Assault On The Plaintiffs’ Family Values
T.C JUDGMENT
4th Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/ 13193
Decision: 2019 / 39
Decision Date: 14.01.2019
At the end of the trial held by the court upon the request for non-pecuniary damages due to sexual harassment with the petition filed against the defendant … on 12/03/2015 by the attorney … on behalf of the plaintiffs … and …, at the end of the trial held by the court; the Supreme Court of Appeals examination of the decision dated 18/05/2016 regarding the rejection of the claim for non-pecuniary damages was requested by the attorney for the plaintiffs in due time, and after the acceptance of the petition of appeal was decided, the report prepared by the examining judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as required.
The lawsuit is related to the claim for compensation for the moral damage suffered due to the wrongful act.
The court decided to dismiss the claim in its entirety; the judgment was appealed by the plaintiffs’ counsel.
The plaintiffs claimed that on the date of the incident, their joint children … and the defendant had sexually explicit correspondence on the social networking site named facebook, and that the defendant allegedly harassed their joint children and requested the collection of the moral damages incurred.
The defendant attorney defended the rejection of the lawsuit.
The court decided to reject the claim for non-pecuniary damages for both plaintiffs on the grounds that it was not claimed that the act of sexual harassment against the plaintiffs’ joint children …. was carried out by the defendant by force, there was no determination in the criminal proceedings that the act was done by force, and the plaintiffs were not the direct victims of the tortious act.
From the examination of the file, it is understood that the defendant was sentenced for sexual harassment against the plaintiff’s daughters … with the decision of the … 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance with the decision numbered 2015/327, 2016/97, and the announcement of the verdict was deferred. In addition, it is fixed that the defendant had correspondence with the plaintiffs’ daughters, who were thirteen years old on the date of the incident, on the social networking site Facebook.
In terms of the plaintiff parents’ requests for non-pecuniary damages; the traditional structure of our society, the action against the plaintiffs’ daughter who was thirteen years old at the time of the incident does not require consent and constitutes a crime, and the personal rights of the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the victim, have been damaged due to the incident, and they are not under the obligation to prove this, and it is also an attack on the family values of the plaintiffs.
While an appropriate amount of non-pecuniary damages should be assessed in favor of the plaintiffs considering the facts explained, the rejection of the requests for non-pecuniary damages on grounds that are not appropriate is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires reversal.
Conclusion It was unanimously decided on 14.01.2019 to DISMISS the appealed decision for the reasons explained above and to return the prepaid fee upon request.