Turkish Republic Supreme Court
9. Law Office
Basis: 2015/ 35548 Decision: 2019 / 19790
Decision Date: 13.11.2019
JUDICIARY DECISION
COURT: LABOR COURT
The decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant’s attorney to be examined on appeal, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in time. After listening to the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:
JUDICIARY DECISION
1-According to the writings in the file, the collected evidence and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, the objections of the defendant’s attorney, which are outside the scope of the following subparagraph, are not appropriate.
2- The plaintiff has filed an indefinite receivable action with partial action and total determination, and the application of our Department in terms of the beginning of interest in this lawsuit is the same as the principles of partial lawsuits, but in terms of the receivables under judgment other than severance pay, the lawsuit for the amount requested with the lawsuit petition, the amount increased with the petition for improvement (demand increase). For the amount, interest should be awarded as of the date of correction (demand increase), but it is erroneous to charge interest on the entire receivable from the date of the lawsuit. Article 438/7 of the Code of Civil Procedure with reference to the article. It was decided to be corrected and approved in accordance with the article.
CONCLUSION:
By removing the “2 and 5th paragraphs of the provision clause completely;
“Out of the 5.149,37 TL net notice indemnity receivable, 1,000,00 TL is taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, together with the legal interest to be accrued as of 25.06.2013, the date of the lawsuit, and the remaining 4.149.37 TL, as of 03.06.2014, the demand increase date,
Of the 1,371,93 TL net holiday fee receivables, 1,000,00 TL will be paid by the defendant with the highest interest rate applied to the deposit by the banks as of 25.06.2013, the date of the lawsuit, and as of 03.06.2014, the demand increase date of the remaining 371,93 TL. and to be given to the plaintiff,” paragraphs are written, the judgment is CORRECTED and APPROVED in this way, IBK decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals Jurisprudence Unification Grand General Assembly dated 28.09.2018 and numbered 2018/2 E. 2018/8 K. It was unanimously decided on 13/11/2019 that there is no need to charge an approval fee.
