Newsletter-21

369 The Scope of the Review Made by the CoA The CoA reviews the decisions of the RCA within the context of malpractice of the substantial law, in addition to reviewing the abso- lute and relative reversal reasons of the procedural law. The absolute reversal reasons 3 are malpractice of the procedural rules that lead to the reversal of the decision appealed to the CoA. The breach of the causes of action, rejection of the evidence without any legal reasoning, the RCA decisions without any justification or illegal compositions of the Courts are among absolute reversal reasons. Similarly, relative reversal reasons are the malpractice of proce- dural rules, but they require a casual relation between the malpractice and the decision in order to lead to a reversal decision. Accordingly, if it is claimed that the decision of the Court would be different in the event of practicing the procedural rules in the order, then the decision of the Court will be reversed. As an illustration, the omission of a re- quired hearing and obtaining a ruling from the RCA that was affected by this procedural malpractice is a relative reversal reason. The CoA is not bound by appellate reasons raised by the parties and can review other issues that may be infringements of the law 4 . Contrary to this, with the exception of ex officio review of public policy issues, the review scope of the RCA is limited to the appellate reasons raised by the parties. This issue was examined by the CoA in a November 11th, 2016 ruling 5 . It was stated that the decision of the CFI was appealed to the RCA without raising any appellate reasons, and the RCA only made a review within scope of the public policy. As the RCA did not find any infringement of public policy during the review, it has rejected the application. The decision of the RCA was later on appealed before the CoA, where the CoA had approved the 3 Baki Kuru , İstinaf Sistemine Göre Yazılmış Medeni Usul Hukuku (The Proce- dural Law Written According to the Appellate System of Regional Court of Ap- peal), 2016 İstanbul, p. 709. 4 Hakan Pekcanıtez / Oğuz Atalay / Muhammet Özekes , Medeni Usul Hukuku (The Procedural Law) , 2013 İstanbul, p. 898. 5 Court of Appeal’s November 17th, 2016 dated, 2016/35343 E., 2016/ 20173 K. merit numbered decision. LAW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY