EN SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Originally: 2015/10805
The Verdict: 2016/17961
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
A LAWSUIT FOR EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES – THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED AS A CLAIM – THE APPLICANT CANNOT CHANGE THE TYPE OF LAWSUIT AND THE OUTCOME OF THE CLAIM THROUGH A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT – HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE CHANGED WITH THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF HIS CASE –
SUMMARY: The case has been opened as an indefinite receivable case. During the continuation of the trial, the plaintiff partially corrected his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, the type of the case has been changed to a partial case with the partial improvement petition mentioned above. The court accepted the case as a partial case in accordance with the petition for correction. However, the plaintiff could not change the type of case and therefore the outcome of his request through partial correction, but without thinking that he could do this by completely correcting his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was incorrect and had to be overturned.
(Art. 6100 Art. 141, 176, 319)
Lawsuit and Decision: Summary of the plaintiff’s request: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the case is an indefinite receivable case, declaring that his client worked at the defendant’s hospital workplace between Dec. 16.03.2005-25.02.2013 and terminated the employment contract due to retirement, and requested severance pay, annual paid leave, overtime and general vacation receivables to be collected.
Summary of the defendant’s Answer: The defendant’s lawyer of the Ministry of Health argued that the case should be dismissed, stating that since there is no employment contract or contract between the plaintiff and the defendant administration, hostility cannot be directed against the administration. Dec.
Summary of the court decision: The court decided to partially accept the case based on the evidence collected and the expert report received, with written justification.
Appeal: An appeal was filed by the defendant’s attorney at the decision stage.
Justification:
319 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. according to the article, it is forbidden to extend or modify the claim and defense in cases where the simple trial procedure is applied, and the parties decide on their own procedural actions after a certain stage of the case (unless there is explicit consent of the other party). As a rule, they cannot be changed.
The “correctional” institution regulated in Articles 176 and its continuation of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 is one of the exceptions to this prohibition (m. 141,2).
As is known, correction is a way that allows one of the parties to partially or completely correct a procedural transaction for a one-time basis and does not need the approval of the other party.
In the doctrine, correction is defined as the complete or partial correction of a procedural action performed by one of the parties, similar to the definition above. (DRY, Baki, Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure, Volume IV, Istanbul 2001, p. 3965; ALANGO/YILDIRIM/DEREN YILDIRIM, Principles of Civil Procedure Law, Istanbul 2009, p. 266; PEKCANITEZ/ATALAY/OZEKES, Civil Procedure Law, Ankara 2009, p. 361; ÜSTÜNDAĞ, Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. I-II, Istanbul 1997, p. 549; BILGEN, Mahmut, Civil Procedure Reform, Ankara 2010, p. definitions and authors cited in 1; YILMAZ, Ejder, Definitions and authors cited in Improving the Law of Civil Procedure, Ankara 2010, p. 49-50).
The case is completely fixable. It is the plaintiff who can completely correct the case. In a full correction, the plaintiff corrects his case from the beginning (from the lawsuit petition) and submits a new lawsuit petition. The plaintiff can change the outcome of his request by completely correcting his case. For example, the plaintiff may change the compensation case to a registration case through full correction, change the ecrimisil (receivable) case to a prevention of interference (transfer) case, change the title deed cancellation case to a cancellation of the certificate of inheritance (certificate of inheritance) case.
On the other hand, an improvement made to expand or partially change the result of a claim or the reason for a lawsuit is a partial correction, not a full correction. (KURU, Baki, Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.IV, Istanbul 2001, p. 3965)
In the concrete case, the lawsuit was filed as an indefinite receivable lawsuit. During the continuation of the trial, the plaintiff partially corrected his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, with the partial improvement petition mentioned above, the type of case has been changed to a partial case. In accordance with the petition for correction by the court, the case was accepted as a partial case. However, the plaintiff could not change the type of case and therefore the outcome of his claim by partial correction, but without thinking that he could do so by completely correcting his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was incorrect and had to be overturned.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 that the decision appealed for the reasons written above should be FINED TOO MUCH and the appeal fee paid in advance should be returned to the relevant person if requested.