Law Office
Main Number: 2017/1014
Decision Number: 2020/4488
“Text of Justice”
COURT: First Instance Court
At the conclusion of the trial of the negative determination case between the parties, the objections of the parties’ attorneys regarding the decision to reject the decision rendered in the main case and the consolidated case, to partially accept the consolidated case, and to partially reject it for the reasons stated in the decision were examined and evaluated within the time limits.
DECISION
In the main
case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant… 12th Enforcement Directorate’s follow-up file no. 2009/16466, … 15th Labor Court, in file no. 2009/867, requested attorney’s fees due to the attorney’s removal from office, but it was determined that the defendant had no debt to the plaintiff. It was determined that he was appointed as a representative by a power of attorney dated 05/05/2009, that he was dismissed from his position due to the necessity determined by the precautionary measure decision dated 08/10/2009, that the premium debt accrued by the plaintiff was canceled by the Social Security Institution, and that the plaintiff had no debt to the Social Security Institution.
However, the defendant was removed from office without even attending the first hearing of the case in question. The requested attorney’s fees are excessively high, and part of the attorney’s fees was paid to persons designated by the defendant upon his instructions. This matter has been finalized through correspondence between the parties, and a debt has been incurred due to the payments made. … The 12th Enforcement Directorate ruled that the defendant had no debt due to file number 2009/16466 and requested that the defendant be sentenced to pay compensation for bad faith. Initiated by the defendant …
The 1st Enforcement Directorate’s follow-up file number 2010/218 and … The 5th Criminal Court of First Instance requested attorney’s fees in case file no. 2008/112 due to the termination of the power of attorney, and the defendant submitted the power of attorney because he was involved in the case as the person making the notification on behalf of the company; however, he did not make a written statement and claimed that he did not participate in any of the hearings in this case. It was decided that the defendant was not liable for the debt subject to the enforcement file, and the plaintiff requested that the defendant be sentenced to pay compensation for bad faith.
The defendant requested that the case be dismissed.
The court decided to dismiss the main case, partially accept the consolidated case, and rule that the defendant was not liable for the debt of TL 37,071.00 due to the follow-up file number… The parties appealed this decision.
1- In examining the parties’ objections in the consolidated case; Considering the items in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legally compelling reasons, and especially the absence of any error in the evaluation of the evidence, all objections of the parties should be rejected.
2- In examining the plaintiff’s objections to the main case; The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to determine that he was not liable for the enforcement proceedings initiated to collect the attorney’s fees at the request of the defendant’s attorney. The court decided to dismiss the case based on the expert report obtained. The expert report determined that there was no written fee agreement between the parties, and the attorney’s fees were calculated. However, in the email correspondence dated 2.9.2009 sent by the defendant’s attorney to the plaintiff, the details of the case to be submitted to the SHK were examined, and a request was made for the payment of 5,800.00 TL for information fees, 2,000.00 TL for expert fees, and the remaining 8,000.00 TL for attorney fees.
It is understood from the figures that 2,000.00 TL was paid after the appeal petition was written and that the email correspondence specified by the court was not evaluated. Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that “Written or printed texts, deeds, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, image or sound recordings, data in electronic media, and similar information carriers are considered documents under this Law.” This regulation means that email correspondence is also considered a document. In this case, the court should decide whether the plaintiff is indebted by evaluating the email correspondence and the payments made by the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in the first paragraph above, all objections of the parties to the consolidated case are rejected. For the reasons explained in the second paragraph, it is decided that the decision in favor of the plaintiff shall be in the amount of TL 1,898.32 and that the remaining fee of TL 25.20 shall be collected from the plaintiff. On 10/06/2020, by unanimous vote, pursuant to Article 440/I of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was decided that the remaining fee would be collected from the plaintiff, with the possibility of correction within 15 days from the date of notification.