T.C. Supreme Court 22. Legal Department Principal<\/p>\n
No: 2018\/6283
\nDecision No: 2018\/10735
\nDecision Date: 04.05.2018
\nWORKERS ‘ CLAIMS CASE \u2013 COMPENSATION SUBJECT TO LAWSUIT AND
\nTECHNICAL AND EXPERTISE OF CALCULATION OF RECEIVABLES
\nNOT REQUIRED-ADVANCE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF EVIDENCE-CASE
\nTHE IMPROPRIETY OF THE BET AND REJECTION AS IT COULD NOT BE PROVED \u2013
\nWHERE THE PROVISION IS OVERTURNED<\/p>\n
Summary: in the concrete case, the court requested to store the expert fee to the case in dispute
\nsince the proof of the claim is not directly related, the time given is not duly and conclusive.
\nMoreover, it is possible to be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judges.
\nno expert can be heard in matters. The calculation of damages and receivables subject to litigation is also technical and
\nit 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
\nwhen the prosecution witness statements are evaluated together with the work of the company
\nit is understood that a part of the claim claims have also been proved.
\nsince it could not be proved, the decision to reject the bet was erroneous and required a reversal.
\n(1475 P. K. m. 14) (4857 P. K. m. 17, 41, 46, 47, 57) (6100 S. K. m. 324) (1086 P. K. m. 427)
\nCase: Court of Appeals for the benefit of the law overturning the decision made as a result of the case between the parties
\nRequested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, By Hac\u0131o\u011flu
\nafter listening to the edited report, the file was examined and considered.:
\nVerdict: Summary Of Plaintiff Request:
\nThe 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
\nthe defendant said that he was working as a construction site chief and construction machine operator in the company that took over,
\nseverance pay, notice stating that the contract was terminated without justifiable reason by the defendant employer
\ncompensation, weekly work, overtime, annual leave, and general holiday
\nhe demanded that his debts be collected from the defendant.
\nSummary Of Respondent’s Response:
\nThe defendant did not respond to the case.
\nSummary Of The Court Ruling:
\nThe court has decided to dismiss the case.
\nAppeal:
\nKaran appealed to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of the Republic for corruption in the interest of the law.<\/p>\n
Reason:
\n324 of Law No. 6100. in the article\u201d advance for substitution of evidence ” is arranged, accordingly
\neach of the parties shall have the court-determined advance for the evidence requested to be substituted, the exact time given
\nhe has to lay it in. If the parties together requested the substitution of the same evidence, the required expense is half
\nthey pay half as an advance (f,1). If one of the parties fails to meet the advance obligation, the other
\nthe party can invest this advance. Otherwise, the requested evidence shall be deemed to have renounced its substitution (f. 2).
\nFirst of all, it should be noted that the case was not settled during the time of the advance of the substitution of evidence.
\nin 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.
\nthe claim must be directly related to the proof. In this case, the plaintiff has not paid the expense of the evidence
\nas he is considered to have given up, the case may not be proven. That’s evidence, so to speak.
\nwithout 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
\nwhen counted, the case must remain completely unproven so that it can be decided in this direction. In this context, is widely
\nas is known, in practice, the judge only received the expert report due to the intensity of the work of the case
\nin case of not being directly related to the proof, it is mentioned that the expert fee has not been paid.,
\nit would not be right to dismiss the case on the grounds that it cannot be proven.
\nAccording to the contents of the file; the plaintiff’s attorney at the Hearing dated 14.04.2016 stated that \u201c…the dossier is instructed in the case of ash
\nour file is sent to Bursa Employment Court to an expert expert in the field of employment law.
\nin exchange for the payment of one more than the number of parties, the work and work of the expert.
\n300,00 TL fee discretion, missing 150,00 expert fee by the plaintiff’s attorney hearing
\n1 Week from the date of deposition to the court teller within the definite period, stated
\nin case the expert fee is not stored by the claimant side to the teller of our court within the final period
\nexisting evidence of the fact that they will be deemed to have given up their right to rely on expert examination evidence and the file
\nnotice to the plaintiff’s attorney present at the hearing that he will be evaluated according to his condition,)\u2026\u201d
\nit was decided. Although TL 150.00 was deposited by the claimant on 04.05.2016,
\nthe 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.
\n2 of the last session, B clause on the decommissioning of the case established by the trial did not prove
\nit has been decided to decline.
\nIn the concrete case, the fee of the expert witnesses requested to be stored by the court as described above
\nthe time given is not directly related to the proof of the claim regarding the case in dispute.
\nit is not appropriate and precise. Moreover, with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judges
\nexperts can not rest on the issues that can be resolved. Damages and receivables subject to litigation
\nthe calculation does not require technical or expertise. The entire file scope will get the subject of litigation
\nthe claimant’s requests are accompanied by the claimant’s work before the defendant’s company and the plaintiff’s witness statements.
\naccording to the evaluation of the claims to claim a part of the case has been proved.
\nsince the case could not be proven, the decision to dismiss the bet was erroneous and required a reversal.
\nConclusion: Law No. 6100 of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals
\nprovisional 3. Civil Procedure No. 1086, which is continued to be applied in accordance with the article
\n427\/6 Of The Code Of Reasoning. article explained of the appeal request for the benefit of the law based on
\nfor the reason that the provision is not effective in the result of its acceptance, for the necessity of the dossier
\nA unanimous decision was made on 04.05.2018 on the appointment of the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Supreme Court 22. Legal Department Principal No: 2018\/6283 Decision No: 2018\/10735 Decision Date: 04.05.2018 WORKERS ‘ CLAIMS CASE \u2013 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,303,220,218,304,247],"yoast_head":"\n