The cases filed by workers who work without insurance without insurance in order to make these working periods insured are called service detection cases.

According to Article 86/7 of Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510; monthly premium and service certificate or concise and premium service declaration are not issued by the employer or can not be determined by the institution they work in, they work within five years starting from the end of the year of their services by applying to the Employment Court,

In service determination cases, the plaintiff worker is obliged to prove that he worked in the workplace in question in the past years. The plaintiff can prove this with any kind of evidence. One of the most important evidence in service identification cases is witness evidence.

Although anyone who can prove the existence of the work can be presented as a witness, in the case law of the Supreme Court, it seeks to listen to payroll witnesses (other workers who have been notified to the Social Insurance Institution in the same period) who worked in the same workplace during the alleged period of work as a witness or to listen to

In service determination cases, the persons working with the plaintiff and registered in the payrolls of the employers, and other employers doing neighbouring or similar jobs in the same region and persons who have passed to the payrolls employed by these employers should be determined and the information and opinions of enough of them should be applied to obtain the opinion.

Sample Supreme Court decision on the subject;

T.C. Supreme Court 21. Law Apartment. 2009 / 4317K. 2010 / 3846K.T. 06.04.2010

“The plaintiff has asked the defendants to decide on the determination of the work which was passed between 01.10.2003 and 14.08.2006 in the workplace belonging to the employer and which was not reported to the institution.

The court has decided to reject the request, as stated in the warrant.

Upon the appeal of the sentence by the plaintiff’s attorney, after it was understood that the appeal request was due and the papers in the file were read by the report issued by the examination judge, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was determined.

DECISION

1-the rejection of the appeal appeals of the plaintiff which are outside the scope of the following clause according to the legal reasons on which the provision is based on the evidence collected in the files,

2-the case relates to the request to determine the work of the plaintiff between 01.10.2003-23.02.2005, which was not reported to the institution based on the claim that the defendant worked uninterrupted between 01.10.2003-14.08.2006 in the workplace belonging to the defendant employer.

Since the court cannot prove that the insured period in the service schedule shows conformity with witness statements and that the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s workplace before 23.02.2005, it is decided to dismiss the case.

The claimant’s work in the workplace was partially reported to the institution on the basis of his employment statements, monthly and quarterly payrolls, and his premiums were paid in accordance with the notification. On the other hand, the bill of entry and payrolls are the presumption that plaintiff work is interrupted at work. The opposite of the presumption must be proved by equivalent documents. In such cases, the judge should expand the investigation directly and determine whether the conditions of insurance have been established. 16.09.1999 days of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law 1999/21-510-527, 30.06.1999 days 1 999/21 -549-555, day 05.02.2003 2003/21-35-64, day 15.10.2003 2003/21-634-572, day 03.11.2004 2004/21-480-579 and was highlighted in the resolutions 2004/21-479578, 10.11.2004 days 2004/21-538 and 01.10.2004 days 2004/21-629.

The examination shows that the plaintiff’s exit from the defendant’s workplace on 15.08.2006 was 306 days notice in 2005 and 210 days notice in 2006; witness Günay is the plaintiff’s home neighbor, witness Morgül is the plaintiff’s brother and is not a payroll witness; Emine and Lütfi, a payroll witness, do not provide information about the date of the plaintiff’s entry into the job, Safiye, a Bordeaux witness,

The job to be done is to apply to the statements of other payroll witnesses by considering that there are employees rather than one in the payrolls of the period of 20012005 given from the defendant workplace in the file and make a decision according to the result that will be evaluated together with all the evidence.

Then the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects must be accepted and the provision overturned.

Conclusion: a unanimous decision was made on 06.04.2010 to return the appeal fee to the plaintiff upon request for the annulment of the provision for the reasons described above.”