Summary:

In the second meeting, Veysel, the father of Hasan, the other defendant, was in a position to know that it was illegal and the consequences of having a wedding without a formal marriage, and that he acted with his son h… from the beginning of this relationship, and that he acted with his son H … In this informal union, and that he acted; as he could not prove that he was making an effort to make the formal marriage happen, he kept his son under his own control and guidance; even when his son was in the military, he employed the plaintiff by keeping him in his home, he benefited from his service and labor, so that the existence of his unjust action should be accepted, the father-son acted together to cause damage to the plaintiff’s personal rights as well as material damage, there is no possibility to isolate the action of one from the other, the concluded that in should be accepted as responsible; it was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was in accordance with the procedure and the law, should be upheld in this respect.

T.C.

Supreme
General Assembly Of Law

Principal No: 2010/88

Decision No: 2010/126
K. Date: 24.2.2010

At the end of the trial due to the “pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation” case between the parties; Kütahya 2.10.06.2008 and 2007/263 days given by the Court of First Instance for the partial acceptance of the case-2009 / 202 K. the Court of Cassation 4.25.05.2009 days of the law office and 2008/11629 E.-2009 / 7023 K. with Ref No.;
(…1-from the plaintiff and the defendants according to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons required in accordance with the law, in particular, that there is no impropriety in the evaluation of the evidence ………………. Yilmaz’s appeals should be dismissed.
2-as for the appeal of the defendant V… Y…, the case relates to the requests for financial and moral compensation from the unmarried spouse and his father due to the post-marital separation that took place without formal marriage. Part of the request was accepted by the Local Court and the decision was appealed by the parties.
Defendant V … Y … , is the father of the other defendant who has maintained a life of marriage without making formal marriage with the plaintiff. The three-year marriage between the plaintiff and the unmarried spouse ended with the plaintiff leaving the House over the dispute. After that, the lawsuit was filed and the property and moral damages were requested along with the jewelry left in the House. In addition to the other defendant who is the unmarried spouse, the plaintiff has also presented his father, V… Y…, as the defendant. The case against him should be dismissed as there is no reason for the defendant’s responsibility for his son’s action. The decision had to be overturned because it was not in accordance with the procedure and the law that the Local Court decided on his responsibility with the other defendant on Written grounds which were not in place without the consideration of this aspect….)
on the grounds that the decision was appealed to the defendant for the reason shown in Paragraph (2) above V… Y…. impairment of benefit; from Plaintiff and defendants H. H … Y … the rejection of the appeals Appeals for the reasons in the first paragraph was resisted in the previous decision by the court at the end of the retrial, which was decided and turned down instead of the file.

Appellant: Acting Defendant

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW

The law was examined by the General Assembly after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read.:
The case is related to the claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation based on the separation that took place after the marriage without formal marriage; the animosity was directed against the father as well as the unmarried spouse with the claim of co-responsibility.
The plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff’s official marriage is done in the direction of 3 years by the defendants were deceived, when the marriage is asked to be expelled from the House stating, 5 pieces of giramise and 2 Republic gold and 2 pieces of Adana burgu bracelet cost 2,750 YTL.; 3 years working with the defendants in return for contributing 3,250,00 YTL; due to the deterioration of her maiden’s marriage, loss of the chance to make a good marriage and the financial and suffering suffered due to 15.000.00 YTL 15.000. 00 also wanted to be decided to collect the moral compensation jointly and severally from the defendants.

It is true that the parties were married without a marriage contract, but there is no basis for other claims, that the formal marriage could not be performed for various reasons, and that shortly after the marriage, the defendant H…. H … Y … ‘ S went to the military service, this time the plaintiff left the house, was not expelled from the house as claimed, the gold was not sold, his client still has, but the bracelets found in the hand are fine Auger bracelets, ready to pay when requested, stating that the case against the Unmarried Wife on the basis, the case against the father in terms of
The defendant Veysel, in his signed statement at the trial, declared that the remaining gold was 4 large gremise gold, 2 half Gold, 2 double burgled bracelets, and that there were no other, and that the defendant had no objection to this declaration.
The court decided to return 4 large gold, 2 half Gold, 2 double burgled bracelets from the defendants to the plaintiff in the same way, to give the plaintiff with the severance payment of YTL 3.000.00 from the defendants,to give the plaintiff with the severance payment of YTL 3.250.00 from the defendants, to give the plaintiff with the severance payment of the
Upon the appeal of the attorneys of the parties, all appeals of the attorney of the plaintiff and the unmarried spouse of the defendant were rejected by the special Office; the decision of the father of the unmarried spouse in respect of the other defendant was broken as he had no responsibility, as detailed in the title section above.
The Local Court’s ruling on resisting in its previous ruling appealed to the acting defendant.

The first decision given by the court, the defendant is determined in terms of the responsibility of the unmarried spouse, the dispute before the General Assembly of law through resistance, whether the father of the unmarried spouse of the defendants has legal responsibility or not, the court’s first decision on whether there is a clear evaluation of this defendant.
First, it is useful to establish concrete event characteristics with effective evidence to dispute:
In the concrete case, the plaintiff woman 15.08.1984, the defendant H…. H…. de was born on 17.04.1983 and unofficially united by having a wedding on 20.06.2002 with the knowledge and encouragement of the other defendant father; they did not perform formal nuptials. After the wedding, they did not move to an independent house, but lived together in the same house with the other defendant(H… ’s father) V… for about 3 years. Defendant H…. H…. , Between 01.12.2003 and 01.03.2005 for a period of about 15 months has done military service, has not been home. During this time, the plaintiff was female, the other defendant V…. he continued to stay in his house and did the work shown to him; he contributed to the budget of this house where he lived.
It should be noted that the plaintiff and the defendant H…. this informal union is not a marriage in the sense of Civil Law and is valid in the field of law; it does not constitute a family law relationship between the parties. Therefore, the relationship between the parties should not be evaluated according to the principles of family law, but according to the rules of the law of obligations, in particular the provisions relating to unfair action.

Court, defendant H … H … it has accepted the existence of unfair action and this has been determined to be out of disorientation. The other defendant, who is the father of the defendant Hasan, will be jointly and severally responsible with his son in accordance with the rules of the law of obligations, the way was also resolved; during the negotiations held at the General Assembly of law, the defendant V…. the responsibility of the company has been discussed and voted on separately in terms of jewelry items and other demands.
Examination in terms of demand for financial compensation related to jewelry items;
Defendant V…. Dated 19.03.2008 trial record the last “the rest of us if we wear big gold bracelets us, which is called GRE the 4, 2 half gold, double screw bracelet 2 bracelet other than there, I’m ready to return” – shaped open acceptance signed and accepted this statement with a declaration of personal responsibility, and the plaintiffs did not appeal. In the face of this clear acceptance, this matter was decided by a majority vote in the first meeting and the majority opinion accepted that the defendant Veysel had a responsibility to return the goods of the declaration and that it should be upheld because there was no impropriety in the decision of the Local Court.
As for the plaintiff’s other claims;
In the second meeting, Veysel, the father of Hasan, the other defendant, was in a position to know that it was illegal and the consequences of having a wedding without a formal marriage, and that he acted with his son h… from the beginning of this relationship, and that he acted with his son H … In this informal union, and that he acted; as he could not prove that he was making an effort to make the formal marriage happen, he kept his son under his own control and guidance; even when his son was in the military, he employed the plaintiff by keeping him in his home, he benefited from his service and labor, so that the existence of his unjust action should be accepted, the father-son acted together to cause damage to the plaintiff’s personal rights as well as material damage, there is no possibility to isolate the action of one from the other, the concluded that in should be accepted as responsible; it was unanimously decided that the court’s decision, which was in accordance with the procedure and the law, should be upheld in this respect.
For the reasons described above and as a result, the court has decided jointly and severally on the grounds that the defendant has the legal responsibility of the father of the unmarried spouse in addition to the unmarried spouse in respect of the claims for jewelry items, moral compensation and financial compensation for work, and there is no unlawful direction and no wrongdoing in the provision of
RESULT: it was decided that the decision of the defendant’s attorney to refuse and resist the appeal appeals should be approved by unanimous vote in the first meeting on 24.02.2010, in terms of moral compensation and financial compensation for work, in the second meeting on 03.03.2010 due to the reasons shown above.