T.C SUPREME COURT 23.Legal Department Basis: 2016/ 9666 Decision: 2020 / 1094 Decision Date: 19.02.2020
ABSTRACT: The amount rejected by the plaintiff’s lawyer in the decision made by the court on the partial acceptance of the case and the collection of the total x Turkish Lira by the plaintiff’s lawyer, which he requested to appeal because it is a debt of x TL, is absolutely certain that it remains under the appeal limit as of the amount. As the final decisions can be decided by the court on appeals, in accordance with the Decision to Merge the Case Law, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the plaintiff’s deputy’s appeals, since the Supreme Court would also decide on the rejection of the appeal request.
(1086 P. K. m. 427)
At the end of the trial of the lawsuit between the parties in the case, ref written reasons for any given partial towards the adoption by the counsel upon an appeal by the plaintiff within the period of provision, the file is examined, was spoken by.
Deputy plaintiff; purchase of services between his client and the decedent company
in accordance with the contract, the case related to the labor receivables filed by the defendant against the client of the non-case worker employed by the defendant was concluded in favor of the employee, and in this context, the client paid the non-case worker as a result of enforcement proceedings, from this payment
according to the provisions of the contract, he demanded that the defendant be held responsible and that the defendant be decided to collect the price paid by his client.
The defendant has not responded to the lawsuit.
According to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and the entire file filed by the court; the plaintiff’s agreement with the defendant
according to the SSI records, the payment made to the employee working within the defendant within the scope of the contract was signed between dec
in accordance with the provisions of the contract, it was decided to partially accept the case in accordance with the expert report determining the defendant’s responsibilities on the grounds that he could request it from the defendant.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
427 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a result of the amendment made by Law No. 5219. the limit of certainty provided for in Article 19 of Law No. 5236. taking into account the revaluation rate stipulated in Annex-Article 4, which was added to the CMB by October 2016, is TL 2,190.00 for 2016.
The amount rejected by the court in the decision on the partial acceptance of the case and the collection of a total of 3,811.04 TL is absolutely certain, as the amount remains under the limit of appeal, since the claimant’s attorney has requested an appeal with a bet of 5,729.66 TL that he will receive. In accordance with the Decision to Merge the Case Law dated 01/06/1990 and based on 1989/3, Decision 1990/4, the Court of Cassation decided to reject the appeal request, as it could be decided by the court about the appeals of final decisions, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the plaintiff’s deputy’s appeal requests.
Conclusion: For the reasons described above, the court unanimously agreed on 19.02.2020 to REJECT the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals because the court’s decision is final as of the accepted amount, to refund the appeal fee received in advance upon request, and the decision was closed for correction. (¤¤)