TC
Supreme
law office
ORIGINAL NO.: 2017/3553
DECISION NO:1561
DECISION DATE:06.03.2018
TERMINATION OF THE TENDER, A CASE FOR A DECISION ON COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE LATE DELIVERY OF THE REAL ESTATE DUE TO THE UNFAIR TERMINATION OF THE TENDER.
The plaintiff… Tic.Ltd.Şti. as a result of the lawsuit filed by the defendant against the wrongful termination lawsuit together with his lawyer on 20/09/2011 on request for the day on which the compensation lawsuit will be filed due to late delivery, the case was dismissed by holding a hearing at the Supreme Court on 12/06/2012, despite the fact that he had previously decided to hold an appeal hearing together with the plaintiff’s lawyer during the time requested by the plaintiff’s attorney. … Selime M On 06/03/2018, company officials from the opposite side came and came on behalf of the defendant.
An open hearing has been opened. After the decision has been made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be within its time limit, and the oral statement of the person present has been heard, the party has been informed that the hearing is over. The case has been discussed. The report issued by the Court of Accounts judge and the documents in the file were examined and discussed as necessary.
Case relates to the claim for compensation arising from the late delivery of the real estate due to the unfair tender termination case.
The court decided to dismiss the case; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The plaintiff’s deputy Enforcement Directorate filed a lawsuit with the highest numbered 2008/330 real estate sales tender file requesting that the tender be terminated in bad faith by the defendant due to the plaintiff’s post-purchase Pei, while the enforcement manager decided to collect money from the defendant by imposing a penalty of 10% of the tender price in the petition filed in the civil court 2009/1056, also revealing the defendant’s bad faith, stating that compensation for the damage caused by the late delivery of the real estate by the defendant was considered appropriate.
Defendant’s attorney; stated that the plaintiff’s claim was groundless due to filing a lawsuit for termination of the tender for participating in the tender; that he did not file a lawsuit using his legal right due to deficiencies in the tender process and dismissed the case, stating that he was fined 10% of the tender price, and suggested that the case should be dismissed.
The court decided to dismiss the case due to the fact that the sanctions to be applied to the perpetrator of a tort in the event of termination of the tender opened by the defendant are specified in the law, and it was decided to impose an administrative fine on the defendant whose case for termination of the tender was rejected as a matter of principle.
There are rights defined in the Constitution as Freedom to Seek Rights, which includes freedom to seek rights, Decriminalizes complaints and lawsuits before judicial authorities and Decriminalizes them. There is no doubt that all these stated rights and freedoms are never unlimited. In other words, society should be narrowed and expanded according to its characteristics and its relationship with the rights and interests of others, if constitutional rights are not to ensure peace and a just balance. Decoupling of rights and interests from each other, that is, the boundary between conflicting interests in case of conflict of legal interests (interests), MK.No , 1st. according to the main rule in the article, it must be drawn with great care by the judge.
When determining this boundary between conflicting interests by creating a law in accordance with the above-mentioned article of the Dec, the judge should also use the criteria adopted and generalized in teaching and practice in order to reach a result consistent with justice. There is no doubt that honor, honor and freedom to seek rights as Decently protected entities are considered abstract concepts, so one has no superiority over the other.
The existence of a superior right and interest protected by law is also never enough on its own; in addition, this right and interest should not be abused. 36 Of our Constitution. in this article, everyone should exercise the right to a fair trial as a plaintiff or defendant through the courts by legitimate means and procedures before the prosecution and defense authority, and the right to file a lawsuit, as a constitutional right regulated within the limits of this right.
In the case subject to the lawsuit; the reason for the plaintiff’s late delivery of the real estate he received through a tender and the damage he suffered due to this reason is the termination of the tender made by the defendant and the exceeding of the limits of the right to legal action. Due to the termination of the tender, the plaintiff received the late delivery of the real estate. There is also an appropriate educational link between the damage caused and the defendant’s action, and while the extent of the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to late delivery of his real estate should be determined and decided according to the result, it was not correct to Decertify the case due to incomplete examination and faulty discretion, and the decision should have been overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 06/03/2018 to overturn the decision appealed in favor of the plaintiff for the reasons described above, to invoice the trial proxy fee in the amount of TL 1,630.00 appreciated in favor of the plaintiff company to the defendant and to refund the fee received in advance if requested.