Worker Claims – Calculation Of Claims And Compensation Subject To Litigation Does Not Require Expertise
Republic of Turkey Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber Case No: 2018/6283
Decision No: 2018/10735
Decision Date: 04.05.2018
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS CASE – COMPENSATION SUBJECT TO THE CASE AND
THE CALCULATION OF CLAIMS DOES NOT REQUIRE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
– ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR EVIDENCE – THE CASE
– INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE REJECTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CLAIM
COULD NOT BE PROVEN – JUDGMENT OVERTURNED
SUMMARY: In the specific case, the period granted by the court for the payment of the expert witness fee requested to be deposited is not in accordance with the procedure and is not final, as it is not directly related to the proof of the claim concerning the disputed case.
Moreover, an expert witness cannot be heard on matters that can be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judge. The calculation of the compensation and receivables in question also does not require technical
expertise. Considering the entire file, the claims for receivables in question, the plaintiff’s work at the defendant company, and the statements of the plaintiff witnesses, it is understood that some of the claims for receivables in question have been proven. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has not been proven is erroneous and requires reversal.
(1475 S. K. m. 14) (4857 S. K. m. 17, 41, 46, 47, 57) (6100 S. K. m. 324) (1086 S. K. m. 427)
Case: The decision rendered in the case between the parties was requested to be overturned in the interest of the law by the Supreme Court Public Prosecutor’s Office. After hearing the report prepared by Investigating Judge M. Hacıoğlu for the case file, the file was examined, and the necessary discussions and deliberations were made:
Decision: Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
Decision: Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client worked as a site manager and machine operator for the employer I. A., who transferred the business outside of the lawsuit, and the defendant company that took over the business between May 1, 1999, and May 31, 2011, and that the employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer without just cause, requesting the collection of severance pay, notice pay, weekly holiday pay, overtime pay, annual leave pay, and public holiday pay
from the defendant.
Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant did not respond to the lawsuit.
Summary of the Court’s Decision:
The court decided to dismiss the case.
Appeal:
The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office for the benefit of the law.
Reason:
Article 324 of Law No. 6100 regulates “advance payment for the substitution of evidence,” according to which each party is obliged to pay the advance determined by the court for the evidence they request to be substituted within the specified period.
If both parties jointly request the substitution of the same evidence, they shall pay the necessary expenses in advance on a 50-50 basis (f,1). If one of the parties fails to fulfill the advance payment obligation, the other party shall pay the necessary expenses in advance on a 50-50 basis. If the parties jointly request the substitution of the same evidence, they shall pay half of the required expenses as an advance (f,1). If one of the parties fails to fulfill the advance payment obligation, the other
party may pay this advance. Otherwise, they shall be deemed to have waived the substitution of the requested evidence (f. 2).
First, it should be noted that in order to claim that the case cannot be proven due to the failure to pay the advance for the replacement of evidence on time, that evidence must first be directly related to the proof of the claim concerning the disputed event.
In this case, since the plaintiff is deemed to have waived the evidence for which they did not pay the expenses, it may not be possible to prove the case. In other words, without that evidence,
it should not be possible to prove the case; since the party is deemed to have waived the evidence by not paying the advance, the case must remain entirely unproven in order for a decision to be made in this direction. In this context, as is well known, in practice, if the expert report obtained by the judge solely due to the heavy workload is not directly relevant to the proof of the case, it is not correct to dismiss the case on the grounds that the expert fee was not paid and the case could not be proven.
According to the file content, at the hearing on 14.04.2016, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that “…the file should be sent to the Bursa Labor Court by way of instruction in its entirety, and our file should be sent to the Bursa Labor Court by way of instruction, and our file should be sent to the Bursa Labor Court by way of instruction, and our file should be sent to the Bursa Labor
According to the file contents; at the hearing on 14.04.2016, the plaintiff’s representative was instructed to “send the entire file to the Bursa Labor Court by way of instruction, have our file examined by an expert witness specializing in labor law
and obtaining one more report than the number of parties, awarding the expert witness a fee of TL 300.00 for their labor and time, and depositing the missing expert witness fee of TL 150.00 by the plaintiff’s attorney at the court cashier within one week from the date of the hearing
within one week from the date of the hearing, and that if the expert witness fee is not deposited with our court cashier by the plaintiff within the specified period, they shall be deemed to have waived their right to rely on the expert witness examination as evidence, and the case shall be evaluated based on the existing evidence. The plaintiff’s attorney present at the hearing was notified of this (notification given)…”
has been decided. Although the plaintiff deposited 150.00 TL on 04.05.2016, at the hearing on 17.05.2016, the court saw that the expert witness fee had not been deposited within the strict deadline
and an interim decision was made to waive subparagraph 2(b) of the previous hearing, and the case was dismissed for lack of proof.
In the present case, as explained above, the expert witness fee requested to be deposited by the court is not directly related to the proof of the claim concerning the disputed incident, and therefore the period given is not in accordance with the procedure
and is not final. Moreover, an expert witness cannot be heard on matters that can be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the profession of judge. The calculation of the compensation and receivables in question
does not require technical expertise. Considering the entire file, the claims for receivables in question, the plaintiff’s work at the defendant company, and the statements of the plaintiff witnesses heard together,
it is understood that some of the claims for receivables in question have been proven. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was not proven is erroneous and requires reversal.
Result: The appeal for the benefit of the law based on Article 427/6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which continues to be applied in accordance with the transitional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, is accepted for the stated reason, and the judgment is REVERSED without affecting the outcome.
, to be overturned without affecting the outcome, and the file to be REFERRED to the Supreme Court Public Prosecutor’s Office for the necessary action.
The decision was made unanimously on 04.05.2018.