EN SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Originally: 2015/10805
The Verdict: 2016/17961
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
A CLAIM APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED IN THE CASE FOR EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES – THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED AS A CLAIM APPLICATION – THE APPLICANT CANNOT CHANGE THE TYPE OF CASE AND THE OUTCOME OF THE CLAIM THROUGH A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT – HOWEVER, HE CANNOT CHANGE HIS CASE BY DECIDING ON THE FINAL DEGREE –
SUMMARY: The case has been opened as an indefinite receivable case. While the trial was ongoing, the plaintiff partially corrected his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, with the partial reclamation petition mentioned above, the type of case has been changed to a partial case. 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 claim by partial correction, but without considering that he could do so by completely correcting his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was erroneous and had to be overturned.
(Art. 6100 Art. 141, 176, 319)
Paying Decrees: Summary of the claimant’s claim: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the case is an indefinite receivable case and that his client had been working at the defendant’s hospital workplace between 16.03.2005 and 25.02.2013, terminated the employment contract due to retirement, severance pay, annual paid leave, overtime and general holiday receivables were demanded to be paid to him.
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 with written justification in accordance with the evidence collected and the expert report received.
Appeal: At the decision stage, the defendant’s attorney filed an appeal.
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 after a certain stage of the case (unless there is explicit consent of the other party), the parties decide on their own procedural actions. As a rule, they cannot be changed.
The institution of “correctional” 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 it is known, correction is a way that allows one of the parties to partially or completely correct a procedural transaction on 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. (KRU, Baki, Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.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, Civil Procedure Law, 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 the Law of Civil Procedure, Ankara 2010, p.49-50).
The case can be completely corrected. It is the plaintiff who can completely correct the case. In 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 reforming his case. For example, the plaintiff may convert the compensation case into a registration case by completely correcting, the ecrimisil (receivable) case into a prevention of interference (transfer) case, and the title deed cancellation case into a certificate of inheritance cancellation case.
On the other hand, the improvement made in order to expand or partially change the result of the claim or the reason for the lawsuit is a partial correction, not a full correction. (KURU, Baki, Code of Civil Procedure, Vol.IV, Istanbul 2001, p. 3965)
In the concrete case, the lawsuit has been filed as an indefinite receivable lawsuit. While the trial was ongoing, the plaintiff partially corrected his case by increasing the amount of receivables he requested. In addition, with the partial reclamation petition mentioned above, the type of case has been changed to a partial case. 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 claim through partial correction, but without considering that he could do so by completely correcting his case, the establishment of the judgment in writing was erroneous and had to be overturned.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 16.06.2016 that the decision appealed for the reasons written above should be subject to EXCESSIVE FINE and the appeal fee paid in advance should be refunded at the request of the relevant person.