EN SUPREME COURT
Legal Department
Based on: 2016/4219
The Verdict: 2016/6890
Decision Date: 22.06.2016
IT WAS REQUESTED TO COLLECT CORPORATE DAMAGES – THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF TAKING A PARTNER FROM THE DEFENDANTS AND GIVING THE PLAYER THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT FOR EACH PARTICIPANT – H
SUMMARY: HMK’s 297. considering the principles regarding the scope of the provision specified in the article, the court decided that after discussing the evidence about all the defendants and determining their responsibilities, a judgment should be established individually, with justification and in such a way as not to cause hesitation in execution. Considering the amounts stated by the defendant, it is not correct to make a judgment with a clear and incomprehensible statement such as “taken from the defendants jointly and given to the plaintiff”, and even the decision of the local court had to be overturned for this reason because some defendants were not convicted.
(Art. 297 of the Art. 6100)
Case and Decrees: In the case between the parties,,,. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated 28.05.2014 and numbered 2012/391-2014/383 was requested to be examined by the Supreme Court by the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, the Bank’s lawyer and some of the defendant’s attorneys, and it was understood that it was granted within the time limit of the appeal petition. After hearing the report prepared by the Investigating Judge on the file and reading and reviewing the petition, the defense, the minutes of the hearing and all the documents in the file, the necessity of the work was discussed and the decision was made:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendant, who works as a trustee at the Central Directorate, performed the start-up operations by issuing fake documents on behalf of fictitious people, including them in the payroll, salary, salary difference, additional tuition fees, education allowance, etc. on behalf of these people. Oct. paid pay, opened a bank account on behalf of these people, transferred their salaries to these accounts and withdrew money from the relevant accounts, embezzled this money, claimed that the defendant was responsible for the resulting damage, violated the protocol signed with the institution, despite signing a protocol to pay the officers one by one, the institution was not paid.
He filed a lawsuit claiming that he had accrued wages, opened a bank account on behalf of these people, transferred their salaries to these accounts and embezzled this money by withdrawing money from the relevant accounts, violated the protocol signed with the institution, did not pay the institution.
The defendant. ,,the lawyer of , ,,, that the payment of pension payouts to , ,, was notified by letter dated 11.01.1993, the protocol was removed after this letter, the client argued that the bank had no defects and no liability.
Defendant’s lawyer requested that the case be dropped, arguing that no animosity could be directed against his client.
The other defendants and their lawyers argued for the case to be dropped.
According to the decision made by the court in accordance with the annulment decision of our department, the defendant has,,,,. the difference in salary, additional tuition fees, education allowance, etc. October 19, 2019. accruing receivables such as accruing receivables and depositing them in the bank, then using them on his behalf to cause damage to the institution,,. With the partial acceptance of the case, it was decided to accept the case as TL 10,684.51 on the grounds that the defendants other than the defendants were responsible for the damage of the institution due to the lack of due care and attention in the capacity of accrual officer and bailiff, and that the defendant was also responsible for the damage caused by the failure to submit the necessary identity documents and wet signatures during the account opening on behalf of fictitious persons.
The legal interest to be collected from the defendant and transferred to the plaintiff is TL 6.45 from the date of the case with the legal interest to be accrued from 16/02/1999 (the basic interest amount is TL 7.762.14, provided that the interest to this amount is operated), TL 20 with the partial acceptance of the case as of 2013/617, TL 67 with the legal interest to be accrued from 16/02/1999 (the basic interest amount is TL 6.45, the interest to be operated on this amount is TL), TL 67 with the date of the case with the legal interest to be accrued from the date of the case as of 2013/617 on condition),
for each of the defendants specified in the expert report, cash interest to the defendant is to be operated from 10/05/2001 (the main interest amount is 3,436.38 TL), for the defendants, for each of them specified in the expert report, provided that interest is operated on this amount) in order to operate cash interest, for each of the specified in the expert report No. 2013/617, it is stipulated that it will be appropriate to operate cash interest on the defendant. It was decided to take the amounts specified by the defendant jointly from the defendants and give them to the plaintiff.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, his attorney and some defendants and their attorneys.
1- The case is based on the fact that the defendant completed the initiation procedures by issuing false documents during his term as a trustee, salary, salary difference, additional tuition fees, education allowance, Oct. it relates to the compensation lawsuit filed by him with the claim that he caused damage to the institution by collecting receivables such as. The other persons shown as defendants are the persons who have worked for certain periods and signed the fake document subject to the lawsuit as an accrual officer or a will enforcement officer. This too
In the cancellation letter of our department dated 07.06.2012, it was also stated that the governors may also be held responsible for the damage to the institution due to lack of supervision, and an assessment should be made on this issue. Although the trial was continued in accordance with the annulment decision of our Office by the court and the expert report obtained to determine the responsibility of the defendants was complied with, a provision contrary to the provision of Article 297/2 of the CCP numbered 6100 was introduced.
A provision contrary to the provision of Article 297/2 of the CCP has been introduced. According to the article, “In the final part of the judgment, without repeating any word of the justification, the judgment given about each of the claims, the obligations and the rights granted to the parties must be clearly shown under the sequence number and in such a way as not to arouse doubt or hesitation.” The court, HMK 297.
taking into account the principles related to the scope of the provision specified in the article, after discussing the evidence about all the defendants and determining their responsibilities, he decided that a judgment should be made on each defendant separately, with justification and in such a way as not to cause hesitation in execution. It is not correct to establish a verdict with a clear and incomprehensible statement such as “taken from the defendants jointly and given to the plaintiff over the specified amounts”, and even it is not accurate that no verdict was given against some defendants, and the decision of the local court had to be overturned for this reason.
2- According to the reason and form of the violation, the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorneys and some defendant’s attorneys did not need to be examined at this stage.
Conclusion: The judgment was ANNULLED ex officio for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above; For the reasons explained in paragraph (2), there is no room for examining the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, defendant’s attorney, defendant’s heirs for the time being; it was decided unanimously on 22/06/2016 that the appeal fee they paid should be returned to them upon the plaintiffs’ requests.