06 Jun Action Of Debt-The Start Dates Of The Interest To Be Processed On Claims Other Than Severance Pay Should Be Determined Accordingly, Taking Into Account The Demands Subject To Default Notice And Default Notice
Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey 9.Legal Department Basis: 2016 / 34036 Decision: 2020 / 2430 Decision Date: 18.02.2020
Abstract: the plaintiff’s default notice and default notice subject to claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly, while the default notice should be ignored and the interest rate should be determined according to the litigation and Reclamation dates.
(1475 P. K. m. 14)
At the end of the trial of cases between the parties; ref written together with interest in the amount of the defendant to the plaintiff within the period for granting the provision is taken from and by examining the defendant’s lawyer to request that a hearing be required to temyizen avukatlarinc File are subject to trial by examining the work and the day appointed for the hearing Tuesday, 18/02/2020 it is understood that, and a summons was sent to the parties. On the day of the hearing, a lawyer on behalf of the defendant … and a lawyer on behalf of the opposite party … came. After the hearing was started and the oral statements of the lawyers present were heard, the hearing was adjourned and the report organized by the examination Judge was presented, the file was examined and the need to be discussed and considered:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary Of The Plaintiff’s Request:
Because the plaintiff carries retirement conditions, except age, while working as a domestic truck driver in the defendant’s workplace
claiming that he had rightly terminated the contract, he asked for severance pay, fuel cuts, week breaks, some monthly wages, overwork, week breaks, annual leave, national holiday and general holiday receivables, and a decision to return the collateral promissory note received by the employer.
B) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:
Attorney of the defendant, the plaintiff worked on minimum wage as a domestic truck driver between 12.07.2006-02.10.2013, did not continue to work without justification on 19-20-21. 09. 2013,
for this reason, his contract was terminated by his client for the right reason, the plaintiff, born in 1972 and only 41 years old, tried to get severance pay unfairly by abusing the right granted to him by law 1475, arguing that his demands were unfair.
C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:
Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the plaintiff is entitled to the 14th Amendment of law 1475. the first paragraph of the Article (5) days under the terms of the insurance premium of fifteen years and 3600 clause provided for by petition dated 25.10.2010 day with more work and leave the workplace also entitled to severance pay, annual leave, weekends and public holidays or other claims, fee claims, saying they were not upon the adoption of the case by the partial in place, it was decided.
D) Appeal:
Representatives of the parties appealed the decision.
E) Justification:
1-according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based with the evidence collected in the articles in the file, the appeals of the parties that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.
2-the plaintiff’s request for the cancellation of the guarantee promissory note received when entering work in the petition of the lawsuit does not make a positive or negative decision in the provision part of the decision HMK.pp. 297/2. it’s against the substance. According to the said provision of the law, a clear and clear provision should be established on all claims subject to the case.
3-the plaintiff’s default notice and default notice, taking into account the demands subject to the start dates of the interest to be processed on claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly, while the default notice was ignored and the interest was ruled according to the dates of the lawsuit and reclamation was also not hit and required to break it.
F) Result:
If the appeal decision is overturned for the reasons written above, the defendant’s benefit is valued at £ 2,540.00. the hearing was unanimously decided on 18/02/2020 on the day of 18/02/2020 to load the attorney’s money to the plaintiff, to return the appellate expenses received in advance to the interested person on request.
No Comments