Date of Decision: 13.07.2016
COMPENSATION CASE – AN OPINION IS EXPRESSED THAT THE REQUEST SHOULD BE REJECTED BY THE REJECTED JUDGE – IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PUNISHED WITH A DISCIPLINARY FINE IF THE REJECTION REQUEST WAS REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUTHORITY EXAMINING THE FILE – THE DECISION WAS UPHELD
ABSTRACT: After the rejected judge expressed an opinion that the request should be rejected, the respondent who requested the rejection was essentially denied the rejection request by the authority examining the file … ………….. -The decision to punish TL with a disciplinary fine has been appealed by the defendant … his deputy. The reasons put forward for the refusal of the judge are the reason for the appeal from the point of view of the merits of the work, and not the reasons defined in the article of the law.
(6100 pp. K. m. 36)
Case and Decision: During the compensation case between the parties, the defendant … decried by his/her attorney, resorted to the judge’s way.
After the decision to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in the process, was made, all the documents in the file were examined and considered necessary, although the Supreme Court’s review of the decision made by the authority examining the rejection request was requested by the defendant’s … deputy:
In summary, with the petition dated 07/03/2016 submitted by the defendant … deputy during the case between the parties; (…the occupational accident dec the subject of the case is the largest occupational accident in Turkey; however, Turkey’s largest occupational accidents are accidents that occur that could cause sided to be made of the proceedings, the proceedings on the request of the client company from the beginning of all the assets of real estate, movable property, and in the words … which is the only source of income, Rights and receivables where is rejected as unjustified demand the removal of the measures imposed on the plaintiff by the party made “legal aid” the economic situation is accepted without research called the law of demand, for a large number of lawsuits filed against the incident that has occurred, the way to get a report from a single file is taken, it is incorrect, the report is issued contrary to the court’s own decision, and their justified objections to the prepared report are rejected, some of the experts are from people who have previously made statements in the press, the subject of the case is the Criminal Court … /… E. in order to make a fair decision, the result of the criminal trial, at least the expert report, the amount of moral compensation ruled against the client company in lawsuits filed due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation also contradicts the court’s own decisions, the court judge made a decision at the last hearing, wrote a brief decision in summary, and then the reasoned decision to the parties while it is necessary to issue a notification, the reasoned decision of the judges before the final decision of the court is prepared together with short decision that he has written his client’s brief and the appellate petition and the appellate forth a reasoned later by taking the time needed to write the judge impartiality, objectivity, independence lost by taking the side of the plaintiffs with the pressure of the press and the public decides…) by setting forth the reasons for the denial, the judge was requested.
If an opinion is expressed by the rejected judge that the request should be rejected, the respondent who requested a refusal on the basis of the rejection request by the authority examining the file … is asked to 1.500,00.-The decision to punish TL with a disciplinary fine has been appealed by the defendant … his deputy.
The reasons put forward for the refusal of the judge are the reason for the appeal on the merits of the work and are the 36th amendment of the HMK. it is not one of the reasons defined in the article. It was unanimously decided on 13.07.2016 that the decision should be upheld by rejecting appeals that were not considered appropriate for the reasons described, and that the approval fee written below should be charged to the appellant.