TURKISH SUPREME COURT 4TH CIVIL CHAMBER E. 2015/6894, K. 2015/7301, T. 03.06.2015
DAMAGES CLAIM BY THE VICTIM’S FAMILY FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT (If it is determined that the sexual assault was committed by force – If it is understood that the defendant’s actions were not based on consent, then the defendants have committed an assault against the rights of the plaintiff’s mother and father / The defendant is liable to pay damages)
MOTHER AND FATHER’S CLAIM FOR MORAL DAMAGES (If it is determined that the sexual harassment act against their children was not based on consent, the plaintiffs, the mother and father, will have suffered an attack on their personal rights – The defendant should be held liable for damages)
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS (Claim for Non-Pecuniary Damages by the Family of a Victim of Sexual Assault – Acceptable in Cases Where Forced Sexual Abuse Was Not Based on Consent)
6098/m. 58
SUMMARY:
This case concerns a claim for moral damages based on an act of sexual assault.
It is alleged that the act of sexual assault was committed by force. Considering that the defendant’s act was not based on consent, the plaintiffs assume that this constitutes an attack on the personality rights of the mother and father and that the defendant should be held liable to pay damages to these plaintiffs. It is not correct to reject the claim from the perspective of the plaintiffs’ mother and father.
CASE: The plaintiff H. and others, through their attorneys, filed a lawsuit against the defendant M. on 03/01/2012, seeking moral damages based on the allegation of sexual assault against the plaintiff, upon the court’s request at the end of the hearing. The plaintiff’s attorney requested that the case be partially accepted based on the decision issued by the High Court on 04/12/2014 within the review period, but the case was decided upon review of the documents in the file along with the judge’s review report upon the appeal petition:
DECISION: 1-) Considering the items in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons required by law, and especially the absence of any deficiency in the evaluation of the evidence, the objections of the plaintiffs, except for the scope of the following paragraph, should be rejected.
2-) As for the plaintiffs’ other appeals;
The case concerns a claim for moral damages based on an act of sexual assault. The court decided to partially accept the case; the plaintiffs appealed the decision.
As understood from the contents of the file, the claims of the plaintiffs’ parents and siblings were rejected on the grounds that they were not direct victims of the wrongful act.
The defendant is one of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendant committed an act of forced sexual assault against the plaintiffs’ father, H., and mother, S. In the case in question, it was considered that the defendant’s act was not based on consent, that it constituted an attack on the individual’s rights, and that therefore the court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation was incorrect and constituted a violation of the plaintiffs’ rights.
CONCLUSION: On 03.06.2015, it was unanimously decided to REVERSE the appealed decision for the reasons explained in paragraph (2) above; to reject the other appeals for the reasons explained in the first paragraph; and to refund the previously collected fee upon request.