T.R. SUPREME COURT
22. Law Office
Basis: 2015/10805
Decision: 2016/17961
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
ACTION FOR WORKERS’ RECEIVABLES – THE CASE WAS FILED AS A CLAIM AS A CLAIM – THE APPLICANT CANNOT CHANGE THE TYPE OF CASE AND THE RESULT OF THE CLAIM THROUGH PARTIAL REMEDY – HOWEVER, IT CANNOT CHANGE BY FULLY FINALIZING THE CASE –
SUMMARY: The lawsuit was filed as an indefinite debt lawsuit. During the continuation of the proceedings, the plaintiff partially reformed his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, with the aforementioned partial improvement petition, the type of case was changed to partial lawsuit. The lawsuit was accepted as a partial lawsuit by the court in accordance with the correction petition. While this is the case, the plaintiff could not change the type of lawsuit and therefore the result of the request through partial correction, but without considering that he could do this by completely reforming his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was erroneous and necessitated reversing it.
Lawsuit and Decision: Summary of the claimant’s request: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the lawsuit is an indefinite receivable action, declaring that his client worked at the defendant’s hospital workplace between 16.03.2005 and 25.02.2013 and that he terminated his employment contract due to retirement, paid severance pay, annual paid leave, overtime and He asked for the general holiday receivables.
Summary of the Defendant’s response: The defendant Ministry of Health’s attorney argued that the case should be dismissed by declaring that there is no employment contract or contract between the plaintiff and the defendant administration, declaring that hostility cannot be directed against the administration.
Summary of the court decision: Based on the evidence collected and the expert report received, the court decided to partially accept the case with a written justification.
Appeal: Within the decision period, the defendant’s attorney appealed.
Reason: Pursuant to Article 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, there is a ban on the extension or modification of the claim and defense in cases where simple trial procedure is applied, and both parties (unless the opposing party’s express consent) shall carry out their procedural actions after a certain stage of the case. , as a rule, they cannot change.
The institution of “correction” regulated in Articles 176 and the following of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 is one of the exceptions to this prohibition (art. 141,2)
As it is known, correction is a way that allows one of the parties to correct a procedural transaction partially or completely, for once, and does not require the approval of the other party.
In the doctrine, reformation is defined as the complete or partial correction of the procedural transaction made by one of the parties, similar to the definition above. (KRU, Baki, Civil Procedure, Vol:IV, Istanbul 2001, p. 3965; ALANGOYA/YILDIRIM/DEREN YILDIRIM, Civil Procedure Law Principles, Istanbul 2009, p.266; PEKCANITEZ/ATALAY/ÖZEKES, Civil Procedure Law, Ankara 2009, p.361; ÜSTÜNDAĞ, Civil Trial Law, Vol: I-II, Istanbul 1997, p.549; Definitions and authors cited in BİLGEN, Mahmut, Legal Trial Reform, Ankara 2010, p.1; YILMAZ, Ejder, Definitions and authors cited in Improvement in Civil Procedure Law, Ankara 2010, pp.49-50).
The case can be completely reformed. It is the plaintiff who can completely rectify the case. In complete reformation, the plaintiff reforms his case from the beginning (from the lawsuit petition) and submits a new lawsuit petition. The plaintiff can change the result of the request by completely reforming his case. For example, the plaintiff can change the compensation case by way of complete correction as a registration case, change the ecrimisil (receivable) case as the case for the prevention of intervention (handoff), and change the title deed cancellation case to the case for the annulment of the certificate of inheritance (inheritance certificate).
On the other hand, the improvement applied to expand or partially change the result of the claim or the reason for the lawsuit is partial improvement, not complete improvement.
In the concrete case, the lawsuit was filed as an indefinite debt lawsuit. During the continuation of the proceedings, the plaintiff partially reformed his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, with the aforementioned partial improvement petition, the type of case was changed to partial lawsuit. The lawsuit was accepted as a partial lawsuit by the court in accordance with the correction petition. While this is the case, the plaintiff could not change the type of lawsuit and therefore the result of the request through partial correction, but without considering that he could do this by completely reforming his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was erroneous and necessitated reversing it.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 16.06.2016 that the appealed decision be OVERFINED for the reasons written above, and that the appeal fee paid in advance be returned to the relevant person upon request.
