28 Sep THE PROVISION IS INVALID IF THE PROHIBITION OF COMPETITION DOES NOT CONTAIN FAIR RESTRICTIONS THAT ENDANGER THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF THE EMPLOYEE
Supreme Court 11. Civil Department
Base Number: 2017/3251
Decision Number: 2019/805
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : … DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE…. LAW OFFICE
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
In the case between the parties … Dec. Issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance dated 28/11/2016 and 2015/320 E. – 2016/777 K. upon the appeal of the decision No. 1 by the defendant’s deputy, the District Court of Justice … on the acceptance of the request for appeal …. 20/04/2017 date and issued by the Department of law 2017/143-examination by the plaintiff’s attorney filed the petition and appeal of Decision No. 2017/175 yargitayca that is given within the period of being understood, with the audit report to file a claim held by a judge rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
The plaintiff’s deputy; 5.The service agreement between the client and the defendant. dec. according to the article, it is established that the defendant cannot transfer workplace secrets and customer environment to third parties during the defendant’s working period, that he cannot engage in another business on the same subject(faxserver) within the next 6 months after the termination of his employment contract and that he cannot directly or indirectly contact his client’s customer environment, that the defendant will pay a criminal charge of USD 50,000 in case of violation of this article, that the defendant will enter into a service agreement terminated on 20.06.2002, based on the complaint made about the persons, including the defendant, 7 Gen Information and Communication Hizm out of the case are based on the complaint made about the defendant.dec. Ltd. Şti.during the search at the defendant’s workplace, he claimed and sued for the collection of a criminal condition of USD 50,000 at the CBRT effective sales rate on the actual day of payment, claiming that there was correspondence on the defendant’s computers to establish a business connection with his client’s customers in a virtual environment within a period of 6 months from the end of the employment contract, which contradicted the competition ban.
The defendant’s attorney; duties and derdestlik objection by the client of the rights of non-payment due to the dissolution of the employment contract was invalid because it had been written only of the penalties against the employer, upon the termination of the contract, penal clause become null and void, his client does not have a requirement that would require criminal activities, some other job that are relevant to the topic of the plaintiff’s activity wasn’t working, exorbitant and penal clauses, arguing that dismissal should tenkis wanted to.
According to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and the entire file by the court of first instance; between the parties 05…… Dec.article 5 of the service agreement, according to which the service agreement dated 2000 was issued. article 7,in which there is a ban on competition for a period of 6 months after the expiration of the contract and it is decided to pay a criminal condition of USD 50,000.00 in case of contrary behavior. From the file of the Criminal Court No. 2008/316, the defendant and the defendant are out of the case ….a decision of conviction due to the fact that the database of the plaintiff’s computer was installed on their computer
given that it was finalized on 11.06.2009, … 7. Business 2002/1603 numbered from the file of the court of the service contract be deemed to have been unjustly terminated by the plaintiff and the defendant’s workers ‘ claims collection where decision is made, the contract worker’s unfair this situation doesn’t remove the obligation to keep secrets even feshedils, Article 5 of the convention/d for a period of 6 months after termination of the contract in the article applied to the secrecy of noncompetition obligation, the obligation to keep secrets accepted also covered the case on the grounds that it violates the defendant’s acceptance of, It was decided to collect 50,000 USD with interest to be processed in accordance with Article 4/a of Law No. 3095 from the date of the case.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney against the appeal.
… By the District Court of Justice, according to the entire scope of the file; the application for appeal of the defendant’s deputy, … 7. The basis of the Employment Tribunal …/11/2009 dated 2007/20 – Decision 2009/821 numbered file in the file open receivables related to the workmanship of the defendant in the case of employment, the worker is entitled to severance pay severance pay is rejected and not be deemed to have terminated so that where, through the control with the finalization of the decision of the Supreme Court, regarding the Prohibition of the competition of the service agreement signed by the defendant in the absence of a geographical area of workers will be economically article in nature undoing limitation, the right to freedom of contract and the freedom to study this situation is in violation of the legal regulations on, the only defendant is not enough to get out of the customer list on the computer using this list and providing benefits to the detriment of the plaintiff by yourself or by a third party that gave rise to the hormonal plaintiffs with respect to the same legal reason out of the case, a lawsuit against the third party takipsiz also left, for these reasons, unfair competition, contract is the provision superstitious invalid on the basis of the cancellation to the terms of the contract on the grounds that it would not be required upon adoption of the decision of the court of First Instance 6100) HMK of 353/1-b-… in accordance removed and the case is dismissed.
The decision of the District Court of Justice was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy.
1-Provisional Law No. 6100….. material …. paragraph ” 427 to 454 of the Law No. 1086 …/09/2004 and before the amendment to Law No. 5236 on decisions made before the date of commencement of the district courts of justice, until they are finalized. the implementation of the provisions of the article is continued. Files on these decisions cannot be sent to the district court courts.”he has his own judgment. The decision of the first instance court on the adoption of the case with the justification outlined above dated 28.11.2016, although it was made after the date of the start of operation of the district courthouse courts, was made by the first instance court in the case file ….the decision of 07.2014 was first adopted by the Supreme Court on 9. The Law Office has passed the examination in accordance with the decree No. 2014/34794 of 2014/30815 dated 20.11.2014, and it is clear that the decision is subject to the review of the law on appeals in accordance with the article of the said Law. In this case, the fact that the law of appeal has been shown in the provision part of the decision by the court of first instance will not change the result. Accordingly, the District Court of Justice to which the file was sent …. By law, the court of First Instance for judgment of the Appellate Law Review the request with the adoption of prompt belong to the petition that contains the file to be sent to our new apartment should be decided while on the basics entered 6100) HMK 353/1-b-section of the case by the decision of the court of First Instance was not correct by removing the decision of the denial, the defendant’s attorney of the court of First Instance against the decision of the Regional Court of Appeals justice with the adoption …. The decision of the Law Department dated 20.04.2017, 2017/143 and decision No. 2017/175 were overturned and removed, and the appeal request of the defendant’s deputy for the decision of the court of first instance had to be examined.
… – The case relates to the request for the collection of the criminal term arising from the prohibition of competition. As of the expiration of the contract concluded between the parties in a concrete dispute, the Law on Obligations No. 818 is in force and the 348 and 349 of the Dec. application of the provisions of the article
is required. Held between the parties Dec. 05…..article 5 of the service agreement of 2000 in the regulation on the prohibition of competition in the article, no restrictions have been made in terms of geographical area. In Articles 48 and more of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, which are organized under the title of Freedom of Work and Contract, everyone has the constitutional guarantee that he has the freedom of work and contract in the field he wants. article 349 of the Law No. 818. (TBK No. 6098 m. in accordance with Article 445), it has been established that the provision on the prohibition of competition will not apply if the prohibition on competition does not contain fair restrictions in terms of location, time and subject matter that endanger the economic future of the employee. In a concrete case, the article of the service agreement between the parties to the case on the prohibition of competition does not contain a geographical area limitation, which will decriminalize the economic future of the worker, so the provision of the contract on the prohibition of competition in accordance with the freedom of work described above and the legal regulations should be considered superstitious. While the court should have made a decision taking this issue into account, its acceptance on written grounds was not correct, and therefore the decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in paragraph (1) above … the District Court of Justice …. It was unanimously decided on 04/02/2019 that the Law Department’s 20.04.2017, 2017/143 main and 2017/175 decisions were OVERTURNED, that the decision was OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendant by accepting the appeals against the first instance court decision of the defendant’s deputy for the reasons described in ( … ), that the decision was returned to the appellant at the request of the advance appeal fee he paid, and that the decision was overturned on 04/02/2019.
No Comments