T.C. SUPREME COURT 11. LAW DEPARTMENT BASE NO: 2015/11487, DECISION NO: 2016/6313
Summary:
The defendant attorney; the flight flight on which the plaintiff claims to have suffered a victimization is a flight operated by airlines, … that the plaintiff, whose client is a partnership passenger, neglected this issue when he should have provided information about his situation, despite his client’s efforts to prevent victimization, if there is a delay that occurs beyond his control, the home of this delay is in Lulea, therefore, the plaintiff and issued in accordance with the EU directive required by the provisions of the regulations in force as of 01.01.2012 400-1.188 exchange for the Euro, $ 40 independent qualified criminal he was entitled to compensation for damages, the defendant also a commitment free baggage 20 kg for the entire transport process, despite the defendant’s performance in the first carrier to carry several at the position of VICE by the company with 350-FIG has been collected and this also should be compensated by the defendant, the payment date is TL 117.52 so that the claimant’s total claim for financial compensation is calculated in the amount of TL 1.305.92, that moving the claimant with a delay of two days due to not being taken for transportation on the grounds of occupancy will not constitute an attack on the rights of personality, because the plaintiff …te is not left alone, has a bride and is listened to as a witness

The deputy plaintiff filed a claim for moral damages, stating that his clients were not taken on a plane because of the defendant’s “…” practice, therefore, after waiting at the airport for a while, he left the airport, was stranded in a country he did not know for 2 days. The fact that the plaintiff was not taken on a plane because the defendant sold extra tickets is without dispute as of the scope of the file. In the concrete case, the issue that needs to be focused on and discussed is whether the passengers who were not taken on board due to the excessive ticket sales of the defendant airline company can claim non-pecuniary compensation. …

In this case, in the light of the principles and ethics described above, the plaintiff’s mere…

Decision:

COURT : COMMERCIAL COURT

In the case between the parties … the decision08/06/2015 and 2014/459-2015/531 issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance was requested by the deputy plaintiff to be examined by the Supreme Court and it is understood that the appeal petition was granted within the period of the Examining Judge for the case file:
The deputy plaintiff informed his client on 07.01.2014 … from the airport, on 07.01.2014, when his client went to the airport, his name was not on the flight list and the plane was full, he was victimized by not being admitted to the plane, his client was stranded in a foreign country where he did not know the language, no unit of the defendant company contacted his client for about 10 hours, clearly violating the Regulation on the Rights of Passengers Traveling by Airline, as a result of the long and laborious efforts given by his client and his relatives, a trip to a client for a 2-day delay, however, able to perform on 09.01.2014, in addition to the company’s disclosure obligation of the defendant to comply with the baggage allowance in terms of material and moral damage suffered by reason of his client, citing financial compensation from the date 07.01.2014 1.805 20.000 TL TL advance the process and committed spiritual collection and has prosecuted a decision is entitled to receive from the defendant’s interest.
The defendant attorney; the flight flight on which the plaintiff claims to have suffered a victimization is a flight operated by airlines, … that the plaintiff, whose client is a partnership passenger, neglected this issue when he should have provided information about his situation, despite his client’s efforts to prevent victimization, if there is a delay that occurs beyond his control, the home of this delay is in Lulea
jul has requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that there has been no disruption in the plaintiff’s life that would create a mental breakdown and require the provision of the required amount of moral compensation, that the terms of moral compensation have not been formed, that the failure to ensure the plaintiff’s flight is not under the control of his client, that the plaintiff’s claims for financial compensation have not been documented
Court,claim, defense, expert reports, witness statements, and all file according to the scope, the plaintiff was carried out after 2 days from date of carrying on 09.01.2014 07.01.2014 committed, and therefore the plaintiff issued in accordance with the EU directive required by the provisions of the regulations in force as of 01.01.2012 400-1.188 exchange for the Euro, $ 40 independent qualified criminal compensation he was entitled to damages, the defendant also a commitment of 20 kg free baggage despite all the transport process, the defendant’s performance in the first carrier to carry several at the position of VICE by the company with 350-FIG has been collected and this also should be compensated by the defendant, since the date of payment of TL 117,52 thus, plaintiff’s demand financial compensation to 1,305 total,92 where TL is calculated in the amount of the plaintiff on the grounds of delayed two days due to be taken to move the occupancy of Transportation would not constitute an attack on the rights of persons because of the plaintiff’s , it was decided to partially accept and partially reject the case on the grounds that he was with his bride and was listened to as a witness, that he had not missed a special event that could not be compensated due to a delay of two days, that moral compensation conditions had not been established.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
The case concerns a claim for material and non-pecuniary damages arising from an airline carriage contract.
The deputy plaintiff filed a claim for moral damages, stating that his clients were not taken on a plane because of the defendant’s “…” practice, therefore, after waiting at the airport for a while, he left the airport, was stranded in a country he did not know for 2 days. The fact that the plaintiff was not taken on a plane because the defendant sold extra tickets is without dispute as of the scope of the file. In the concrete case, the issue that needs to be focused on and discussed is whether the passengers who were not taken on board due to the excessive ticket sales of the defendant airline company can claim non-pecuniary compensation.

It is known that airlines sell extra tickets taking into account the proportion of passengers who buy tickets and do not board the plane, in the light of calculations made with the help of statistics in order to reduce costs and make a profit, in this direction, some passengers or passengers cannot be taken on board due to lack of space on the plane due to extra tickets sold from time to time. In practice, due to the extra sale called ”…”, the victimization of some passengers who are not taken on the plane may be raised, this victimization may reach the size of moral damage and as a result, the provision of moral compensation may be raised.
Moral hazard disrupts a person’s emotional balance, joy of life, reduces the joy in life, panic, fear, dread, age, anger, disgust, sadness, embarrassment, shame, hearing, moralsizlik, anxiety, hopelessness, feelings of loneliness, feelings of inferiority, frustration, such as negative emotions, traumas or physical pain can be defined as (damages arising out of violations of the convention,…, Istanbul 2008, p. 184 et seq.)
In the concrete case, within the scope of the airline passenger transportation tickets purchased in advance, the plaintiff went to Lulea / Sweden Airport by making the necessary preparations; however, due to the excess ticket sales made by the defendant, he had to leave the airport without traveling. Although it has been argued by the defendant that the “…” process is a common practice, the fact that a number of transactions and applications become commonplace over time does not mean that this transaction and application are correct, nor does it require the negative impact on people to disappear. As it can be seen from the definition made above, the fact that passenger candidates do all their work and care, but do not get on the plane may cause moral damage on their own, as well as this practice has the potential to decimate the principle of equality protected by the Constitution, which can lead to discrimination between people who were taken on board and not taken on the plane.
In addition, the defendant must act as a prudent trader, and air transportation is a commercial activity that requires a special permit on its own, has its own legislation and expanded responsibilities.
In this case, in the light of the principles and ethics described above, the plaintiff’s mere
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in the above paragraph, it was unanimously decided on 08/06/2016 that the decision of the plaintiff’s attorney to OVERTURN the acceptance of the appeals and to return the appeal upfront fee paid to the appellant at his request.

You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.