(Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2026/5101, Decision No. 2026/3617, Date: 08.06.2026, Official Gazette Date: 24.07.2026, No. 33319)

1. Facts of the Case at Issue

The plaintiff (real estate agent/broker) asserted that they provided brokerage services to the defendant for the purchase of an immovable property, but the defendant failed to pay the commission fee they were obligated to pay.

The process unfolded as follows:

On 08.05.2025, the plaintiff real estate agent initiated enforcement proceedings against the defendant before the Aliağa Enforcement Office (File No. 2025/3179 E.) in order to collect the commission claim.
Upon the defendant’s objection to the debt, the enforcement proceedings were stayed on 10.06.2025.
Instead of filing an action for annulment of the objection, the plaintiff applied to the Menemen Consumer Arbitration Committee on 20.06.2025, as the claim amount (TRY 104,250.00) fell within the monetary threshold for applications to Consumer Arbitration Committees for the year 2025 (TRY 149,000.00).
The Consumer Arbitration Committee rejected the application; thereupon, the plaintiff real estate agent filed a lawsuit before the İzmir 7th Consumer Court, seeking annulment of the arbitration committee decision and recovery of the commission claim.

2. First Instance Court Decision

The İzmir 7th Consumer Court (Decision dated 30.10.2025, Case No. 2025/465, Decision No. 2025/478), citing as grounds that the enforcement proceedings initiated regarding the claim prior to the application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee were still pending (lis pendens), modified the reasoning of the Consumer Arbitration Committee’s decision accordingly and definitively ruled to dismiss the plaintiff’s objection (thereby upholding the Committee’s decision).

3. Grounds for Appeal for the Sake of Law

The Ministry of Justice filed an appeal in the interest of law, asserting that the final decision rendered by the First Instance Court was contrary to procedure and the law, based on the following grounds:

Pursuant to Article 68(5) of Law No. 6502, it is stipulated that the consumer/creditor is entitled both to exercise their rights under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and to apply to the Consumer Arbitration Committee.

These two legal remedies do not constitute lis pendens in relation to one another.

Therefore, instead of dismissing the case on the grounds of lis pendens, the court should have examined the merits of the case (evaluating whether the claim actually exists) and rendered a substantive decision.

4. Decision and Reasoning of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted the Ministry of Justice’s request for appeal for the sake of law and REVERSED the decision of the İzmir 7th Consumer Court FOR THE SAKE OF LAW (without prejudice to the final outcome). The reasoning set out in the decision was as follows:

Distinction Between Enforcement Proceedings and Lawsuits: Initiating enforcement proceedings does not preclude the filing of an action for receivables pursuant to Article 67(4) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 2004).
Absence of Lis Pendens: Since there was no pending action for receivables before the courts at the time of application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee, no lis pendens situation exists under Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).
Dual Right of Application: Pursuant to Article 68(1)–(5) of Law No. 6502, the rights of the parties under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law remain reserved in disputes falling within the statutory monetary threshold (below TRY 149,000 for the year 2025). The creditor may both initiate enforcement proceedings and apply to the Consumer Arbitration Committee.
Error of the Court: Accordingly, while the court should have examined the merits of the case and resolved the dispute, rejecting the case on the grounds of lis pendens was contrary to procedure and the law.

5. Conclusion

The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation constitutes a highly significant precedent, clarifying the relationship between enforcement proceedings and applications to Consumer Arbitration Committees, as well as delineating the boundaries of the doctrine of lis pendens.

The fundamental principles established by the ruling are as follows:

Dual Right of Application: In consumer disputes falling within the statutory monetary threshold (below TRY 149,000 for the year 2025), the creditor’s initiation of enforcement proceedings under the general provisions and the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and their application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee do not exclude one another.
No Lis Pendens Obstacle: As the existence of enforcement proceedings does not constitute a pending lawsuit within the meaning of Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), it does not create lis pendens for the purpose of the Arbitration Committee’s review.
Obligation to Examine the Merits: In lawsuits filed seeking the annulment of or objection to Consumer Arbitration Committee decisions, courts are obligated to render a decision by examining the existence and merits of the claim, without resorting to procedural dismissals.

In conclusion, the Court of Cassation has prevented restrictive procedural interpretations that limit the freedom to seek legal remedies and has safeguarded the autonomy of the statutory application avenues granted to creditors under Law No. 6502.

Note: For the year 2026, the monetary threshold for Consumer Arbitration Committees has been set at TRY 186,000. Applying to Provincial or District Consumer Arbitration Committees is mandatory for consumer disputes valued below TRY 186,000. Applications to Consumer Arbitration Committees cannot be made for disputes valued at TRY 186,000 or above; for the resolution of such disputes, an application must be made directly to the Consumer Courts (or to the Civil Court of First Instance in places where no Consumer Court exists) following the mandatory mediation process required as a cause of action.