T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Law Office
Basis: 2016/8424
Decision: 2016/7581
Decision Date: 13.07.2016
ACTION FOR DAMAGES – ESSENTIAL REJECTION OF THE REJECTION BY THE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE FILE ON THE OPINION OF THE REJECTION BY THE REJECTED JUDGE – APPROVAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: Upon the rejection of the judge’s opinion stating that the request should be rejected, the decision rendered by the authority examining the file regarding the rejection of the request on the merits and the punishment of the defendant … … with a disciplinary fine of ….-TL, was appealed by the attorney of the defendant … … has been done. The reasons put forward for the judge’s refusal are grounds for appeal in terms of the merits of the case, and are not among the reasons defined in the article of the HMK. For the reasons explained above, it was decided to reject the appeal and uphold the verdict.
(6100 S. K. Art. 36)
During the compensation case between the parties, the defendant’s attorney applied to the court for refusal.
After the defendant’s attorney demanded that the decision rendered by the authority examining the rejection request be examined by the Supreme Court, after the decision to accept the appeal petition, which was understood to be in time, all the documents in the file were examined and the necessary was considered:
In summary, with the petition dated 01/03/2016 submitted by the defendant’s attorney during the lawsuit between the parties; (… that the work accident that is the subject of the lawsuit is Turkey’s biggest work accident; The request for the removal of the measure against the rights and receivables of TKİ, which is the only source of income, was rejected without justification, and the “legal aid” requests made by the plaintiff party were accepted without conducting the economic situation research required by the law, and to obtain a report from a single file for many lawsuits filed regarding the event that occurred. A trial was held in the file of the High Criminal Court with no. However, contrary to the civil court, the criminal proceedings are doing much more extensive research, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, at least the expert report, must be awaited in order to make a fair decision, the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded in the lawsuits filed against the client company due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation awarded is determined by the court. It has been claimed that the judge has lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence, and that he has decided by taking the side of the plaintiffs due to the pressure of the public and the press, on the grounds that it contradicts his own decisions.
Upon the rejected judge’s opinion stating that the request should be rejected, the decision rendered by the authority examining the file regarding the rejection of the request on the merits and the punishment of the defendant … … with a disciplinary fine of 1.500.00.-TL, was appealed by the attorney of the defendant … … has been done.
The reasons put forward for the judge’s refusal are grounds for appeal in terms of the merits of the case and are not among the reasons defined in Article 36 of the HMK. On 13.07.2016, it was unanimously decided to APPROVE the verdict and to impose the following approval fee on the appellant.
