23 Apr SUPREME COURT DECISION ON INSURANCE SERVICE DETERMINATION
T.C.
SUPREME COURT
Civil Department
b. 2008/9842
d. 2009/7830
date 4.6.2009
DETERMINATION OF THE STUDY (Declaration of Entry into Employment Declaration of Monthly Insurance Premiums Declaration of One of the Period Payroll Documents has been Provided to the Institution or If the Institution Determines the Fact of Actually or Kayden Insured Work, the Right Reduction Period Cannot be Mentioned)
ENTITLEMENT REDUCTION PERIOD (Determination of the Work – Declaration of Entry into Employment Declaration of Monthly Insurance Premiums Declaration of One of the Period Payroll Documents has been Issued to the Institution or Cannot be Mentioned if the Institution De Facto or Kayden Determines the Fact of Insured Work)
THE FACT OF INSURED WORK (Determination of Work – Declaration of Entry into Work Monthly Declaration of Insurance Premiums Even One of the Period Payroll Documents has been Issued to the Institution or the Institution Cannot Mention the Right Reduction Period If the Fact of Insured Work is Actually or Registered is Determined by the Institution)
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE INSTITUTION (If Even One of the Documents has been Provided to the Institution or If the Institution Determines That the Insured Working Phenomenon is Actually or Registered, the Right Reduction Period Cannot be Mentioned)
506/m.79/1
ABSTRACT: The plaintiff requested that the collection of labor receivables be decided upon the determination that the defendant works for the employer. 79/1 of the Law on which documents the employer must provide to the Institution for the insured. as is clearly stated in the article, it is left to the regulation. In the cited Regulation on Social Insurance Transactions, the documents to be provided to the Institution by the employer are; declaration of entry into employment, declaration of monthly insurance premiums, period payroll, etc. it is listed as follows. Even if one of these documents has been provided to the Institution or if the Institution determines that the insured working phenomenon is actual or unregistered, the right reduction period cannot be mentioned.
LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that the defendant be determined to have worked with his employer between 1.12.1998 and 31.5.2004 and that the collection of labor receivables be decided.
The court has decided on the partial acceptance of the request, as indicated in its decision.
After the appeal of the decision by the deputy plaintiff, it became clear that the appeal request was in due course and the papers in the file were read with the report prepared by the Examining Judge Sultan Namazci, the need for the work was considered and the following decision was determined:
DECISION: The case relates to the determination of periods not reported as the plaintiff was working continuously between 01.12.1998 and 31.05.2004 based on the defendant’s contract of service at the place of work and the decisiveness of the labor receivables from the defendant employer.
The court decided to partially accept the claim for labor receivables and dismiss the case for the period before the issuance of the employment entry notice dated 21.4.200 from the period of the right reduction.
The dispute is collected at the point of whether the period of reduction of rights in the case has occurred or not.
Employees are subject to Article 3 of the Social Insurance Law No. 506. provided that it is not one of the exceptions specified in Article 2. in the presence of the conditions stipulated in the article, they are considered self-insured.
The norm that the insurance rights and obligations of the insured and their employers will start from the date of employment of the insured person results in the fact that the insured person can be registered.
79/10 of the Social Insurance Law No. 506, which stipulates a lawsuit for the detection of work that takes place without notification. it is defined in the article. These may be listed as being considered insured under Law No. 506, the documents determined in the regulation have not been provided to the Institution or the studies have not been determined by the Institution, and the case has been filed within the period of the right reduction.
The insured may request the determination of his work that remains without notification within five years from the end of the year when the period of entitlement reduction begins to operate and the service passes. The period of entitlement reduction is envisaged in terms of studies that remain without notification.
79/1 of the Law on which documents the employer must provide to the Institution for the insured. as is clearly stated in the article, it is left to the regulation. In the cited Regulation on Social Insurance Transactions, the documents to be provided to the Institution by the employer are; declaration of entry into employment, declaration of monthly insurance premiums, period payroll, etc. it is listed as follows. Even if one of these documents has been provided to the Institution or if the Institution determines that the insured working phenomenon is actual or unregistered, the right reduction period cannot be mentioned.
In the case of the existence of interrupted work, the existence of case conditions for each working circuit that will occur before and after the interruption will be determined by taking into account the above-mentioned facts.
Looking at the concrete incident; it cannot be said that the period of entitlement reduction has passed, provided that some of the theft by the defendant employer has been reported to the Institution and recorded; according to the contents of the file and payroll witness statements, the fact of unremitting work in the alleged circuit has been proven, which has not been reported to the Institution, cannot be mentioned. 26.02.2003 Day of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law and 2003/21-44-98 ; 23.06.2004 days and 2004/21-369-371 these issues were also addressed in their numbered Decisions.
The work to be done; the plaintiff’s 01.12.1998-31.05.2000 a lot of work between the dates dies, and of these studies 21.04.2000-31.05.2000 the period between the defendant is declared as full because the institution dates from this period, the re-determination is not made until the date 21.04.2000 01.12.1998 considering legal benefits from the date of notification consideration should be given to the receivables identified in the adoption of prompt decision by the plaintiff’s expert is going to result hesaplattirila labor.
It is against the procedure and the law for the court to decide to reject the case in writing instead of partially accepting it with incomplete examination and erroneous assessment, regardless of these material and legal facts, and the reason for the violation is that it is decided to reject it in writing.
In this case, the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects must be accepted, and the judgment must be overturned.
CONCLUSION : It was decided unanimously on 04.06.2009 that the judgment should be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above, that the plaintiff’s other appeals should be examined according to the reason for the violation, that it is not included for now, and that the appeal fee should be returned to the plaintiff on request.
No Comments