The decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court with File No. 2021/4000 and Decision No. 2021/11403 was published in the Official Gazette on 25 January 2022.
The plaintiff continues his activities through the electronic commerce site, and demanded the cancellation of this decision in the face of the acceptance by the Consumer Arbitration Committee of the request for a refund due to the delivery of the defective product by the seller of the product subject to the dispute.
Thereupon, Bakırköy 5th Consumer Court decided to reject the case on the grounds that the claimant e-commerce site was responsible for the truffle package containing cigarette butts, that the recourse to the supplier company was their internal relationship, and that the decision of the arbitral tribunal was appropriate.
The Ministry of Justice states that the responsibility of the plaintiff company, which is the provider of services to the consumer, should not be handled in accordance with the defective goods regulation of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, and requested that the court’s decision be reversed in favor of the law, on the grounds that it was against the procedure and the law.
In Article 2 of the Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, it is stated that the service provider is ‘real or legal persons engaged in electronic commerce activities’. It is stated that the intermediary service provider is ‘real and legal persons who provide an electronic commerce environment for the economic and commercial activities of others’. Pursuant to article 9 of the same law and article 6 of the Regulation on Service Providers and Intermediary Service Providers in Electronic Commerce, it is regulated that intermediary service providers are not obliged to check the content of real and legal persons using the electronic environment they provide services and to investigate whether there is an unlawful activity related to the goods or services subject to this content.
As a result of the evaluation of the Supreme Court,
- The intermediary service provider of the plaintiff party, which enables electronic commerce through the website, according to the distance sales contract between the parties; the defendant party is the company that sells to the electronic commerce site,
- Pursuant to the provisions of the relevant legislation, intermediary service providers are not obliged to check the content of real and legal persons using the electronic environment they serve, and also to investigate whether there is an unlawful activity related to the goods or services subject to this content,
- The plaintiff, who is the intermediary service provider, is not responsible for the seller’s supply of defective products,
decided that the case should be accepted rather than dismissed and that the appeal of the Ministry of Justice in the interest of law should be accepted.
These decisions and regulations are in parallel with the EU e-commerce directive. The European Union e-commerce directive does not impose responsibility on intermediary service providers as much as possible in order to spread the internet, accelerate e-commerce and provide more effective service. In the EU e-commerce directive, it is regulated that the manufacturer of the defective product is responsible for the damages caused by the defective product, regardless of fault. In addition, since the harmed person is not limited as a consumer in the EU directive, anyone who is harmed within the scope of liability can apply for the responsibility of the producer.