T.C.
SUPREME
General Assembly of Law Article No: 2015/9-3162
Decision No :2018/369
Decision Date : 28.02.2018
LABOR RECEIVABLE CASE – SERVICE IN SEASONAL LABOR
THE DEGREE TO BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DURATION AND
PROMPT COLLECTION OF DIFFERENCE LABOR RECEIVABLES ACCORDING TO THE LEVEL –
INTEREST ON ALL RECEIVABLES FROM THE DATE OF THE LAWSUIT
OPERATION – THE DECISION TO RESIST IS UPHELD
SUMMARY: Taking into account the length of service in seasonal labor before the case was transferred to the staff,
according to the degree and level to be determined, the difference in wages, contractual and legal additional payments and attrition premiums
the collection of their receivables is related to the request. Since the case is an indefinite receivable case, this case is
material and formal legal consequences that will arise with its opening (termination of the statute of limitations and others)
since it will also have to be valid for this case, the demand increased by submitting a petition to the court
it has been correct to operate interest on all receivables, including amounts, from the date of the lawsuit.
(ECHR m. 6) (2709 Pp. K. m. 36) (6100 Pp. K. m. 107) (4857 Pp. K. m. 3, 8, 22, 28, 32, 37, 67) ( YHGK
14.07.2010 t. 2010/19-376 E. 2010/397 K.) (YHGK 17.10.2012 T. 2012/9-838 E. 2012/715 K.)
Lawsuit: At the end of the trial held due to the “labor receivable” case between the parties, the Sakarya Labor Court issued the date of acceptance of the case on 06.01.2015 and 2014/393 Dec. 2015/27 K. appellate examination of the numbered decision upon request by the defendant Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality deputy Supreme Court 9. The date of the Civil Chamber is 12.03.2015 and is 2015/4981 E. 2015/10428 K. with the numbered decision; (… The plaintiff employee has requested and sued that it be decided to collect some difference labor receivables that were paid incompletely within 5 years retrospectively as an indefinite receivable case, arguing that the periods during which he worked as a temporary employee should be taken into account at the stage of his transition to permanent staff. The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s claims had expired and requested that the dismissal of the case be decided due to the absence of a party adjective and on the merits.
The plaintiff’s attorney requested that the amounts of the receivables specified in the expert’s report be decided by increasing the amounts of the receivables he requested with the petition he submitted after the expert’s report. The court decided to accept the requests by accepting the type of case as an indefinite receivable case, and the defendant appealed the decision. 1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legally necessary reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not in place. 2- There is a dispute between the parties regarding whether the labor receivables subject to the lawsuit can be the subject of an indefinite receivable lawsuit, as well as the Decimation of time and the beginning of interest. Indefinite receivables litigation is a new type of litigation provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011, and provides some advantages to the creditor. According to the aforementioned provision, “In cases where it is not expected or impossible for him to determine the amount or value of the receivable exactly and precisely at the time the lawsuit is filed, the creditor may file an indefinite receivable lawsuit by specifying the legal relationship and a minimum amount or value”. According to the following situation, if it is impossible to determine the amount of receivable at the time the case is opened, an indefinite receivable lawsuit may be filed. On the other hand, if the amount or value of the receivable cannot be fully determined by the creditor, an indefinite receivable lawsuit may be filed again. 107 of the HMK, which regulates the beliziz receivables case. in the justification of the article, emphasis has been placed on the freedom to seek rights many times Decisively. Again, the fact that the creditor is unable to Decipher “the full amount of the receivable”, despite knowing the legal relationship, the addressee and the minimum amount that he can demand, is also considered among the reasons for the case. In this respect, when Deciphering the interpretation of the indefinite receivable case, the freedom of the creditor to seek rights should be evaluated. On the contrary, it would not be right to treat the relevant provision in a way that restricts the creditor from reaching his right.
If the subject of the lawsuit is to be determined by the information or documents to be provided by the other party, the receivable should be considered indefinite. This criterion, which is valid in comparative law, is 107. article 2. at the beginning of the paragraph, “the result of the information to be given by the other party” is accepted as determination during the trial. When we consider the issue from the point of view of labor legislation, the Labor Law No. 4857 3, 8, 22, 28, 32, 37, 67. in its articles, it is seen that the employer is obliged to keep records and provide documents to the employee from the point of view of each employee. In terms of the employer complying with all legal obligations, as a rule, it will not be mentioned that the employee receivables are uncertain. Because the record is passed to the worker’s working time is exactly where the employment contract with a fee, wage attachments, and where the working conditions are determined from the employee’s account each month to charge the compass given to the employee in advance of reported daily and weekly working hours, workers are given a certificate for outstanding work in cases where it is certain or determinable that will take a lot of workers. However, in terms of some receivables that remain only at the discretion of the judge, an uncertainty may still be mentioned at the beginning. The calculation of labor receivables is usually subject to two criteria. When the employee’s working time and wage and attachments are known at the workplace, it can be determined that they will receive October labor. Therefore, it is possible to determine that they will receive labor, especially in public institutions, due to the fact that the employee’s work is fully reported to the Social Insurance Institution, and the employee who benefits from the collective bargaining agreement applied at the workplace, and their October wages are included in the collective bargaining agreement. Nevertheless, it is not possible to fully and completely determine the receivables such as moral compensation, overtime pay subject to a discount at the discretion of the judge, weekly vacation pay, holiday and general vacation pay, penal conditions, wages for the remaining term of the contract at the beginning. As a matter of fact, 107. in the justification of the article, the Justice Commission also stated that if the creditor “knows and can determine the minimum amount that he can demand, but cannot fully determine the entire amount that he will receive,” an indefinite lawsuit can be filed. As an example in the justification, it was mentioned that the amount to be determined by the “discovery and expert report” was determined, which is a very common practice in the business judiciary to obtain an expert account report. 107 again. article 2. in the paragraph ”as a result of the information or investigation provided by the counterparty”, it is mentioned that the amount of the receivable is determined, it is not correct to expect the employee to determine the exact amount of the receivable when the employer, who is obliged to provide documents to the employee while working due to the above-mentioned legal obligations, does not fulfill it.
There are two elements, one subjective and the other objective, in the provision that foresees the indefinite receivable case.
Indefinite receivable in the event that it is objectively impossible to determine the receivable or the value of the case
his case will be filed. For example, in a case filed by an employee who has suffered a work accident, the employer and the employee mutually
defect rates, whether there is perfect responsibility and if there is, inevitability status and disability
it is impossible to determine their rates at the stage of filing a lawsuit.
The subjective element is that the creditor cannot be expected to determine the amount subject to the claim from the creditor.
October pay the above-mentioned costs in a situation where the employee is dismissed without payment of legal rights.
as an expert, the freedom to determine the possible labor receivables by Deciphering the account report and to seek rights
it can be considered as an obstacle in front of you.
The impossibility of expressing the result of the claim in figures is due to the fact that the plaintiff does not know the exact amount, and this
it is the case when the ignorance of the defendant arises from the cases found in his field.
Having detailed information about non-unionized employees and legal labor receivables at the workplace
an unexpected worker will not even be able to correctly name the receivables, while the correct account
it should not be considered possible to determine together with the method and exactly. But legal counsel at work,
to come to the same conclusion in terms of an employee working in a position such as a personnel specialist, accounting manager
you will not be able.
How to qualify for executive denial compensation before an indefinite receivable lawsuit enters our legal system
the criterion of being liquid (specific) in terms of has been accepted as jurisprudence. This criterion is specific to what you will receive
it has been accepted by the Supreme Court that it can also be taken into account if it is not. According to the Supreme Court; “A liquid
in order to be able to talk about the receivable; either the actual amount of the receivable must be certain and fixed, or the debtor
all elements must be known or known in order to be determined by;
thus, it is possible for the debtor to investigate and determine the amount of the debt; in other words,
the debtor alone should be able to determine how much he owes. These conditions
otherwise, there is no mention of a liquid receivable” (YHGK. 14.07.2010 days and 2010/19-376 E, 2010/397 K;
YHGK. day of 17.10.2012 and 2012/9-838 E, 2012/715 K).
An indefinite receivable lawsuit can be filed in three different ways within the framework of the current legal regulation. Eva
107 of the HMK, where an indefinite receivable lawsuit can be filed in the nature of a lawsuit (with a collection request). article 1.
and 2. it is stipulated in the jokes. An indefinite determination case in the nature of determination is the same article 3. based on the joke. According to the reason of the article, the creditor can also open a partial eda complex determination case. Each type of case has different characteristics.
In the case of an indefinite receivable with a collection request, the creditor must subject the amount he can determine to the case. This
it would not be right for him to demand a random amount in the matter. For example, the employer and the Social Security Institution
a worker who appears to have served for 10 years and minimum wage in his records, his working time is 12 years and his wage is net
By explaining it as 2.000,00TL, he can file an indefinite receivable collection lawsuit related to severance pay. This
in the case, the time elapsed in the records and the amount that can be determined according to the minimum wage should be requested. Another
a calculation as far as the creditor can determine in the case of indefinite receivables for collection purposes with narration
he should do it and demand this amount. A hypothetical amount (100,00TL) provided that the lawsuit petition is currently registered
if it is shown, it would not be correct to accept the case as an indefinite receivable case for collection purposes.
In the case of indefinite receivables for collection purposes, the answer that the employer will give in this direction at the preliminary examination stage
when the uncertainty disappears at the reconciliation or investigation stage, 107/2. the amount of the plaintiff according to the article
he can increase it and demand the collection of all that you will receive. Prohibition of expansion of the claim at this stage
will not be in place.
HMK’s 107. according to the justification of the article, the increase when the receivable becomes certain, only once
can be done. If an increase is requested for the second time, the claim faces a ban on expansion.
In the case of an indefinite receivable with a collection request, the statute of limitations is terminated for the entire receivable on the date of the case. Rate
its beginning should be the date of the trial, if there is no question of default before the trial. Once the receivable has been determined
then the beginning of interest for the increased portion is the date of default or lawsuit. It should be noted that it is unclear
all the facilities provided by the receivable case to the creditor in an indefinite receivable case for the sole purpose of collection
will occur.
107/3 of the CCP, where the indefinite receivable case can be opened as a determination case. accepted in the article
however, it is also possible to open the case without specifying the amount. In this case, with the absence of legal benefits
in order not to engage in related discussions, 107. in the last sentence of the article, the indefinite receivable case
it has been stated that there is a legal benefit in opening a determination case.
The most important result of the fact that the indefinite receivable case can be opened as a determination case is the determination of the indefinite receivable
his case also cuts the statute of limitations for receivables. This is the point, 107. in the justification of the article
it is explained.
After the opening of the indefinite receivable case as a determination case, during the trial of the receivable
107/2 of the HMK on determination. according to the article, it is not possible to increase the amount. Because the word
the provision made, the opening of the indefinite receivable lawsuit in the form of an EDA lawsuit by specifying the amount
in case it can find application area. However, with the judgment made in the indefinite receivable determination case, the receivable
after it is determined, the collection you will receive can be requested by completely correcting the case.
Opening of the indefinite receivable case as a determination case and then to the EDA case with correction
the difference between the conversion of the case from the opening of the case over a certain amount, at the starting point of interest
it shows itself. When an indefinite receivable case is opened as a determination case, the beginning of interest, the receivables
the date of reclamation for which it is requested as a figure should be.
HMK 107. according to the justification of the article, the indefinite receivable case is partially combined with the EDA case
it is also possible that it can be opened as a detection case. Then, in the case of indefinite receivables, an amount of
in addition to the collection, the determination of the remaining amount may be requested and the remaining amount when determined during the trial
it can also be requested.
The difference between this from the full eda case is that instead of the request for the amount that can be determined, a partial amount
it is desirable. For example, when an indefinite receivable lawsuit is filed by a creditor for an indefinite receivable
and the fee for 100,00 TL, and for the remaining amount, when the determination of the receivable is requested, a partial complete determination
his case is mentioned. Because the creditor can determine the employer or the official institution in the records
instead of making the amount the subject of the lawsuit, he made a claim for a hypothetical amount. The aforementioned case
the difference from the partial case is that the indefinite receivable case is mentioned without specifying that the creditor has filed a partial lawsuit.
it is based on making demands. For an indefinite receivable, as described above, the creditor’s
expressly stating that he has filed a partial lawsuit, making a claim, or partial without mentioning indefinite receivables
if requests are made, it is accepted that the case is opened as a partial case.
At the moment when the partial eda complex determination case is opened, the time-out is terminated for the entire amount you will receive. But the interest
in terms of the beginning, there is a different situation from the indefinite receivable case for collection purposes. Subject of the case
the date of the case should be accepted as the beginning of interest in terms of the amount received. The remaining part you will receive
although only the determination has been requested, the amount of the specified balance receivable is requested in the future from the date of
from there, the interest must be decided.
In the concrete case, the dispute between the parties occurred at the moment when the plaintiff worker was permanently Decommissioned in 2001.,
it is at the point whether the periods in which he previously worked in seasonal status will be taken into account. 2001
the period subject to the case depending on the adaptation problem at the stage of recruitment, which took place in the year
determination of the salaries that can be earned in it and, accordingly, wage difference, bonus difference, additional
the determination of the requests for the difference in the payment and the difference in the attrition premium is from the employee at the stage when the claim is filed.
it can’t be expected. In this regard, according to the workplace personnel file, wage payrolls and employer records
the calculation was made by obtaining an expert account report, and the case is an indefinite receivable case
the determination made by the court in the direction that it is compatible with the content of the file.
On the other hand, it was emphasized that an indefinite receivable lawsuit was filed in the lawsuit petition and the subject of the case is labor
a request has been made for TL 1000.00 for now by separating the receivables. Judging
after the account report received during the claim, the plaintiff’s attorney, emphasizing the case of indefinite receivables, requested
he petitioned for an increase. The form of request in the lawsuit petition and the amount subject to the request
when evaluated, the case is considered as a partial eda complex determination case from the types of indefinite receivables case
for an opening requires the adoption. Because the plaintiff will receive the minimum he can determine in accordance with the claims of the party
instead of demanding their amounts, he made requests by setting a partial amount. In this case
according to the results of the partial eda complex determination case, which is one of the types of indefinite receivables case, a provision should be established. Feature of the case
for all that you will receive as required, it is appropriate to accept that my statute of limitations has been terminated on the date of the case. However, the collected
unlike the indefinite receivable for purpose case, the receivables requested by the demand increase petition
the interest must be executed from the date of the said petition to the court. Court
it is incorrect to decide on the interest from the date of the case for all of the receivables that have been adjudicated, and the decision
it had to be broken in this way…)
at the end of the trial, which was disrupted on the grounds and turned back instead of the file, the court
the previous decision was resisted.
After the law has been examined by the General Assembly and it is understood that the decision to resist has been appealed during the period and
after the documents in the file were read, the requirements were discussed:
Decision: Taking into account the length of service in seasonal labor before the case was transferred to the staff
according to the degree and level to be determined, the difference in wages, contractual and legal additional payments and attrition premiums
the collection of their receivables is related to the request.
The plaintiff’s attorney works as a seasonal worker at the workplace belonging to the General Directorate of Village Services, which has been abolished
while his client, who was recruited in 2001, was engaged in seasonal labor during the transition to the staff,
that the adjustment to the missing degree and level was made without taking into account the length of service, therefore
claiming that his wage was determined low, and accordingly, his social rights were paid incompletely
750-TL wage difference, 100-TL contractual additional payment difference, 100-TL legal additional payment difference and 50-TL attrition
a decision to collect a total of TL 1000-difference labor receivable from the defendant, including the difference in premiums
he demanded and sued.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s claims have expired, in addition, the client is a party of the municipality
stating that he was not present, he requested the dismissal of the case.
The difference requested by the plaintiff by the court is disputed at the time of the opening of the case and the amount of labor receivables
since it has been determined by the expert report, the case can be opened as an indefinite receivable case, based on the ruling
according to the calculations in the expert report received, the difference receivables should be taken under the provision
it was decided to accept the case with justification.
The decision on the appeal of the defendant Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality deputy, in the title section above
it has been corrupted by the reasons explained.
The court, repeating the previous justification, stated that the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK)
as stated in Article 107, in cases where the plaintiff cannot determine the outcome of the claim, a minimum of
he may file an indefinite receivable lawsuit by specifying the amount, the indefinite receivable of the case in the decision to overturn
since it is accepted that he has a case, the protection of the plaintiff’s legal interest with this type of case
since the arrangement has been made for the interest start date should also be the date of the case, this acceptance
it is also in accordance with the regulation and justification of the law, and an appeal review is conducted on the same day
the subject of the case and the reasons are the same, the double numbered files decided in the same way are approved,
the only essential number of these files is that the Court of Cassation, which is responsible for ensuring the unity of case law, has been corrupted
the previous decision was resisted on the grounds that he decided in this direction without justifying the difference.
The decision to resist was appealed by the defendant Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality deputy.
The dispute that comes before the General Assembly of the Law by way of resistance, the rights related to excess are reserved and
the receivables subject to the lawsuit were separated and opened as a total of 1.000-TL, after the expert report
the amount of receivables has been increased by filing a petition to increase the demand and there is an indefinite receivable case
in the case at hand, about which there is no dispute, in terms of all that you will receive, including the increased amounts
is the interest start date the date of the lawsuit or the lawsuit for the parts requested by the lawsuit, for the increased parts
demand is collected at the point where there is an increase date.
For the resolution of the dispute, it is first worth mentioning the legal nature of the indefinite receivable case
is available.
pursuant to Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011,
as a new type of case that is not included in the abrogated Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086
the indefinite receivable and determination case has been accepted.
According to Article 107 of the Law No. 6100;
“1-The ability to fully and accurately determine the amount or value that you will receive at the time the case is opened
in cases where it cannot be expected of him or it is impossible, the creditor shall establish the legal relationship and the minimum
he can file an indefinite receivable lawsuit by specifying an amount or value.
2-The amount or value that you will receive as a result of the information or investigation provided by the counterparty is complete and accurate
as soon as it is possible to determine, the plaintiff, without being subject to the prohibition of expansion of the claim
he can increase his demand, which he stated at the beginning of the case.
3-In addition, in cases where a partial EDA lawsuit can be filed, a determination lawsuit can also be filed, and in this case the legal
it is accepted that the benefit exists.” with the provision in the form of indefinite receivables, the case has been arranged.
This article, which is not included in the government draft, is submitted to the Justice Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
essentially, the search for rights related to a receivable, the amount or value of which cannot be Decisively determined from the beginning
the person who is in a situation, the difficulties he faces in the legal system by Deconstructing the search for rights
on the grounds of ensuring the widest possible protection of freedom within the framework of
it has been created and legislated.
In the justification of the Article, “The person who is in the situation of seeking rights, the legal relationship to which he will make the request, the addressee Dec
and despite the fact that he knows and can determine the minimum amount that he will demand due to this relationship,
he may not be able to fully determine all that he will receive. In particular, such a situation can be encountered in claims for compensation, where the damage cannot be determined from the beginning, but it is possible to determine exactly after an examination. In our legal system, such a
there are many difficulties in terms of seeking the right of the person who encounters the situation. Firstly
he is actually being asked to sue for a receivable that he does not fully know, in addition, later
and when it turns out that you will receive an amount more than your own request, do not expand the case
it was possible for him to go forward within the framework of the ban. In such a situation, the truly unknown
such as forcing to sue for a receivable, a way that cannot be explained by the essence of the search for rights, and in fact
even if the party has no negligence or fault of its own, such as encountering a ban, an obstacle is mentioned
it was the subject. However, the freedom to seek rights, to Decry such a limitation and to force to behave unrealistically
not, indeed, the person whose right has been violated or is in danger of being violated, as widely as possible
it should aim to protect the way. In the recent period, both in comparative law and in Turkish law
the fact that “effective legal protection” has now come to the agenda by going beyond mere legal protection is also
it requires it. Moreover, when a lawsuit needs to be filed for a receivable whose amount or value is uncertain, a
the team may impose limitations, leading to new claims within the case or new cases outside of that case
by opening it, it will also create a situation contrary to the procedural economy. Also, its quantity or value
the fact is that the classical partial case for an unknown receivable also does not produce a complete solution.
Taking into account that the provisions on indefinite receivables and determination cases are also included in comparative law
the amount or value that you will receive on the date the case is opened, in full and precisely
in cases where it is not expected or impossible for him to determine, the creditor,
it is accepted to be able to file an indefinite receivable lawsuit by specifying a minimum amount or value with a legal relationship
has been. In order for the creditor to file such a lawsuit, the amount or value to which he will file a lawsuit is complete and final
it should not be possible to really determine, or it should be objectively impossible. Will Be Opened
if the amount of the case is known or can be determined, such a case cannot be filed. Because, in every case
as it is sought, legal benefit will be sought here, since there is a legal benefit in such a situation
it can’t be mentioned. In particular, the new provisions on partial litigation are also taken into account and together with
when evaluated, it is unacceptable to resort to this method in cases where it is possible to detect it from the beginning.
In the event of an indefinite receivable lawsuit or a determination lawsuit, even if the creditor does not specify the entire amount, the,
to state the legal relationship concretely at the beginning of the case and to the extent that it can be determined, the minimum amount
he has to show it.
In the second paragraph of the Article, in cases where an indefinite receivable or determination case may be filed, the amount or
as soon as the value is determined, the creditor’s claim without being affected by the prohibition on expanding the claim
it is stated that it can increase. As a rule, the amount or value initially indicated in a case is
increasing it is subject to the prohibition of expanding the claim. The purpose of this is to protect the plaintiff’s right when filing a lawsuit
it is that he does not abuse, behaves more diligently, does not unnecessarily prolong the trial. Whereas,
for a receivable whose amount or value cannot be fully determined from the beginning, the plaintiff has such a negligence or
there is no mention of its imperfection. For this reason, after an indefinite receivable or determination case is filed,
in the later stages of the trial, the information provided by the other party and the evidence presented or the evidence
as a result of the examination and investigation procedures (for example, after an expert or exploratory examination), from the beginning
if the indefinite receivable has become certain, the plaintiff can increase the claim that he stated at the beginning of the case without being subject to the prohibition of expanding the claim
it is adopted. The plaintiff, without being subject to restrictions and prohibitions, only by submitting a claim to the new
he will be able to ask to continue the trial on the amount. Without a doubt, the specific hale you will receive
if the new request that appeared after its arrival is missing, then a new request for an increase is indicated after that
he will face a ban on expanding the claim. Because, in this case, it is not uncertainty, but the plaintiff’s own
there is a situation arising from his negligence.
“In cases where an Eda lawsuit can be filed, a detection lawsuit cannot be filed”, the freedom of rights-search of the Deconstructed proposition
the capacity and legal benefit condition it has reached has no validity in the face of its content.
In cases where there is a very short period of time until the expiration of the statute of limitations in the amount of indefinite receivables, only
it is generally accepted that a detection case can be opened together with a detection or partial EDA.
The plaintiff claims, for example, that the amount you will receive instead of collecting compensation and that the debtor is responsible
he can and should be able to open a case aimed at his detection. This case will cut the statute of limitations, the case will
the acquired decision can be followed up through general foreclosure, in case of objection, the debtor may not be able to afford
enforcement-denial compensation sanction will be able to enter into force. On the other hand, the detection case, the case economy
it is more advantageous for the parties compared to the EDA case in terms of. The party peace of the determination case
it also has a character that makes it easy.
The creditor, only the eda case or only the determination case or the partial determination case together with the partial determination case
it has options to open. The right to freedom of search (Dec.m.36, IHAS.m.6) this is what exists in essence
options cannot be prohibited by law or case law. The model provides the specified options to the creditor with a procedural
he recognizes it as the truth.
Essentially, a single element of determination at the heart of every EDA case, regardless of whether it is complete or partial
There are. In other words, the determination of responsibility behind every situation organized in the eda provision
there is a mandatory pre-detection acceptance that includes.
In the model envisaged in the draft, in addition to the determination of the legal relations of the determination case, the determination of the right
in cases where an EDA lawsuit can be filed, the condition of legal interest is deemed to have been fulfilled
his acceptance strengthens his solution (paradigm).
The material and formal legal consequences that will arise with the opening of a lawsuit (interruption of the statute of limitations
and others) will undoubtedly apply in the same way in detection cases.
With the motion, a procedural possibility that should exist will be added to our law.” shaped
explanations have been made and the purpose of the indefinite receivable case has been stated with the details of the law.
Then, in order for the case to be opened in the type of indefinite receivable case, as of the date of opening the case
the amount or value that you will receive as the subject of the dispute will be fully and definitively determined by the plaintiff
it is necessary that it cannot be determined by the party. Inability to determine, the necessary attention and care of the plaintiff
although he shows that the determination of quantity or value is not really expected of him
it must be based on the situation or objectively impossible. If these conditions are found, the plaintiff
to file his case as an indefinite receivable case within the scope of Article 107 of the CCP No. 6100
it will be possible; the plaintiff will benefit from the opportunities brought by this type of case.
One of the consequences of filing a lawsuit is the termination of the statute of limitations. In the Statute of limitations lawsuit petition
the specified claim result will be deducted for the amount. The case of the statute of limitations in the case of indefinite receivables
is it for the result of the temporary request specified in the petition, or is the amount in full as a result of the trial
No. 6100 on whether the final claim result determined will be cut off on the date of the case for all
There is no explicit provision in the HMK.
The reason for the organization of the indefinite receivable case is the claim for all that the plaintiff will receive when filing a lawsuit
although he wants to open it, it is impossible or cannot be expected from him to determine the amount of what he will receive
it is. The plaintiff’s purpose in filing an indefinite receivable lawsuit is to sue all of the receivables and all
to decide about it. As in filing a partial lawsuit, sue a part of what you will receive
this is not to be. The result of the request stated in the lawsuit petition is also temporary, its main purpose when filing a lawsuit
as soon as the receivable is determined, it is decided on this amount. In the case of indefinite receivables
an exceptional case in which it is impossible or cannot be expected from the plaintiff to determine what he will receive
in this case, the possibility of filing such a lawsuit has been granted. It is impossible to determine what the legislator will receive
or the possibility of filing an indefinite receivable lawsuit if it cannot be expected from him
As for the evaluation of the concrete event in the light of the explanations made above; the plaintiff’s attorney
General Directorate of rural services of your client repealed in the status of seasonal workers in the work place in 2001 during the removal of the working period were not taken into account when adjusting the degree and level of staff, claiming that period to be determined taking account of seasonal labour for the last service the receivables from claims according to grade and level the difference defendant has requested the opening Labor uncertain how to behave.
The amount of the receivables subject to the lawsuit by the court is disputed as of the date the lawsuit was filed
since it has been determined by the expert report, it has been adopted that the case can be opened as an indefinite receivable case
and in accordance with this acceptance, the case was considered and concluded; on the date of the case for all receivables
as it is accepted that the statute of limitations has been discontinued, including the amounts increased by submitting a request for an increase in demand
interest has been charged on all receivables from the date of the lawsuit.
It is appropriate for the Special Chamber court to consider the case as an indefinite receivable case and conclude it
it was found, the reason for the disruption of this issue was not made.
In that case, the case is an indefinite receivable case within the meaning of Article 107 of the CCP No. 6100
there is no dispute between the court and the Special Chamber in its Decisiondirection.
In this case, since the case is an indefinite receivable case, the material that will arise with the opening of this case
and its form is that the legal consequences (termination of the statute of limitations and others) also apply to this case
since it is necessary, the receivables, including the amounts increased by filing a petition for an increase in demand by the court, will be
it has been right to operate interest on all of them from the date of the case.
Although during the negotiations at the General Assembly of Civil, the minimum amount that the plaintiff is able to determine is
instead of filing a lawsuit over small amounts, in this case, the case is subject to Article 107 of the CCP No. 6100.
that it should be qualified as a “partial eda complex determination” case specified in the justification, in this case
interest on the receivables increased by submitting a request for an increase in demand from the date of the increase in demand
it should be ruled, therefore, the decision to disrupt the Private Apartment is in place and the decision to resist
Although it was suggested that it should be disrupted, this opinion was not adopted by the majority of the Board.
As such, the decision to resist should be upheld for the reasons described above.
Conclusion: The decision of the defendant Sakarya Metropolitan Municipality deputy to resist with the rejection of the appeal objections
APPROVAL, receipt of the fee (TL 671.74) written below from the appellant, the decision
it was decided with a majority of votes at the second meeting on 28.02.2018 to close the correction road.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.