T.C.

SUPREME

LEGAL DEPARTMENT

E. 2008/9842

K. 2009/7830

T. 4.6.2009

(Declaration of employment monthly insurance premiums Declaration of employment if one of the period payroll documents is given to the institution or if the fact of work is determined by the institution in fact or registered insured can not mention the period of reduction of entitlement. )
Statutory limitation PERIOD ( Detection of the study – statement of the declaration of one of the documents your insurance premiums monthly payroll period or de facto authority or Even the institution be issued to the insured in case of the detection of the phenomenon study we cannot talk about Kayden )
INSURED the phenomenon of the study ( the study of Detection – the period of the declaration of Monthly Payroll statement to your insurance premiums one of the documents to be issued to the institution or de facto authority or Even the study of the phenomenon in case of the detection Kayden insured, the statutory limitation period, we cannot speak of )
Documents given to the institution (even if one of the documents has been given to the institution, or if the fact of working by the institution is determined by the actual or registered insured can not be mentioned in the period of reduction of Rights. )
506 / m.79/1

Summary: The plaintiff has requested that the collection of Labor receivables be decided by determining that the defendant is working with the employer. 79/1 of the law on which documents the employer must give to the institution regarding the insured. it is left to the regulation as clearly stated in the article. In the regulation on social insurance transactions cited, documents to be given to the employer institution; declaration of entry into work, declaration of monthly insurance contributions, period payroll, etc. in the form listed. In the event that one of these documents has been given to the institution or that the fact of working is determined by the institution, the actual or registered insured shall not be mentioned.

Lawsuit: the plaintiff requested that the collection of Labor receivables be decided by determining that he worked between 1.12.1998 and 31.5.2004 before the defendant employer.

The court decided that the request was partially accepted, as stated in the warrant.

Upon the appeal of the sentence by the plaintiff’s deputy, after it was understood that the appeal request was due and the papers in the file were read by the examination Judge Sultan Namazci, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was determined:

Verdict: the case is related to the determination of the periods not reported since the plaintiff worked continuously between 01.12.1998-31.05.2004 based on the contract of service at the defendant’s workplace and the request of the defendant’s employer for Labor receivables.

It was decided by the court to partially accept the demand for Labor claims and to reject the case for the period before the introduction of the employment declaration dated 21.4.200.

The dispute is gathered at the point of whether or not the reduction period has occurred in the case.

Employees, Social Insurance Law No. 506 3. provided that exceptions are not specified in the item, 2. in the event of the existence of the conditions stipulated in the article, they are considered to be self-insured.

The norm that the insurance rights and obligations of the insured and their employers will start on the date of the hiring of the insured, results with the registration of the insured.

79/10 of the Social Insurance Law No. 506, which stipulates the case concerning the determination of the works passed without notice. it is described in the article. These can be listed as being considered insured under the law No. 506, the documents determined in the regulation have not been given to the institution or the studies have not been determined by the institution, and the case referred to has been opened within the time limit.

The insured may request the determination of the work that remains undeclared within five years from the end of the year in which the period of deduction begins to work and the service has passed. The reduction period is stipulated in terms of the work that remains undeclared.

79/1 of the law on which documents the employer must give to the institution regarding the insured. it is left to the regulation as clearly stated in the article. In the regulation on social insurance transactions cited, documents to be given to the employer institution; declaration of entry into work, declaration of monthly insurance contributions, period payroll, etc. in the form listed. In the event that one of these documents has been given to the institution or that the fact of working is determined by the institution, the actual or registered insured shall not be mentioned.

In the case of the existence of interrupted work, the existence of case conditions for each working cycle that will occur before and after the interruption will be determined by taking into account the cases mentioned above.

When looking at the concrete case, it cannot be mentioned that the reduction period has passed when a part of the theft by the defendant employer has been reported to the institution and recorded; the fact that it is not reported to the institution according to the file content and payroll witness statements; the fact that the case of continuous working in the 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 mentioned in the numbered decisions.

The work to be done; the work of the plaintiff between 01.12.1998-31.05.2000 is continuous and the period between 21.04.2000-31.05.2000 is reported to the defendant Institution in full, considering that there is no legal benefit in the re-determination of this period until the date of 01.12.1998 the notification was made 21.04.2000 until the decision should be taken

The court’s decision to dismiss the case in writing instead of accepting the case in part with incomplete examination and erroneous evaluation without taking into account these material and legal facts is contrary to the procedure and the law and is a cause of corruption.

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

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 04.06.2009 that the provision was overturned for the reasons described above, that the other appeals appeals of the plaintiff were not included for the time being, and that the appellate fee was returned to the plaintiff upon request.