Decision Regarding The Rejection Of The Rejection Request By The Authority Examining The File Upon The Rejected Judge’s Opinion On The Rejection Of The Request, And The Decision Deciding To Fine The Defendant With A Disciplinary Fine.
T.C. JUDICIARY
20th Civil Chamber
Basis: 2016/8400
Decision: 2016/7557
Date of Decision: 13.07.2016
COMPENSATION CASE – UPON THE DISMISSAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE DISMISSED JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY REVIEWING THE FILE DECIDED TO REJECT THE REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND SENTENCED THE DEFENDANT TO A DISCIPLINARY FINE – THE JUDGMENT WAS UPHELD
SUMMARY: 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 …………..-TL, was appealed by the defendant …’s attorney. 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.
(6100 S. Code Art. 36)
Case and Decision: During the compensation lawsuit between the parties, the defendant …Ş. applied for recusal by its attorney.
The Supreme Court review of the decision given by the authority examining the recusal request was requested by the defendant …Ş. 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, the defendant …Ş. Ş. dated 07/03/2016; (… the work accident subject to the lawsuit is the biggest work accident in Turkey; however, the fact that the accident that occurred is the biggest work accident in Turkey cannot be a reason for the trial to be biased, at the very beginning of the trial, together with the request, all the assets of the client company, real estate, movable property and the only source of income … the request for lifting the injunction imposed on the rights and receivables before the court 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 made against the report were rejected, some of the experts were people who had previously made statements in the press, …. . … E. of the Assize Court of . E. numbered file of the … . High Criminal Court, unlike the civil court, the criminal proceedings are much more extensive, 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 with the court’s own decisions, the court judge made the decision in the last session, the judge wrote the reasoned decision, which he had prepared beforehand, together with the final decision, and took away the time his client needed to make a short appeal and write the reasoned appeal petition later, claiming that the judge lost his impartiality, objectivity and independence, and that he made a decision by siding with the plaintiffs under 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 given by the authority examining the file regarding the rejection of the recusal request on the merits and the punishment of the defendant …Ş., who requested the recusal, with a disciplinary fine of 1.500,00.-TL, was appealed by the attorney of the defendant …Ş..
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 which were not deemed appropriate, and to charge the appellant with the approval fee written below.