Events

The applicant, who retired from the Municipality where he worked as a worker, filed a receivable lawsuit against the Municipality with a request to pay the receivables arising from the collective bargaining agreement for the period in which he worked. In addition to opening the case as an indefinite receivables case, the applicant also indicated the amount of compensation he requested -reserving his rights to the surplus – as TL 6,539.68. The applicant improved his case by observing the expert report and increased his claim for compensation to TL 11,745.23. The Civil Court of First Instance partially accepted the case and ruled that the applicant should be paid compensation of TL 8,827.97.

Supreme Court 22. Law Apartment (Apartment) indefinite is by accepting that you’re not getting the full applicant/will take part (General eda) instead of vague claims without opening the case, stated that the case did not have the legal benefits trench conditions and quashed the decision of the court of First Instance on the grounds that procedural denial. The Court of First Instance, in compliance with the decision to overturn and adopting the justification in the decision to overturn, dismissed the case due to the absence of legal benefit and the decision was approved by the Department.

Count

The applicant claimed that his right of access to the court was violated due to the fact that the lawsuit he filed due to non-payment of the labor receivable was dismissed due to the absence of a case requirement.

Evaluation of the Court

An indefinite receivable lawsuit is a type of lawsuit brought for the first time by the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, which aims to prevent the plaintiff who cannot fully calculate his receivables at the time of filing the lawsuit from losing his rights due to the statute of limitations. Thus, the plaintiff gets rid of the obligation to indicate the exact amount of the receivable in the lawsuit petition; he gets the opportunity to get the actual amount of the receivable determined during the trial – without being subject to the ban on expanding the case and without the risk of a statute of limitations. Therefore, it is understood that the indefinite receivable case brings some October advantages in terms of benefiting from the creditor’s right of access to the court, unlike the general eda case.

Article 107 of the Law No. 6100. as can be seen from the justification of the article, the purpose of providing for an indefinite receivable case is to ensure the enjoyment of the right to Decisiveness and facilitate people’s access to court. The legislator introduced the possibility of filing an indefinite receivable lawsuit in order to prevent the creditor from losing rights due to procedural requirements in cases where it is not possible to fully calculate the receivable. In this aspect, it is understood that the indefinite receivables case is a legal remedy brought to prevent the procedural sacrifice of the essence.

In order for the interference with the right of access to the court to be restrained, the refusal of the case from the absence of legal benefit must be a last resort. 119 of Law No. 6100. in its article, it is stipulated that if the result of the claim is missing in the petition for action, the judge will give the plaintiff a definite period of one week to complete the deficiency. 115 of the same Law again. in paragraph (2) of the article, it is stated that if it is possible to eliminate the deficiency of the case requirement, a certain period of time will be given for its completion, and if the deficiency of the case requirement has not been eliminated within this period, the case will be dismissed due to the absence of the case requirement in due course of procedure. Article 31 of the Law No. 6100. in the article, it is stated that the judge has the right to explain the issues that he considers ambiguous or contradictory.

It seems that the specified provisions give the judge strong powers to duly bring the petitions of cases filed in violation of the procedure. The purpose of granting these powers to the judge is to prevent the plaintiff’s material right from being sacrificed to the procedure due to a number of figure deficiencies and thus to comply with Article 36 of the Constitution. it is the provision of the right of access to the court guaranteed in its article. Therefore, if it is mistakenly considered that the case was filed in the form of an indefinite receivable case, it is considered that the case is a general eda case, and giving the applicant time to clarify the result of the applicant’s request is a means to avoid a heavy intervention in the form of procedural rejection of the case. The department is subject to Article 119 of Law No. 6100 due to the fact that the request is open in the case of indefinite receivables. it is clear that if the case is accepted as a general eda case, the result of the request will become incomplete. Granting time to correct a lawsuit petition that is considered to be unregulated by the method and to make it suitable for the method will ensure that the applicant has the right to access the court.

The possibility of filing an indefinite claim brought by the legislator in order to facilitate the plaintiffs’ right of access to the court had consequences against the plaintiff due to the strict interpretation of the Department in the concrete case. The applicant was deprived of the right to bring forward a dispute related to his civil right in court just because he stated in the petition of claim that his case was an indefinite receivable case. The fact that the applicant incorrectly filed an indefinite receivable claim did not only lead to the fact that he could not take advantage of the advantages brought by the indefinite receivable case, but also led to the loss of the rights that he could obtain with the general eda case.

It October be reasonably considered that the absence of the circumstances of a case that provides additional advantages in terms of access to court has a limited effect on the October of these additional advantages. In such a case, it can be assessed that the selection of a vehicle that will result in the person not taking advantage of these October opportunities does not impose a heavy burden on the person. However, interventions that will lead to the fact that a person will not be able to take advantage of the benefits brought by an indefinite receivable case, as well as face deprivations, on the grounds that an indefinite receivable case has been filed without creating conditions, cannot be considered a last resort. The admission that the applicant filed an indefinite receivable claim in a concrete case without forming the conditions did not have limited consequences only by the fact that the applicant could not take advantage of the benefits related to the statute of limitations or the ban on expanding the case; it made it completely impossible for him to sue his receivables arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

As a result, it has been assessed that the rejection of the applicant’s indefinite receivable case filed without its conditions due to the absence of a case condition is not the last resort that can be applied for – taking into account the possibilities in procedural law. In the intervention against the right of access to the court by denying the case from the absence of legal benefit, it was concluded that the choice of a heavy vehicle that makes it impossible for the applicant to access the court, rather than choosing a vehicle that constitutes a lighter intervention to achieve the purpose of ensuring the opening of the case, which is most effective in terms of resolving a civil rights dispute, is not in accordance with the requirement of necessity.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the right of access to the court has been violated on the grounds described.

You can reach our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.