T.C. SUPREME COURT 4. DEPARTMENT OF LAW E. 2015/6894, K. 2015/7301, T. 03.06.2015
- A CLAIM FOR MORAL COMPENSATION FROM THE VICTIM’S PARENTS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT (If It Is Observed That the Act of Sexual Harassment Was Committed by Force – The Defendant’s Action Was Not Based on Consent, The Plaintiffs Will Create an Attack on the Rights of the Mother and Father / The Defendant Will Be Held Responsible for Compensation )
- MOTHER AND FATHER’S CLAIM FOR MORAL COMPENSATION (If It Is Observed that the Act of Sexual Harassment of Their Children Is Not Based on Consent, The Plaintiffs Will Create an Attack on the Rights of the Mother and Father’s Personality – The Defendant Should Be Held Accountable with Compensation)
- MORAL COMPENSATION FOR AN ATTACK ON THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON ( A Request for Moral Compensation from the Parents of a Victim Who Has Been Sexually Assaulted – A Case in which the Act of Forced Sexual Harassment is Not Based on Consent Will Be Accepted )
6098/m. 58
ABSTRACT : The case concerns the claim for non-pecuniary damages based on the act of sexual assault.
It is alleged that the act of sexual harassment took place by force. Considering that the defendant’s action is not based on consent, the plaintiffs assume that it will constitute an attack on the rights of the father and mother’s personality, and the defendant should be held responsible for these plaintiffs with compensation. The refusal of the claim from the point of view of the plaintiff’s mother and father is not true.
CASE : Plaintiffs H. and others by the deputy, defendant M. 01/03/2012 given day of a sexual assault against the petitioner based on tort with non-pecuniary damages made by the court on the request for at the end of the trial; the case for adoption of a given partially 04/12/2014-time decision by the Supreme Court as the plaintiffs attorney within the period of examination was requested, but once the petition of Appeal has been decided upon the adoption of the examination by the judge with the report was discussed by examining the papers in the file:
DECISION : 1-) According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons that are required by law, in particular, there is no failure to evaluate the evidence, the plaintiffs’ appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph should be rejected.
2-) As for the other appellate appeals of the plaintiffs;
The case concerns a claim for non-pecuniary damages based on an act of sexual assault. The court decided to partially accept the case; the judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs.
From the scope of the file, it is understood that the requests of the parents and siblings from the plaintiffs were rejected on the grounds that they were not the direct victims of the wrongful act.
The defendant is one of the plaintiffs.it is alleged that he forcibly committed an act of sexual harassment against In the following case, when it is observed that the defendant’s action is not based on consent, the plaintiffs father H., anne S. considering that it will constitute an attack on the rights of the individual in terms of, the defendant should be held liable for compensation in terms of the said plaintiffs. The refusal of the claim by the court from the point of view of the plaintiff’s mother and father was not considered correct and required a violation.
CONCLUSION : It was decided unanimously on 03.06.2015 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons described in paragraph (2) above; other appeals should be rejected for the reasons described in the first paragraph and the fee received in advance should be returned on request.
