T.C SUPREME COURT
4.Legal Department
Basis: 2016 / 13193
Decision: 2019 / 39
Decision Date: 14.01.2019

… Plaintiffs and against the defendant by Attorney given on the day 12/03/2015 with her sexual abuse as a result of the petitioner for non-pecuniary damages at the end of the trial court on the request made by the non-pecuniary damages given for the rejection of the request for 18/05/2016-time decision by the Supreme Court as the plaintiffs attorney within the period of examination was requested, but once the petition of Appeal has been decided upon the adoption of the examination by the judge with the report was discussed by examining the papers in the file.

The case is related to the request to remedy moral damage caused by unfair action.

The court decided to reject the request outright; the provision was appealed by the plaintiffs ‘ attorney.

The plaintiffs requested collection of moral damage caused by the defendant’s alleged sexual correspondence with their mutual children on the date of the incident through a social networking site called facebook.

The defendant’s attorney has defended the dismissal of the case.

Court; plaintiffs and the defendant jointly towards children sexual harassment forced by the claim that the act of the party is not performed, a determination is made that hard for was forced to act in criminal proceedings in the absence of both the plaintiff and the reasons they’re not damaged in terms of direct tort plaintiff a claim for moral damages is dismissed.

The examination of the case file, the file was found in 3. It is understood that the Criminal Court of first instance decided that the defendant should be punished for sexual harassment of the plaintiff’s daughters …by decision 2015/327 of 2016/97, and that the provision was withdrawn. It is also fixed on Facebook, the social networking site, that the defendant had correspondence with the plaintiffs ‘ daughters, who were thirteen years old at the time of the incident, in a way that was not appropriate for their age.

Mother and father of the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages in terms of requests; the traditional structure of our society, the plaintiffs ‘event in the history of the thirteen-year-old girl action against does not require consent, and the mother and father of the victim of a criminal nature, and the plaintiff who is injured due to the event of the rights of persons with where it is not under obligation to prove that the plaintiffs’ attack is in the nature of family values.

According to the facts described, the appropriate amount of moral compensation should be assessed for the benefit of the plaintiffs, while the refusal of requests for moral compensation on grounds that are not in place is contrary to the procedure and law and requires violation.

Conclusion: it was unanimously decided on 14.01.2019 to overturn the appealed decision for the reasons described above and to return the advance fee upon request.