T.C. SUPREME COURT
Date of Decision: 13.07.2016
CASE OF COMPENSATION – REFUSAL OF WHICH THE JUDGE HAS REQUESTED – THE REASONS PUT FORWARD FOR THE JUDGE’S REFUSAL ARE THE REASON FOR THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF THE WORK – THE DECISION IS UPHELD
SUMMARY: In connection with the case under consideration … the Criminal Court of the Penal Code …/… E. numbered from the file where the trial is held, unlike a court of law, the criminal process is doing much more extensive research, the outcome of criminal proceedings in order to give a fair decision, at least in the expert report should be expected to the same event, the client against the company in court cases because of the amount of punitive damages the rule to be unreasonable, dominated the amount of compensation, conflicts with the court’s own decisions and argued that the judge’s impartiality, objectivity, independence lost, with the pressure of public opinion and the press, the plaintiffs took their side and made a decision …) the reasons were put forward and the refusal was requested by the judge. The reasons put forward for the refusal are the reason for the appeal from the point of view of the merits of the work, and HMK’s 36. it is not one of the reasons defined in the article. It was decided to approve the provision by rejecting appeals that were not considered appropriate for the reasons described.
(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 16/02/2016 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 TKI, 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, about the incident that occurred to the case of taking a single file from a large number of opened the report in the way it was, that it was wrong, contrary to the opinion of the court, rejected the report and the report is edited against the right’s objections, where previously some of the expert from the person who made the statement at the beginning, that is, where the event in the case with regard to the Criminal Court where the trial is held from the file numbered, unlike a court of law, the criminal process is doing much more extensive research, the outcome of criminal proceedings in order to give a fair decision, expert report should be expected to at least the client in court cases against the company because of the same event, the amount of punitive damages the rule to be unreasonable, dominated the amount of compensation, conflicts with the court’s own decisions and argued that the judge’s 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.
Conclusion: 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. On 13.07.2016, it was unanimously decided that the decision should be UPHELD by rejecting appeals that were not considered to be in place for the reasons described, and that the approval fee written below should be charged to the appellant.