T.C.
Supreme
General Assembly of Law
Main Number: 2010/88
Decision No:2010/126
K. Date:24.2.2010
At the end of the trial held due to the “material and Decriminalization compensation” case between the parties; Kütahya 2.The day of 10.06.2008 and 2007/263 E given by the Civil Court of First Instance regarding the partial acceptance of the case.-2009/202 K. upon the request of the deputies of the parties to examine the decision numbered, the Court of Cassation 4.25.05.2009 day of the Legal Department and 2008/11629 E.-2009/7023 K. with Ref No.;
(… 1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the compelling reasons in accordance with the law, especially the fact that there was no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, the plaintiff and the defendants ………………. Yılmaz’s appeals should be rejected.
2-As for the appeal of the defendant V … Y…’s appeal, the case concerns the requests for material and moral compensation from the common-law spouse and his father due to the separation after marriage, which took place without an official wedding. A part of the claim was accepted by the local court; the decision was appealed by the parties.
Defendant V… Y…. , is the father of the other defendant, who has maintained a married life without official marriage with the plaintiff. The marriage between the plaintiff and the common-law spouse, which lasted for three years, ended with the Decease of the plaintiff after the dispute. After that, in the lawsuit filed, material and moral compensation was requested along with the jewelry left at home. The plaintiff, besides the other defendant, who is a common-law spouse, has also shown V… Y…, who is her father, as the defendant. Since there is no reason requiring the defendant father’s responsibility for his son’s action, the case against him should be dismissed. The fact that the local court decided on liability together with the other defendant on the basis of a written reason that was not in place without focusing on this aspect did not comply with the procedure and law, so the decision had to be overturned….)
on the grounds of the reason indicated in paragraph (2) above of the appealed decision, the defendant V… Y…. for the benefit of spoilage; plaintiff and defendants H. H…Y…. the rejection of the appeals of the appeals for the reasons in the first paragraph, the decision was made, the file was turned back instead of at the end of the re-trial; the previous decision was resisted by the court.
APPELLANT: Counsel for the defendant
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
The law was examined by the General Assembly and after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
The case is related to the claim for material and moral compensation based on the separation that took place after the marriage without an official marriage; enmity was directed against the common-law spouse, as well as his father, with the claim of joint responsibility.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff was deceived by the defendants for 3 years that the official wedding was held, and when he wanted the wedding to be held, he was expelled from the house, stating that the cost of 5 giramise and 2 republican gold and 2 adana auger bracelets remaining at home is 2,750 YTL.; 3.250,00 YTL in return for working with the defendants for 3 years and contributing; she requested that it be decided to jointly and severally collect moral compensation from the defendants in the amount of 10,000.00 YTL, including 15,000.00 YTL, due to the deterioration of her girlhood, the loss of the chance to have a good marriage, and 15,000.00 YTL due to the suffering and suffering suffered.
According to the defendants’ counsel, it is true that the parties were married without a marriage contract, but there is no basis for other claims, the official marriage could not be performed for various reasons, shortly after the marriage, the defendant H…. H… H…’S Army went to return to military service, this time she left the House of the plaintiff, as alleged not been kicked out, aren’t selling your gold, it’s still on the client, but the auger thin bracelets bracelets and they’re willing to pay, on demand, by specifying a common-law spouse against the merits of the case against his father were asked to be decided in the case of denial in terms of animosity.
For the trial the defendant signed a declaration Veysel them left in gold, gold gremise 4 large, 2 half Gold, 2 bracelet, double-screw, the other is not, she just declared that he was ready to return; the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant had reported that the statement of objections.
By the court; which are known to gramis large gold 4, Gold 2 half, 2 to the plaintiff and defendant to be taken exactly double screw bracelet from the return 3.000,00 YTL for non-pecuniary damages to be given to defendants severally with the collection of the plaintiff, 3.250,00 YTL prompt requested financial compensation in exchange for work to be given to the plaintiff with the defendants severally with the collection of full acceptance of maiden corruption and demand monetary compensation because of the loss of the chance of making a good marriage is desired, it was decided that the denial of requests for more and other items.
Upon the appeal of the attorneys of the parties, the Special Chamber rejected all appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s common-law spouse; the father of the common-law spouse, the other defendant’s decision, as detailed in the title section above, was overturned by betting that he had no responsibility.
The decision of the Local Court regarding resistance in the previous decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The first decision made by the court is finalized in terms of the responsibility of the unmarried spouse of the defendant, and the dispute that comes before the General Assembly of Law through resistance; whether the defendants have the legal responsibility of the father of the common-law spouse, whether there is a clear assessment about this defendant in the first decision of the court is collected at the point.
First of all, it is useful to put forward concrete event characteristics with effective evidence for the dispute:
In the concrete case, the plaintiff woman 15.08.1984, the defendant H…. H…. de was born on 17.04.1983, and they were informally united by having a wedding with the information and encouragement of the other defendant’s father on 20.06.2002; they did not perform an official wedding. After the wedding, they did not move to an independent house and lived together with the other defendant (H…’s father) V … in the same house for about 3 years. Defendant H…. H…. between Dec. 01.12.2003 and Dec. 01.03.2005, he served his military service for about 15 months and was not at home. During this time, the plaintiff woman, the other defendant V…. he continued to stay in the house of and did the works shown to him; he contributed to the budget of this house where he lived.
It should be noted with importance that the plaintiff and the defendant H…. this informal union between them is not a marriage that takes place in the sense of the Civil Code and is valid in the field of Decency; it does not give rise to a family Decency relationship between the parties. Therefore, the relationship between the parties should be assessed not according to the principles of family Decency, but according to the rules of the law of obligations, in particular, the provisions on unfair action.
The court, the defendant H… H…. he has accepted the existence of his unjust act and this direction has become certain by staying out of corruption. The defendant Hasan’s father, also his son with the other defendant jointly and severally liable under the rules of the law of obligations that will be also need to be resolved; the law in the General Assembly during the negotiations, the defendant V…. the responsibility of has been discussed and voted by considering the trappings and other demands separately.
In the examination made in terms of financial compensation claim related to trappings;
Defendant V…. Dated 19.03.2008 the last trial record “the rest of us, we wear big gold bracelets which is called gremise US 4, 2 half gold, bracelet, bracelet, other than there is 2 double screw it, I’m ready to return” – shaped open acceptance of this statement and signed a declaration has accepted personal responsibility and the plaintiffs did not appeal. In the face of this open acceptance, this issue was decided by a majority of votes at the first meeting, and the majority opinion agreed that the defendant Veysel had a responsibility for extradition in terms of the ornaments mentioned in the declaration, and since there was no inaccuracy in the local court’s decision in this direction, it should be upheld.
As for the other claims of the plaintiff;
Non-pecuniary damages and claims in terms of financial compensation for the work, at the first meeting, the Quorum has not been achieved; the second interview, the other defendant Hasan’s father, Veysel, under-age, and the economic independence that do not have the son of the plaintiff’s common-law have a role in a union; and that is against the law to have a formal wedding without wedding is in a position to know the results of this relationship from the beginning and these are provided with informal acting in conjunction with H…, son co-promoter of his son of being the support and unlawful acts; as he could not prove that he made an effort to make the official marriage happen, he kept his son under his own control and guidance; even his son was in the military at a time when the plaintiff when keeping in the House, benefited from his service and labor, the acceptance of the existence of a wrongful act, that is, the father and son together in addition to property damage to the plaintiff’s motion to cause the injury of the rights of personality, one where it is not possible to isolate one from the other action, the nature of the dispute and the concrete case of the application of the law of obligations described in terms of the provisions relating to tort, according to defendant. V…. it is concluded that the admission of responsibility is necessary; it was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, should be approved in this regard as well.
For the reasons described above and as a result; the court has decided on joint and joint liability in terms of jewelry, moral compensation and material compensation for work in addition to the common-law spouse of the defendant, on the grounds that the common-law spouse’s father also has legal liability, there is no illegal aspect and no wrongdoing in the provision of these requests; the decision to resist, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, must be approved.
