233 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW of the Regional Court of Appeal was reversed. As can be understood from this decision, the Court of Cassation interprets the public order by including both procedural and material facts. In another decision of the Court of Cassation, in which various claims arising from a contract were examined, the reasons for appeal and the limited jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Appeal were reviewed.7 In this decision, an ex officio review was made by the Regional Court of Appeal based on a reason not included in the petition of appeal, and based on this reason, the decision of the court of first instance was annulled. However, the Court of Cassation stated that the scope of appeal should have been limited to the reasons specified in the petition of appeal, in accordance with the explicit provision of Article 355 of the CPC, and evaluated this as a reason for annulment of the judgment rendered by the Regional Court of Appeal. Can the Regional Court of Appeal Conduct a Review in Case of Explicit Illegality? As stated above, the appellate jurisdiction of the Regional Courts of Appeal includes issues of both fact and law. In this context, it is controversial whether the reasons for appeal limit the Regional Courts of Appeal while reviewing errors of law. In two different decisions of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the Court stated that although appellate courts are limited to the reasons for appeal when reviewing issue of fact, they are not limited by the reasons for appeal when examining errors of law.8In addition to these two decisions, the Court of Cassation General Assembly, in a very recent decision, reviewed whether an issue that was not put forward as a reason for appeal in the petition of appeal constituted a violation of an explicit provision of the law in a decision given by the Regional Court of Appeal.9 7 15th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2019/1117 E., 2019/4269 K. 01.11.2019. 8 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2019/1137 E., 2019/3457 K,.14.02.2019; 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation, 2017/33666 E., 2017/12649 K. 30.05.2017. 9 See also, the decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly dated 25.03.2021, para. 74.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=