T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

20.law office
Main: 2016/8400
Decision: 2016/7557
Date of Decision: 13.07.2016

COMPENSATION CASE – UPON EXPRESSING AN OPINION ON THE REJECTION OF THE REQUEST BY THE REJECTED JUDGE, IT WAS DECIDED TO REJECT THE REJECTION REQUEST BY THE AUTHORITY EXAMINING THE FILE AND PUNISH THE DEFENDANT WITH A DISCIPLINARY FINE – THE DECISION WAS UPHELD

ABSTRACT: After the rejected judge expressed an opinion that the request should be rejected, the defendant who requested the rejection was essentially denied the rejection request by the authority examining the file … …………..-The decision to punish TL with a disciplinary fine has been appealed by the defendant … his deputy. The reasons put forward for the refusal of the judge are the reason for the appeal on the merits of the work and are the 36th amendment of the HMK. it is not one of the reasons defined in the article.

(6100 pp. K. m. 36)

Case and Decision: During the compensation case between the parties, the defendant …Dec. refusal by the deputy was resorted to in the way of the judge.

Examination of the decision made by the authority examining the rejection request by the Supreme Court the defendant …Ş. after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which was requested by the deputy, it is understood that it is in due course, all the documents in the file were examined and considered necessary:

During the case between the parties, the defendant …Dec. in summary, with the petition dated 07/03/2016 submitted by the deputy; (… the occupational accident subject to the lawsuit is the largest occupational accident in Turkey; however, Turkey’s largest occupational accidents are accidents that occur that could cause sided to be made of the proceedings, the proceedings on the request of the client company from the beginning of all the assets of real estate, movable property, and in the words … which is the only source of income, Rights and receivables where is rejected as unjustified demand the removal of the measures imposed on the plaintiff by the party made “legal aid” the economic situation is accepted without research called the law of demand, about the incident that occurred to the case of taking a single file from a large number of opened the report in the way it was, that it was wrong, contrary to the opinion of the court, rejected the report and the report is edited against the right’s objections, where previously some of the expert from the person who made the statement at the beginning, where it is in relation to the event in the case ….. The Criminal Court … e. in order to make a fair decision, the result of the criminal trial, at least the expert report, the amount of moral compensation ruled against the client company in lawsuits filed due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation also contradicts the court’s own decisions, the court judge made a decision at the last hearing, wrote a brief decision in summary, and then the reasoned decision to the parties while it is necessary to issue a notification, the reasoned decision of the judges before the final decision of the court is prepared together with short decision that he has written his client’s brief and the appellate petition and the appellate forth a reasoned later by taking the time needed to write the judge impartiality, objectivity, independence lost by taking the side of the plaintiffs with the pressure of the press and the public decides…) by setting forth the reasons for the denial, the judge was requested.

After the rejected judge expressed an opinion that the request should be rejected, the defendant who made the rejection request was essentially denied the rejection request by the authority examining the file …Ş.of 1,500.00.-The decision on the punishment of TL with a disciplinary fine was taken by the defendant …Ş. it has been appealed by the deputy.

The reasons put forward for the refusal of the judge are the reason for the appeal on the merits of the work and are the 36th amendment of the HMK. it is not one of the reasons defined in the article. It was unanimously decided on 13.07.2016 that the decision should be UPHELD by rejecting appeals that were not considered appropriate for the reasons described, and that the approval fee written below should be charged to the appellant.