JUDICIAL DECISIONS

ARTICLE
YARGITAY 4th LAW OFFICE

E. 2017/4695

K. 2019/206

T. 21.1.2019

… The obligation of loyalty arises from the marriage contract, and in case of violation, it is only a relative right that the parties to the contract, that is, spouses, can claim against each other. In other words, since it is not an absolute right, it cannot be argued against everyone.

Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Compensation Requests

YARGITAY LAW GENERAL ASSEMBLY

E. 2019 / 4-85

K. 2019/314

T. 19.3.2019

In the present case, until it is determined that the children are not from the plaintiff and their biological father is the defendant ….. in the case of rejection of paternity, the plaintiff’s ability to meet the necessary expenses for the care, education and protection of the children as the father who has the right of custody is in line with the normal course of life. Although it is not possible for the plaintiff to prove the material damage and to determine the exact amount, the age of the children, educational status and other conditions should be evaluated together by the local court, taking into account the principles, and an appropriate amount of monetary compensation to be appreciated should be ordered from the defendant …

YARGITAY 4th LAW OFFICE

E. 2016/13193

K. 2019/39

T. 14.1.2019

In terms of the moral compensation requests of the plaintiff’s mother and father; The traditional structure of our society, the action against the daughters of the plaintiffs who were thirteen years old at the date of the incident, which does not require consent and constitutes a criminal nature, the plaintiffs who are the mother and father of the victim have damaged their personality rights 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. .

JUDICIAL 17TH LAW OFFICE

2018/3489

2018/12923

T. 27.12.2018

Based on the fact that the plaintiffs support is a commercial vocational high school student and is doing an internship at the date of the accident, a peer-to-peer research should be conducted in order to determine what the support can do according to the area of ​​expertise of the graduated school, the income it can earn according to the employment status, after these determinations, the support will be financially based on the determined income. While the compensation calculation should be made, it is not correct to make a decision with incomplete examination according to the expert report based on the assumption that it will earn an income equal to the minimum wage.

Supreme Court Decision on the Prohibition of Competition

YARGITAY 11th LAW OFFICE

E. 2016/12359

K. 2018/3981

T. 28.5.2018

According to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and the whole file, the clause on the prohibition of competition can only be valid in cases where the worker can cause perceptible damage to the employer by taking advantage of knowing the customers, that is, learning the secrets, in the concrete case, the defendant working as a technical service member is at the level that the Law aims to protect. The case was dismissed on the grounds that he did not have any information or company know-how, and that the information of the defendant did not cause significant harm to the employer, therefore the prohibition of competition clause in the contract was invalid.

Supreme Court Decision on Divorce Case

YARGITAY 2nd LEGAL DEPARTMENT

E. 2016/16861

K. 2018/5575

T. 25.4.2018

The defendant man behaved in confidence by taking a loan without the knowledge of his wife, that the witness statements against the insults and humiliating acts imposed on him by the court were based on feelings, and the other flawed behaviors attributed to the man by the court were forgiven or at least tolerated due to the continuity of the marriage union. It has been understood that the man cannot be blamed as a fault; In the events that caused the defendant man to divorce, no fault of the plaintiff was proved to be an attack on the personal rights of the plaintiff.

YARGITAY HGK

E. 1993 / 2-168

K. 1993/505

T. 7.7.1993

The spouse who left the house after notifying his mother-in-law that he could not do it with the defendant without mentioning a certain fault and notifying his mother-in-law to take it, fell into despair as a result of not being able to return to a common life despite all his efforts, and under the influence of previous savings, he said, “What should I do, looking in the eyes of his family like an ox?” Considering that this behavior expresses the reaction formed as a result of an accumulation, it will not be correct to accept a more severe fault against the defendant as a reason for divorce, and even in this case, the words stated as a reaction to the plaintiff’s failure to request his wife will be at least equal to the fault of the plaintiff, even in this case, poverty alimony can be given (MK.nun M 144) kept out of sight and the rejection of the request for poverty alimony on written grounds was not found correct. the court resisted in the previous decision.

Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Annual Leave

YARGITAY 22nd LAW OFFICE

E. 2016/14166

K. 2019/12478

T. 10.6.2019

The burden of proof at the point where annual leaves are granted belongs to the employer. The employer must prove that the annual leaves are used with a signed leave book or an equivalent document.

JUDGMENT

Paylaş

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on linkedin