totaling 83,000.00 TL and 92,000.00 TL, with repayment amounts of 98,981.67 TL and 109,714.66 TL respectively, and that these loans were used within 2008. The expert report stated that the defendant bank granted the commercial vehicle loans to the plaintiff at an interest rate 0.17% lower than the average interest rates of other banks, thus favoring the plaintiff, and that it was not possible to speak of any loss for the plaintiff; the report further stated that each loan was unique and specific to the plaintiff cartel It was considered that the cases in question could not serve as precedents in the present case file, and according to the Competition Board's decision, some banks, both defendants and non-party to the lawsuit, colluded among themselves to prevent interest rates from falling below a certain level for the period from August 21, 2007 to September 22, 2011 cartel they created, however, the plaintiff used cartel It is important to determine whether commercial vehicle loans falling within the scope of the Competition Board are subject to its jurisdiction. Following an examination of the expert report's findings, the Competition Board's decision, and the rulings of the Ankara 2nd Administrative Court and the Council of State's 13th Chamber in the lawsuit filed for its annulment, it was concluded that the defendant bank and 11 other banks should apply minimum interest rates in the housing loan and consumer loan branches (more specifically, in these two types of loans used by consumers) cartel The fact that it could not be alleged or proven that the transactions they created regarding consumer loans were applied to commercial loans, the impossibility of applying the precedent court decisions in consumer loan cases to the commercial loans in our case, and the commercial vehicle loans used by the plaintiff.. cartel The court dismissed the case on the grounds that it had no relation to the interest rate and, on the contrary, the defendant bank had kept the interest rate lower in favor of the plaintiff compared to the interest rates applied by comparable banks, and that it was not possible to claim any loss for the plaintiff.

IV. APPEAL
A. Appellants
The plaintiff's attorney filed an appeal within the prescribed time limit against the aforementioned decision of the First Instance Court.

B. Grounds for Appeal
In the appeal petition, the plaintiff's attorney summarized that their client had obtained loans from the defendant bank on various dates and in different amounts, and that the defendant bank, mentioned in the Competition Board's decision, had created unfair competition cartel The lawyer claims that the bank harmed his client by increasing interest rates through the contract, that his client suffered damages due to illegalities and irregularities, and that his client was harmed by the contract between the banks cartel He argued that it was out of the question for his client not to be affected by the agreement, and that the court's attempt to determine whether his client suffered any damage under this agreement by taking the average interest rates offered by other banks during that period was also unlawful, as most banks already offered this kind of service cartel The lawyer argued that the court's decision that the client suffered no loss under the loan agreement was erroneous, given that the interest rate on the loan was lower than the artificial interest rate increases, rates, and averages applied by banks during the loan period, but that these requests and objections were not considered by the court cartel The defendant argued that, in the absence of an agreement, it would be necessary to determine at what interest rate the client would have obtained the loan, that it was not possible to determine whether the client had suffered any loss by looking at average interest rates, and therefore, the case should be referred to an expert from the Competition Authority. The defendant further argued that the conditions for compensation under Article 58 of Law No. 4054 had been met and requested the annulment of the First Instance Court's decision.

C. Reasoning and Conclusion
The Regional Court of Appeals, in its decision dated and numbered as stated above, decided to reject the application on its merits, on the grounds that there were no procedural or legal irregularities in the First Instance Court's factual and legal assessment.

V. APPEAL
A. Appellants
The plaintiff's attorney filed an appeal within the prescribed time limit against the aforementioned decision of the Regional Court of Appeal.

B. Grounds for Appeal
The plaintiff's attorney, in the appeal petition, reiterated the points stated in the appeal petition and requested that the decision be overturned.
C. Justification
1. Dispute and Legal Characterization
The dispute concerns a claim for compensation arising from Law No. 4054.

2. Relevant Law:
Article 369, paragraph 1, and Articles 370 and 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Law No. 6100).

Articles 57 and 58 of Law No. 2.4054.

3. Assessment:
The annulment of final decisions of regional courts of appeal is possible only if one of the reasons listed in Article 371 of Law No. 6100 exists.

2. The decision under appeal is found to be in accordance with procedural rules and law, considering the parties' mutual claims and defenses, the documents they relied upon, the legal rules applicable to the dispute, the characterization of the legal relationship, the conditions for filing a lawsuit, the rules of trial and evidence, and the reasons stated in the decision. The reasons put forward by the plaintiff's attorney in the appeal petition are not considered to be of a nature that would necessitate the reversal of the decision.

VI. DECISION
For the reasons stated above;
the decision of the Regional Court of Appeals, which is appealed, is AFFIRMED in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 370 of Law No. 6100.

The appeal costs listed below shall be borne by the appellant

The file shall be sent to the First Instance Court, and a copy of the decision shall be sent to the Regional Court of Appeal

The decision was made unanimously on July 2, 2024.