14 Apr That The Calculation Of Claims And Compensations Does Not Require Expertise
T.C. Supreme Court 22. Legal Department Principal
No: 2018/6283
Decision No: 2018/10735
Decision Date: 04.05.2018
WORKERS ‘ CLAIMS CASE – COMPENSATION SUBJECT TO LAWSUIT AND
TECHNICAL AND EXPERTISE OF CALCULATION OF RECEIVABLES
NOT REQUIRED-ADVANCE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF EVIDENCE-CASE
THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE BET AND REJECTION AS IT COULD NOT BE PROVED –
WHERE THE PROVISION IS OVERTURNED
Summary: in the concrete case, the court requested to store the expert fee to the case in dispute
since the proof of the claim is not directly related, the time given is not duly and conclusive.
Moreover, it is possible to be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judges.
no expert can be heard in matters. The calculation of damages and receivables subject to litigation is also technical and
it does not require expertise. The entire scope of the file, the claims to be credited to the subject of the lawsuit, the defendant of the plaintiff
when the prosecution witness statements are evaluated together with the work of the company
it is understood that a part of the claim claims have also been proved.
since it could not be proved, the decision to reject the bet was erroneous and required a reversal.
(1475 P. K. m. 14) (4857 P. K. m. 17, 41, 46, 47, 57) (6100 S. K. m. 324) (1086 P. K. m. 427)
Case: Court of Appeals for the benefit of the law overturning the decision made as a result of the case between the parties
Requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, By Hacıoğlu
after listening to the edited report, the file was examined and considered.:
Verdict: Summary Of Plaintiff Request:
The attorney of the plaintiff is the employer of the client who transferred out of the case between 01.05.1999-31.05.2011. A. and
the defendant said that he was working as a construction site chief and construction machine operator in the company that took over,
severance pay, notice stating that the contract was terminated without justifiable reason by the defendant employer
compensation, weekly work, overtime, annual leave, and general holiday
he demanded that his debts be collected from the defendant.
Summary Of Respondent’s Response:
The defendant did not respond to the case.
Summary Of The Court Ruling:
The court has decided to dismiss the case.
Appeal:
Karan appealed to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of the Republic for corruption in the interest of the law.
Reason:
324 of Law No. 6100. in the article” advance for substitution of evidence ” is arranged, accordingly
each of the parties shall have the court-determined advance for the evidence requested to be substituted, the exact time given
he has to lay it in. If the parties together requested the substitution of the same evidence, the required expense is half
they pay half as an advance (f,1). If one of the parties fails to meet the advance obligation, the other
the party can invest this advance. Otherwise, the requested evidence shall be deemed to have renounced its substitution (f. 2).
First of all, it should be noted that the case was not settled during the time of the advance of the substitution of evidence.
in order to be able to say that it has not been proven, first of all that evidence has to do with the case in dispute.
the claim must be directly related to the proof. In this case, the plaintiff has not paid the expense of the evidence
as he is considered to have given up, the case may not be proven. That’s evidence, so to speak.
without it, proof of that case should not be possible, the party has given up the evidence since it did not deposit the advance of the evidence
when counted, the case must remain completely unproven so that it can be decided in this direction. In this context, is widely
as is known, in practice, the judge only received the expert report due to the intensity of the work of the case
in case of not being directly related to the proof, it is mentioned that the expert fee has not been paid.,
it would not be right to dismiss the case on the grounds that it cannot be proven.
According to the contents of the file; the plaintiff’s attorney at the Hearing dated 14.04.2016 stated that “…the dossier is instructed in the case of ash
our file is sent to Bursa Employment Court to an expert expert in the field of employment law.
in exchange for the payment of one more than the number of parties, the work and work of the expert.
300,00 TL fee discretion, missing 150,00 expert fee by the plaintiff’s attorney hearing
1 Week from the date of deposition to the court teller within the definite period, stated
in case the expert fee is not stored by the claimant side to the teller of our court within the final period
existing evidence of the fact that they will be deemed to have given up their right to rely on expert examination evidence and the file
notice to the plaintiff’s attorney present at the hearing that he will be evaluated according to his condition,)…”
it was decided. Although TL 150.00 was deposited by the claimant on 04.05.2016,
the court held a hearing dated 17.05.2016 in which it is seen that the cost of the expert is not paid within the final period.
2 of the last session, B clause on the decommissioning of the case established by the trial did not prove
it has been decided to decline.
In the concrete case, the fee of the expert witnesses requested to be stored by the court as described above
the time given is not directly related to the proof of the claim regarding the case in dispute.
it is not appropriate and precise. Moreover, with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judges
experts can not rest on the issues that can be resolved. Damages and receivables subject to litigation
the calculation does not require technical or expertise. The entire file scope will get the subject of litigation
the claimant’s requests are accompanied by the claimant’s work before the defendant’s company and the plaintiff’s witness statements.
according to the evaluation of the claims to claim a part of the case has been proved.
since the case could not be proven, the decision to dismiss the bet was erroneous and required a reversal.
Conclusion: Law No. 6100 of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals
provisional 3. Civil Procedure No. 1086, which is continued to be applied in accordance with the article
427/6 Of The Code Of Reasoning. article explained of the appeal request for the benefit of the law based on
for the reason that the provision is not effective in the result of its acceptance, for the necessity of the dossier
A unanimous decision was made on 04.05.2018 on the appointment of the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of the Supreme Court.
No Comments