Summary:
In terms of moral compensation and financial compensation for work, a sufficient number was not provided at the first meeting; at the second meeting, the other defendant Hasan’s father Veysel was underage and had no economic independence, the plaintiff, the son of the plaintiff’s unmarried marriage, took part in a union; and it was illegal to perform an official wedding without marriage, he had to know the consequences of this relationship from the very beginning, and they acted informally with H… that his son acted in support and contrary to the law;
he could not prove that he made efforts to realize the official marriage, and also kept his son under his control and guidance; the plaintiff’s stay in Parliament during the period when his son was in the military, the use of his service and labor, the acceptance of the existence of a tort, that is, the damage to the assets of the father and son together, as well as the claim to damage the plaintiff’s personal rights, the concrete case of the application of the law of obligations described in terms of the nature of the dispute and the provisions of the tort, according to the defendant, is an act in which it is not possible to separate one from the other, the nature of the dispute and the provisions of the tort.
V….. it was concluded that it was necessary to accept it; it was unanimously decided that the court decision, which was in accordance with the procedure and the law, should also be upheld in this regard.
TC
High
General Assembly of Law
Issue: 2010/88
Decision No:2010/126
K. Date: 24.2.2010
At the end of the trial regarding the “material and moral compensation” case between the parties; The Judgment issued by the Court of First Instance on the partial acceptance of the case was dated 2.10.06.2008 and 2007/263 E. Decahya 2.10.06.2008.-2009/202 K. numbered, 25.05.2009 day and 2008/11629 E of the General Directorate of Law of the Court of Cassation upon the request of the examination of the party’s deputies against the decision No. 4.-2009/7023 K. with the numbered decree;
(…1-According to the articles contained in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the necessary reasons in accordance with the law, especially if there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the plaintiff and the defendants ………………. Yilmaz’s objections should be rejected.
2-As for the objection of the defendant V… Y…, the case relates to claims for material and moral compensation from the unmarried spouse and his father due to a separation after marriage that took place without a formal wedding. Part of the request was accepted by the local court; the decision was appealed by the parties.
… V… Y The defendant, the prosecutor is the father of the other defendant, who lives married without a formal wedding. Spouse married three years of marriage between the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s unable to agree with the divorce ended. After that in the lawsuit, with the ornaments in the House have been demanding compensation for moral and material remaining. The other defendant, the plaintiff who has a spouse who is not married, the father of V… Y…’s also known as the defendant. Since there was no reason for the defendant father to be responsible for his son’s action, the case against him had to be dismissed.
Since it is not in accordance with the procedure and the law for the local court to decide its liability together with the other defendant on the written grounds that this direction is not in place without taking into account, the decision had to be overturned. (…) The appellant
due to the fact that the decision is for the reason shown in paragraph (2) above, the defendant V… Y…. to harm in favor of; H. The defendants from the plaintiff H…Y…. as a result of the retrial against him, it was decided that the appeals of the defendants were rejected for the reasons in the first paragraph and the file was overturned instead; the court resisted the previous decision.
APPLICANT: The defendant’s attorney
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed in the examination conducted by the General Assembly of Law, and the document in the file was read, it was discussed that it was necessary:
The case relates to a claim for material and moral compensation based on a separation that occurred after a marriage performed without a formal wedding; the enmity was directed to the father and the extramarital spouse with a claim of fiduciary responsibility.
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff was tricked into having an official wedding by the defendants for 3 years, was expelled from the house upon requesting a wedding, the cost of 5 giraffes and 2 republican gold and 2 adana auger bracelets that stayed at home was 2,750 UAH; he said that he requested 3,250.00 UAH in exchange for his contribution by working with the defendants for 3 years, and asked the defendants to jointly and severally decide on the collection of financial and moral compensation, including 10,000.00 UAH for the deterioration of the hymen, the loss of the chance to have a good marriage, and 15,000.00 UAH for the distress and suffering he suffered.
The Defendants as for the power of attorney, it is true that the parties were married without a prenuptial agreement, but there is no justification for other claims, the official wedding could not be held for various reasons, shortly after the marriage, the defendant H…. H… H…’s Army has gone to return to the military, this time left the plaintiff’s house, was not fired as claimed, does not sell his gold, is still on the client, but auger thin bracelet bracelets and that they are willing to pay, upon request, the common law wife was asked to state the merits of the case against her father, was asked to decide on the rejection case in terms of hostility.
The defendant declared that he was ready to return the gold left by Veysel for the case, 4 large gold gremise, 2 half gold, 2 bracelets, twin screws, not the other one, only; the plaintiff’s lawyer had informed the defendant’s statement of objections.
Paid payable by the court of moral compensation in full 3.000,00 TRY from the cost of gramis büyük altın 4, altın 2 half, twin screw bracelet, 2 of which were returned to the plaintiff and defendant, severally to the defendants with the collection of the plaintiff, 3.250,00 TRY in return for the immediately requested work, requested financial compensation due to the loss of the chance of a good marriage with the full acceptance of the hymen, the rejection of claims for excess and other items.
Upon the appeal of the party’s attorneys, the Special Chamber, the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s unmarried wife rejected all appeals; the decision made by the unmarried wife’s father on the direction of the other defendant was overturned by betting that he was not responsible, as detailed in the title section above.
In the previous decision of the Local Court, the defendant applied to his attorney for the decision to resist.
The first decision made by the court is final in terms of the defendant’s liability to the unmarried spouse, and the dispute that comes to the General Assembly of Law through resistance is collected at the point where there is a clear assessment of the defendant, whether the defendants have legal liability to the father of the unmarried spouse, whether there is a clear assessment of this defendant in the first decision of the court, and a clear assessment of the defendant.
First of all, it is useful to reveal the concrete event characteristics of the dispute with effective evidence:
In the concrete case, the plaintiff is a woman 15.08.1984, the defendant H… H…. they were born on 17.04.1983 and were united by getting married informally on 20.06.2002 with the knowledge and encouragement of the other defendant’s father; they did not have an official wedding. After the wedding, they did not move to a detached house, they lived together with the other defendant (H…’s father) V… in the same house for about 3 years.
The defendant H…. H…., he served in the military for about 15 months between Dec1.12.2003 and 01.03.2005, he was not at home. During this period, the plaintiff is a woman, the other defendant is v…..he continued to stay at the house of and did the work shown to him; he has contributed to the budget of this house where he lives.
The plaintiff and the defendant H…. this informal union between Dec Dec is not a marriage that takes place within the meaning of the Civil Code and is valid in the field of law; It also does not create a family law relationship between the parties. For this reason, the relationship between the parties should be evaluated not according to the principles of family law, but according to the rules of the law of obligations, especially the provisions of the tort Dec.
The court, the defendant H… H….has acknowledged the existence of the tort of , and this consideration has been fixed by non-infringement. It was decided that the other defendant, who is the father of defendant Hasan, together with his son, should be severally liable according to the rules of the law of obligations; during the negotiations held at the General Assembly of Civil defendant V……the responsibility of the has been discussed and voted separately in terms of possession and other requests.
In the examination conducted in terms of the claim for financial compensation due to possession;
Defendant V….. in the last hearing minutes dated 19.03.2008, ”the rest of us have 4, 2 half gold, bracelets, bracelets, besides 2 twin screw bracelets called gremise in the USA, I am ready to return” in the form of open acceptance of this statement and signing a statement that he accepts personal responsibility, which was not appealed by the plaintiffs. In the face of this clear acceptance, this issue was decided unanimously at the first meeting, and the majority opinion was that defendant Veysel had responsibility for returning the trappings specified in the declaration, and since there was no error in the local court’s decision in this direction, it should be upheld.
As for the plaintiff’s other claims;
In terms of moral compensation and financial compensation for work, a sufficient number was not provided at the first meeting; at the second meeting, the other defendant Hasan’s father Veysel was underage and had no economic independence, the plaintiff, the son of the plaintiff’s unmarried marriage, took part in a union; and it was illegal to perform an official wedding without marriage, he had to know the consequences of this relationship from the very beginning, and they acted informally with H…
that his son acted in support and contrary to the law; he has not been able to prove that he made efforts to make the official wedding happen, and also that he kept his son under his own control and guidance; according to the defendant, the plaintiff’s stay in Parliament during the period when his son was in the military, the use of his service and labor, the acceptance of the existence of a tort, that is, the damage to the assets of the father and son together, as well as the claim to cause damage to the plaintiff’s personal rights, an action in which it is impossible to separate one from the other, the nature of the dispute and the concrete event of the application of the law of obligations described in terms of tort provisions, according to the defendant.
V….. it is concluded that it is necessary to accept; it was unanimously decided that the court decision, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, should also be upheld in this regard.
For the reasons explained above and as a result; the Court decided that the unmarried spouse of the defendant and the father of the unmarried spouse are jointly and mutually liable for claims for financial compensation, moral compensation and compensation for labor in terms of trappings, and stated that there is no unlawful direction and error in fulfilling these claims, and that the decision to resist made in accordance with the procedure and the law should be upheld.
About the CUS: it was decided to reject the defendant’s objections to resistance with the attorney of appeal for the reasons shown above, to approve financial compensation for moral compensation and labor by a majority of votes at the first meeting held on 02/24/2010 in terms of trappings, and unanimously at the second meeting held on 03/03/2010 in terms of trappings.