T.C. Supreme Court 4. Law Department E. 2016/11329, K. 2017/1197, T. 28.2.2017

A request for material compensation due to unfair action (a provision will be established in terms of tuition costs and power of attorney fees, together with a decision to be made on “non-duty in terms of judicial means” )
Decision of non-duty in terms of judicial path ( the court will establish a provision in terms of tuition costs and power of attorney fees together with the decision – request for material compensation due to unfair action )
Trial costs in a case that does not result from the basis ( request for material compensation due to unfair action – along with the decision to be made by the court on “non-duty in terms of judicial means”, a provision will be established in terms of tuition costs and power of attorney fees )
Trial costs (along with the decision to be made by the court on “non-duty in terms of judicial means”, the provision must be established in terms of tuition costs and power of attorney fees – the request for material compensation due to unfair action )
6100 / m.331/2

Minimum wage tariff for lawyers / m.7/1

Abstract: the case is related to the claim for financial compensation due to unfair action. If the plaintiff has filed his case in a judicial place without a duty in accordance with the legal regulations in force, the decision to be made on “non-duty in terms of judicial means” should be established in terms of fees, costs and attorney fees.

Case : plaintiff … by the Deputy General Directorate, against the defendant … at the end of the trial conducted by the court on the request for financial compensation due to tort with a petition issued on the day of 21/2009; the decision of 02/06/2016 on the rejection of the case due to the judicial path was examined by the Supreme Court after the decision to accept the appeal petition was requested by the defendant’s lawyer within the period of time, the report prepared by the examination Judge and the papers in the file were reviewed :

Decision: the case relates to a claim for financial compensation due to unfair action. The court decided to dismiss the case due to judicial reasons; the sentence was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

Attorney of the plaintiff; the plaintiff declared that the facilities belonging to the administration were damaged by construction machinery during the road construction works carried out by the defendant, and the cage surrounded by barbed wire on a 250-meter concrete pole belonging to the institution became unusable, and requested to remedy the damage suffered.

The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.

As a result of the trial conducted by the court in accordance with the violation notice, it was decided to dismiss the case in terms of judicial means, although the defendant represented himself by proxy, the fee of proxy was not ruled for his benefit.

Article 331/2 of the law on Civil Procedure 6100, which entered into force on 01/10/2011, states: “If the case is continued in another court after the decision to incumbency, incompetence or sending, this court judges the costs of the trial. If the case has not been continued in another court after the decision to dismiss, disenfranchise or send it, the court in which the case was filed on request determines this situation through the file and convicts the plaintiff to pay the costs of the trial.”edited in the format.

The above legal regulation is regulated in law 6100 and must undoubtedly be applied in cases that will be considered in place of judicial jurisdiction and in decisions on non-duties between judicial courts. In the article described,” the case should be continued in another court.” However, in terms of judicial decisions, there is no case for continuing the case in another court, there is a case that has its own rules of procedure, and this case is not a continuation of the case in the judicial jurisdiction.

For this reason, if the plaintiff has filed his case in a judicial place without a duty in accordance with the legal regulations in force, the decision to be made on “non-duty in terms of judicial means” should be established in terms of fees, costs and power of attorney fees.

Although it is wrong that this matter was not observed in terms of the power of attorney to be ruled in favor of the defendant, since the correction of the error does not require a retrial; the minimum wage tariff for lawyers in force at the time of the decision is 7/1. in the article; ” if a decision is made on the rejection of the petition of the case due to incompetence or incompetence, the transfer of the case or the consideration of the case not opened until the preliminary examination minutes are signed, half of the fee written in the tariff, and if the decision is made after the preliminary examination minutes are signed, all of it is ruled. So far, the attorney’s fee, which will be decided in accordance with the court in which the case is being held, cannot exceed the amounts written in the second part of the second part.”taking into account the regulation in the form, provisional 3 of law 6100.in accordance with article 438/7 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, it was decided to correct and approve the decision.

Conclusion: 2 of the provision paragraph of the decision subject to appeal. “since the defendant has represented himself by proxy,in accordance with the minimum Attorney wage tariff in force on the date of the decision, the attorney’s fee of 1,800.00 TL is taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant”, adding the sentence, correcting the provision in this way and confirming and returning the advance expenses if requested, it was unanimously decided on 28.02.2017.