EN SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Based on: 2016/8424
The Verdict: 2016/7581
Decision Date: 13.07.2016
THE CASE FOR COMPENSATION – THE REJECTION OF THE REJECTED JUDGE’S OPINION ON THE REJECTION BY THE OFFICIAL AGAINST THE FILE IS ESSENTIALLY REJECTED – THE APPROVAL OF THE DECISION
SUMMARY: Upon rejection of the judge’s opinion that the request should be rejected, the request was rejected on the merits by the authority examining the file and about the accused … ….-The decision to impose a TL disciplinary penalty has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney. The reasons put forward regarding the judge’s refusal are the grounds of appeal in terms of the merits of the case and are not the reasons defined in Article CCP. For the reasons explained above, it was decided to reject the appeal and to uphold the verdict.
(Art. 36 of Art. 6100)
In the compensation case between the parties, the defendant’s lawyer applied to the court and requested Decertification.
After the defendant’s attorney requested that the decision made by the authority examining the rejection request be reviewed by the Supreme Court, all the documents in the file were examined and made necessary upon the decision to accept the petition of appeal, which was apparently granted on time:
In summary, with the petition dated Dec. 01/03/2016 submitted by the defendant’s attorney in the case between the parties; (… the subject of the case is the biggest occupational accident in Turkey of the occupational accident; the request to remove the injunction against the rights and receivables of TKI,
which is the only source of income, was rejected without justification, while the requests for “legal assistance” made by the plaintiff party were accepted without conducting the economic situation research required by law and without requesting a report from a single file for numerous lawsuits filed in connection with the incident, the trial was held in the numbered file of the High Criminal Court,
but unlike the civil court, the criminal trial conducted much more extensive research, in order to make a fair decision, the result of the criminal trial was accepted without the request of a single file for a large number of cases filed in connection with the incident, the criminal trial was conducted in a numbered file of the High Criminal Court, but unlike the civil court, the criminal trial conducted a much more thorough research, in order to make a fair decision, it was suggested that at least the expert report should be expected, that the amount of moral compensation awarded in the lawsuits filed against the client company due to the same incident was too exorbitant, and that the amount of compensation awarded was determined by the court.
It has been suggested that the judge has lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence and decided by taking the side of the plaintiffs. as a result of pressure from the public and the press, on the grounds that it contradicts their decisions.
Upon the opinion of the rejected judge that the request should be rejected, the request was rejected on the merits by the competent authority reviewing the file and the defendant … about 1,500.00.-The decision to impose a TL disciplinary penalty has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The reasons put forward by the judge regarding the refusal are grounds of appeal in terms of the merits of the case and are 36 of the CCP. not for the reasons stated in the article. on 13.07.2016, it was unanimously decided to APPROVE the judgment and to charge the plaintiff the following approval fee.