Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
20. Law Office
Basis: 2016/8795
Decision: 2016/7599
Decision Date: 13.07.2016
ACTION FOR DAMAGES – OPINION WAS MADE BY THE REJECTED JUDGE THAT THE REJECTION NEEDS TO BE REJECTED – BY THE AUTHORITY WHO REVIEWED THE FILE, THE DEFENDANT WAS PUNISHED BY THE PRIMARY REJECTION OF THE REJECTION – FUNDAMENTAL FUN
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, the defendant … attorney appealed by. 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 law.
(6100 S. K. Art. 36)
Litigation and Decision: During the compensation lawsuit between the parties, the defendant’s attorney applied to the court for refusal.
After the defendant’s attorney … requested 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 07/03/2016 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 only source of income, the request for the removal of the measure against the rights and receivables of … was rejected without justification, the “legal aid” requests made by the plaintiff party were accepted without conducting the economic situation research required by the law. Judgment from the file of the High Criminal Court No. structure 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 damage awarded in the lawsuits filed against the client company due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation awarded to the court. While the court judge should give the decision in the last session, write a short decision in summary, and then send the reasoned decision to the parties, which contradicts his own decisions, the court judge also wrote the reasoned decision that he had prepared together with the final decision, together with the short decision, and that his client made a short appeal and justified it. Claiming that the judge lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence by claiming that he lost the time he needed to write the appeal petition afterwards, and that he took the side of the plaintiffs due to the pressure of the public and the press…) found in.
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 1,500,00.-TL, was appealed by the attorney of the defendant ….
The reasons put forward for the judge’s refusal are grounds for appeal in terms of the merits of the case and are not the reasons defined in Article 36 of the CPC. On 13.07.2016, it was unanimously decided to reject the objections of appeal that are out of place for the reasons explained and to uphold the verdict and to charge the appellant with the following approval fee.
