308 / 469
NEWSLETTER 2011
294
be stated that the claims subject to different judgment procedures but
within the same type of jurisdiction shall constitute a joinder of actions.
However, we are of the opinion that joinder of actions should be accepted
only if the claims may be evaluated within the same judgment procedure.
(iv) Each claim must fall within the authority of same territorial
jurisdiction
The claims to be alleged within one sole action need to be pleaded
before a court having the authority to adjudicate each claim in the same
venue. This is rightly appropriate condition for joinder of actions since
the accrued cause of actions should be “consolidated” before the same
court. However, the article considers merely territorial jurisdiction and
is not extended to overlap subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, it may
be assumed that the competent court in respect of territorial jurisdiction
is also able to adjudicate the actions of the claims that fall under the
competency of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to art. 110 of CPC.
However, we are of the opinion that the joinder actions need to be alleged
before the special court in case there are special and general courts having
the territorial authority to adjudicate same actions of claim.
Conclusion
Neither the article nor its justification does not stipulate any method
for instituting joinder of the actions, even they set out a general framework
for the conditions. Therefore, the joinder of the claims may occur by
allegation of the claims on the same petition for action or by appending
more claims during the judgment procedure (extension of the action) or
consolidation of the actions. It is also defended in the doctrine
5
to insert
additional several claims by the way of amendment of pleading. As a
result, there is not a specific prescription and constraint regarding the
methods for joinder of actions and the issue to be sought is whether the
conditions for implementation exist or not.
5
PEKCANITEZ/ATALAY/ÖZEKES
, s. 408.