13. Civil Department
Base Number: 2017/1014
Decision Number: 2020/4488
“text of jurisprudence”
Court :Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the case of negative detection between the parties, the file was reviewed by the parties ‘ lawyer during the period of the provision given for the rejection of the original and merged file for reasons written in the decommissioning, the partial acceptance of the merged case, and the partial rejection of the case.
DECISION
In the original case, the plaintiff initiated the defendant’s … 12. With the 2009/16466 basic follow-up file of the Executive Directorate, … 15. In order to determine that the defendant is not owed to the SGK by the cancellation of the premium debt accrued by the SGK against the plaintiff … 15.The Employment Tribunal has opened its case 2009/867, but the defendant has been dismissed without even entering the first hearing of the case in question, 12.the attorney’s fee requested is exorbitant, a portion of the payment was made as a lawyer’s fee to the persons determined by the defendant on his instructions, this issue is fixed by correspondence between the parties, so he does not have a debt due to the payments made, … Dec. Because of the 2009/16466 main file of the Executive Directorate, it was determined that the defendant was not indebted to the defendant, the defendant wanted to be sentenced to malice compensation, and in the combined case; initiated by the defendant … 1. With the follow-up file 2010/218 of the Executive Directorate … 5. Claiming that the Court of First Instance requested a lawyer’s fee due to the dismissal of power of attorney in the 2008/112 main file, that the defendant submitted power of attorney because he was involved in the said file as notified on behalf of the company, but he did not make any written statements, nor was he involved in any hearing of this file; he wanted the defendant to be sentenced to compensation for malice due to the debt subject to the follow-up file.
The defendant has asked for the dismissal of the case.
By the court, the rejection of the original case, the partial acceptance of the combined case, the defendant … 1. It was decided that the Executive Directorate was not responsible for TL 37,071.00 due to the follow-up file 2010/218; the provision was appealed by the parties.
1-in the examination of the appeals of the parties to the combined case, all appeals of the parties must be rejected according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, as well as the necessary reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, the lack of accuracy in the evaluation of the evidence.
2-in the examination of the plaintiff’s Appeals for the original case, the plaintiff has opened the case at hand with the request to determine that the defendant is not owed due to the execution follow-up initiated by the defendant’s lawyer for the purpose of collecting attorney fees. In accordance with the expert report received by the court, the decision was made to dismiss the case. In the expert’s report, the proxy fee was calculated by determining that there is no written wage agreement between the parties.Dec. However, in a letter dated 2.9.2009 sent to the plaintiff by the defendant’s lawyer; Shk is made to a related lawsuit on casting, and expense as the 5800,00 TL 2.000,00 TL fee and balance information from experts 8.000,00 TL asked to pay this fee by stating that remained of the retainer brackets in explaining the remaining balance 10.000,00 TL were written petition to figure out after 2.000,00 TL paid by the court and there is correspondence is not specified description, it is understood that the evaluation of the mail. HMK 199. “data such as written or printed text, promissory notes, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, images or audio recordings, as well as data in electronic media and similar information carriers are documents in accordance with this law.”it is written. With this arrangement, mail correspondence has also been accepted as documents. In that case, the court should evaluate the mail correspondence and payments made by the plaintiff and decide whether the plaintiff is owed or not, while the decision to dismiss the case in writing with incomplete examination is against the procedure and law and is the cause of violation.
Result: 1 above.the rejection of all appeals of the parties to the combined case for the reason described in Paragraph 2. for the reasons described in the bent, the decision to be overturned in the interest of the plaintiff,written below is £ 1,898.32. the remaining fee is £ 25.20 from the appellant. a unanimous decision was made on 10/06/2020, with the way to correct the decision within 15 days of notification in accordance with Article 440/I of the Humk.
