T.C THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
4.law office
Base: 2016/ 13193
Decision: 2019/39
Date of Decision: 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 the moral damage suffered due to an unjust act.

The court decided to reject the request in full; the decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs have requested the collection of moral damages caused by the allegation that the defendant abused their joint children and that the defendant had sexually explicit correspondence with their joint children on the date of the incident via the social networking site called facebook.

The defendant’s deputy defended the refusal 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.

From the examination of the file found among dec case file … 3. It is understood that the Criminal Court of First Instance decided to sentence the defendant for sexual harassment against the plaintiff’s daughters by decision No. 2015/327 and 2016/97, and the announcement of the verdict was postponed. In addition, it is fixed that facebook, a social networking site, contains content in correspondence with the defendant’s daughters who were thirteen years old at the time of the plaintiffs’ incident in a way that does not correspond to 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.

It is necessary to evaluate the appropriate amount of moral compensation for the benefit of the plaintiffs, taking into account the facts described, while the refusal of requests for moral compensation on an out-of-place basis is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires a violation.

Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 14.01.2019 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above and that the fee received in advance would be refunded upon request.