A Review of the Regional Court Decision Regarding the Exemption of Temporary Protected Status Holders in Türkiye from Cautio Judicatum Solvi
Cemre TüysüzFor some cases with a foreign element, the obligation of cautio judicatum solvi before applying to the courts has been accepted into Turkish law. The subject of this review mainly focuses on the exemption from cautio judicatum solvi for foreigners when they apply to courts and enforcement offices. Due to the developments and events in the Syrian Arab Republic over the past years, millions of Syrian citizens have crossed the borders and entered Türkiye. Because they are unable to return home due to the ongoing events in Syria and thus the need exists for establishing a legal framework regarding their presence in Türkiye, temporary protected status has been accepted into Turkish Law through the Code on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No. 6458). This review focuses on a decision rendered by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court regarding the applicability of the exemption rule in the 1951 Refugee Convention to citizen refugees from the Syrian Arab Republic. The decision rendered by the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court accepts the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention to those holding temporary protected status and has declared them to be exempt from cautio judicatum solvi, as Turkish legislation lacks any such regulation. While reviewing this decision, the study will consider the scope and aim of cautio judicatum solvi in Turkish law, as well as the possibilities for exemption from such an obligation. The study will also examine the view in Turkish law toward refugees and those holding temporary protected status through the Code on Foreigners and International Protection and other such relevant regulations.
Geçici Koruma Statüsü Sahiplerinin Teminat Yatırma Yükümlülüğüne İlişkin Adana Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi Kararının İncelenmesi
Cemre TüysüzTürk hukukunda yabancılık unsuru olan bazı hallerde teminat yatırma mükellefiyeti öngörülmüştür. İnceleme konumuz yabancıların Türkiye’de açacakları veya katılacakları davalarda veya başlatacakları icra takiplerinde teminat gösterme mükellefiyetine ilişkindir. Son yıllarda Suriye’de yaşanan olaylar nedeniyle milyonlarca Suriye Arap Cumhuriyeti vatandaşı, sınırları aşarak Türkiye’ye girmiştir. Bu kişilerin ülkelerindeki olaylar neticesinde Suriye’ye dönemiyor olmaları sebebiyle, Türkiye’deki kalışlarının da hukukî bir çerçeveye oturtulması ihtiyacından dolayı 6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu ile birlikte hukukumuza geçici koruma statüsü girmiştir. Bu çalışmada Adana Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi’nin 1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Durumuna İlişkin Cenevre Sözleşmesi’ndeki hükümlerin, geçici koruma altındakilere kıyasen uygulanıp uygulanmayacağına ilişkin kararı incelenmiştir. İncelediğimiz Adana Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesi kararında, gerek Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu’nda gerekse de ilgili Yönetmeliklerde geçici koruma statüsü sahiplerinin teminat gösterme mükellefiyetinden muaf tutulacaklarına ilişkin herhangi bir hüküm olmamasına rağmen, 1951 tarihli Mültecilerin Hukuki Durumuna Dair Cenevre Sözleşmesi’nin geçici koruma statüsü sahiplerine kıyasen uygulanarak, bu kişilerin Türkiye’de açacakları veya katılacakları davalarda veya başlatacakları icra takiplerinde teminat gösterme mükellefiyetlerinin bulunmadığına karar verilmiştir. Bu karar incelenirken Türk hukukundaki teminat mükellefiyetinin ne olduğu ve amacı ile bu mükellefiyetten muaf tutulabilecek haller göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Göz önünde bulundurulan bir diğer konu ise, Türkiye’nin gerek Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu ve ilgili Yönetmeliklerdeki geçici koruma statüsü sahiplerine gerekse de mültecilere bakış açısıdır.
Cautio judicatum solvi is a warranty that ensures the remedy of a defendant’s loss for applying to courts. Some states such as Russia, Romania, and Bulgaria have no type of measures that could be considered as cautio judicatum solvi. Other states that have adopted cautio judicatum solvi may seek different conditions (e. g., citizenship, domicile, habitual residence).
The reason for accepting cautio judicatum solvi is the risk that arises from the condition of the plaintiff. Applying to courts and being a defendant in a case has legal costs. These costs shall be redeemed by the party who loses the case. In case the risk occurs regarding an inability to redeem the defendant’s losses, the law mandates that plaintiffs deposit a fair amount at the beginning of proceedings.
The law’s perspective on the conditions that may arise as a risk varies. Some state laws predict the habitual residence abroad of a plaintiff to pose a risk. Other states predict that the citizenship of the plaintiff may pose a risk and stipulate cautio judicatum solvi for foreigners.
Turkish law accepts both abovementioned conditions as a reason for cautio judicatum solvi. According to Article 84 of the Code on Civil Procedure No. 6100, Turkish citizens with a habitual residence abroad shall deposit cautio judicatum solvi when they file a case in Turkish civil courts. International Private and Civil Procedural Law No. 5718 stipulates that foreigners who file lawsuits in Turkish civil courts shall deposit cautio judicatum solvi (Art. 48). Exemption from this obligation is by reciprocity.
Reciprocity may be accepted in three different forms. The first form of reciprocity is by an international treaty. Türkiye and the state of the plaintiff may sign a bilateral or multi-lateral treaty that contains an exemption regarding cautio judicatum solvi. The second form of reciprocity is by law. If the state of the plaintiff does not accept cautio judicatum solvi for foreigners in their law, then the reciprocity condition has been set. The third form of reciprocity is by de facto practice. When Turkish citizens do not deposit any form of money for cautio judicatum solvi prior to applying to the courts, then reciprocity shall be accepted de facto.
Due to the violent events that have occurred in Syria, millions of Syrians entered Türkiye over the past several years. Most of the Syrian’s entrance and stay in Türkiye were illegal. Syrians who enter illegally cannot be deported back to Syria due to the instability and violence in Syria. Therefore, the need to legalize their stay in Türkiye has arisen. Therefore, the Law on Foreigners and International Protection No. 6458 has established temporary protected status. In accordance with this status, Syrians may stay in Türkiye and receive certain services (e.g., health, education, social services).
As of 2022, no reciprocity has occurred between Türkiye and Syria regarding exemption from cautio judicatum solvi. Moreover, no regulation exists for any such exemption regarding temporary protected status holders. Therefore, when a Syrian with temporary protected status applies to a civil court, they are to deposit money according to Art. 48 of the International Private and Civil Procedural Law.
However, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court has stated that, even without an exemption for cautio judicium solvi regarding temporary protected status holders, the Geneva Refugee Convention shall be applied to them.
Türkiye is a contracting state for the Geneva Convention. According to the Additional Protocol dated 1967, the geographical and historical limitations on the Geneva Convention have been abolished. However, Türkiye has reservations about the geographical applicability of the Geneva Convention. Hence the reservation is that Türkiye only applies this convention to foreigners who seek refuge for events that have occurred in Europe.
Despite this reservation, the applicability of the Geneva Refugee Convention to temporary protected status holders has been accepted by the 3rd Civil Chamber of Adana Regional Court. This review study examines, the perspective of Turkish law on temporary protected status in comparison to the other international protection statuses.
The Regional Court stated that, as a contracting state of the Geneva Convention, the exemptions mentioned in this treaty shall be applied to other forms of international protection, whether such protection is permanent or temporary. This study kindly disagrees with the ruling of the Regional Court for various reasons.
Firstly, the reservation Türkiye has regarding the geographical applicability of the Geneva Convention prohibits the application of the Geneva Refugee Convention to temporary protected status holders in Türkiye who’ve come from Syria. Secondly, the perspective and the reason for establishing temporary protected status prevents the applicability of Geneva Refugee Convention regulations to exemption from cautio judicium solvi.
Finally, the effects on the legal system from providing such an exemption to the millions of Syrian foreigners should also have been thoroughly considered by the courts who granted such exemption.
