Michael K. had his Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejust 41, worth about TL 450,000 (about $9,390), stolen while traveling in Vienna. Nearly three years after reporting the watch as stolen internationally, he traced it to an authorized Rolex dealer and service center in Istanbul.
After Rolex Customer Service informed him that the watch had been brought to the authorized Rolex representative and technical service Rolex Boutique Rhodium at Istanbul’s Zorlu Center, Michael K. requested its return. When the company did not return the watch, he filed a lawsuit at an Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance seeking its restitution.
According to the lawsuit, Michael K. was robbed while traveling in Vienna on Jan. 28, 2023. The Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejust 41 on his wrist was stolen.
Michael K. reported the theft to Austrian authorities. A report issued by the Vienna police recorded the incident as theft and listed the Rolex watch as the subject of the complaint. Following the theft, Michael K. contacted Rolex Customer Service and had the watch registered as stolen.
Rolex Customer Service later contacted Michael K. and informed him that the watch had been located at the authorized Rolex dealership and technical service Rolex Boutique Rhodium at Zorlu Center in Türkiye.
Michael K. contacted Rhodium and requested the return of his watch. After company officials declined to hand it over, he filed a lawsuit at an Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance seeking its return.
In the lawsuit filed by his attorney, Yücel Aslan, Michael K. said they did not know when or by whom the watch had been brought to Rhodium or under whose identity it had been registered.
The petition said it was also unclear whether the watch had been kept in custody despite its stolen status or whether it had been handed over to any third parties. Such information, the lawyer argued, could be established through the company’s service, customer intake, delivery, security camera and transaction records.
The petition emphasized that the watch was a small, high-value item that could easily be concealed, transferred or taken abroad.
The lawyer argued that if the watch were handed over to third parties, concealed or taken out of the country, enforcing a favorable court ruling could become extremely difficult or even impossible.
The petition said the sales invoice and serial number submitted to the court established that the watch belonged to Michael K. It also argued that the theft report issued by Austrian authorities and Rolex’s stolen-watch database confirmation showed that the watch had not changed hands through a normal or consensual legal transaction, but had instead been unlawfully removed from the plaintiff’s possession.
The lawsuit also argued that the defendant company, as an authorized dealer, had a duty to exercise due care and to protect and safeguard the watch and was therefore required to return it to its rightful owner.
Given the watch’s high value and luxury status, the company should not have relied solely on the statements of the person who brought it in, the petition said. It should have checked the serial number and, upon finding a stolen-watch record, notified the relevant authorities to prevent the watch from moving farther away from its rightful owner.
The petition argued that the appearance of a stolen watch at an authorized dealer or service center should not be treated as an ordinary service transaction.
Michael K. requested the return of the watch if it remained in the company’s possession. If it had been handed over to third parties, he sought compensation of 7,990 euros, plus interest, alleging that the company had breached its duties of control, protection and custody as an authorized Rolex representative and service center.
He also asked the court to issue a precautionary order preventing the watch from being transferred to third parties, concealed or otherwise disposed of.
