Request For Recusal Of A Judge – Grounds For Recusal Of A Judge Are Grounds For Appeal On The Merits
T.C. JUDICIARY
20th Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/8414
Decision: 2016/7571
Date of Decision: 13.07.2016
COMPENSATION CASE – REQUEST FOR RECUSAL OF THE JUDGE – THE REASONS FOR RECUSAL OF THE JUDGE ARE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ON THE MERITS – JUDGMENT UPHELD
SUMMARY: Regarding the incident subject to the lawsuit, the … High Criminal Court …/… E. E. numbered file of the …/…, unlike the civil court, the criminal proceedings make a much wider investigation, in order to make a fair decision, the result of the criminal proceedings, at least the expert report should be expected, the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded in the lawsuits filed against the client company due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation awarded contradicts with the court’s own decisions, and the judge lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence, and made a decision by taking the side of the plaintiffs with the pressure of public opinion and the press… ) and requested the recusal of the judge. The reasons put forward for recusal are grounds for appeal on the merits and are not among the reasons defined in Article 36 of the CCP. For the reasons explained, the appeal objections, which are not deemed appropriate, are rejected and the judgment is upheld.
(6100 S. Code Art. 36)
Case and Decision: During the compensation lawsuit between the parties, the defendant …’s attorney applied for recusal of the judge.
The Supreme Court review of the decision given by the authority examining the recusal request was requested by the defendant …’s attorney, and after the acceptance of the appeal petition, which was understood to be in due time, all documents in the file were examined and considered:
During the lawsuit between the parties, with the petition dated 16/02/2016 submitted by the attorney of the defendant …; (… the work accident that is the subject of the lawsuit is the biggest work accident in Turkey; However, the fact that the accident is the biggest work accident in Turkey cannot be a reason for the trial to be biased, the request for the lifting of the injunction imposed on all assets of the client company, its real estates, movable properties and its rights and receivables before TKİ, which is the only source of income, was rejected without justification, the “legal aid” requests made by the plaintiff were accepted without conducting the economic situation research required by the law, a report was obtained from a single file for many lawsuits filed regarding the incident, which was wrong, a report was prepared contrary to the court’s own decision and the justified objections against the report were rejected, some of the experts were people who had previously made statements in the press, regarding the incident subject to the lawsuit … The Serious Criminal Court’s … numbered file, unlike a civil court, criminal proceedings require a much wider investigation, in order to make a fair decision, the result of the criminal proceedings, at least the expert report should be awaited, the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded in the lawsuits filed against the client company due to the same incident is very exorbitant, the amount of compensation awarded contradicts the court’s own decisions, and that the judge lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence, and that he took the side of the plaintiffs with the pressure of public opinion and the press… ) grounds were put forward and a request for recusal was made.
Upon the opinion of the rejected judge that the request should be rejected, the decision made by the authority examining the file regarding the rejection of the rejection request on the merits and the punishment of the defendant …, who requested the rejection, with a disciplinary fine of 1.500,00.-TL was appealed by the attorney of the defendant …..
Conclusion: The reasons put forward for the recusal of the judge are grounds for appeal on the merits and are not among the reasons defined in Article 36 of the CCP. For the reasons explained, it was unanimously decided on 13.07.2016 to uphold the judgment by rejecting the objections of appeal that were not deemed appropriate, and to charge the appellant with the approval fee written below.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.