EN SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Originally: 2016/577
The Verdict: 2016/3867
Decision Date: 14.07.2016
ACTION ARISING FROM THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – DECISION TO COLLECT THE FEE FROM THE DEFENDANT DUE TO ACCOUNTING ERRORS – CONSIDERATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF THE DECISION IN THIS DIRECTION AND CORRECTION OF THE MATERIAL DEFECT
SUMMARY: Since the local court decision was upheld, after deducting the TL 45.063,70 approval and decision fee and TL11.359,15 cash appeal fee received in advance from the Court of Cassation application fee, which should be collected in accordance with the Fees Law, it was decided to collect the plaintiff’s TL 33.704,55 judgment fee to the plaintiff over the accepted part of the case. During the examination, it was decided that while a decision should be made, it was understood that it was decided to collect a fee of 56,422.85 TL from the defendant as a result of a calculation error, it was decided that the request for correction of the decision was accepted in this direction and that it was appropriate to correct the material error.
(6098 SK Md. 470)
Case and Decision: The Plaintiff .. Architecture Construction Tourism San. and tic. Ltd. Şti. with the defendant .. Food Products San. and tic. A.Sh. due to the lawsuit filed between the Commercial Court of First Instance issued by Dec.. day and .. upon the approval of the numbered judgment, by the defendant’s attorney, our room.. day and .. a request has been made to correct the decision against the numbered decision.
The case relates to the cancellation of the objection to the unauthorized execution request for the collection of the remaining work receivables arising from the work contract and the request for the continuation of the trial. The decision of the Court regarding the partial acceptance of the case was issued by the defendant’s attorney in our Chamber upon the objection of the party’s attorneys.. day.. a request for correction of the decision was made against the numbered decision within the time limit.
1-
Taking into account the articles contained in the file and the compelling reasons stated in the court decision and adopted in the Supreme Court decision, it was necessary to reject other decision correction requests of the defendant’s attorney that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph by not being considered appropriate.
2-
Since the decision of the local court was upheld, after deducting the cash appeal fee of TL 11,359.15 from the approval and decision fee of TL 45,063.70, including the Court of Cassation application fee required to be received in accordance with the Fees Law, the plaintiff was charged an appeal and decision fee of TL 33,704.55. During the examination, it was understood that while a decision should have been made, it was decided to collect 56,422.85 TL from the defendant as a result of a calculation error, it was decided to accept the request for correction of the decision in this direction and it was found appropriate to correct the material error.
Result: 1 above. for the reasons explained in the paragraph, the defendant’s other requests for correction of the decision were rejected and our Department’s 2. pursuant to the paragraph, it was decided to accept his consent as TL 45.063,70 decision fee + TL 11.359,15 advance fee = TL 56.422,85 balance fee in the capacity of the defendant in the section following the signatures.
45.063,70 TL Arbitration Fee – 11.359,15 TL Advance Fee = 33.704,55 TL Balance Fee should be written as balance fee, and the number “56.422,85 TL” coming after the word balance in the sixth line of the decision digit of our department was removed from the text of the decision and replaced with the phrase “. on 14.07.2016, it was unanimously decided to write down the figure “33.704,55 TL” and CORRECT the material error in the approval decision of our Department in this way, and the decision correction fee paid in advance for decision correction will be returned to the defendant requesting decision correction upon his request. (¤¤)