The year 2022 was marked by striking and noteworthy high court rulings across various branches of law. From violations of the right to a fair trial to recognizing that a worker undergoing treatment due to psychological wear and tear was subjected to mobbing, let us take a closer loo together at these precedent-setting decisions in different legal fields that we have compiled for you.
Constitutional Court’s Decision
The Constitutional Court issued a decision in January 2022, ruling that “the excessively delayed issuance of the reasoned judgment by the court in a reinstatement lawsuit resulted in a prolonged trial, thereby violating the right to a trial within a reasonable time, which is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial[1].
In the decision given in April 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled on an application alleging a violation of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life due to the use of a fingerprint registration system for attendance tracking. The Court acknowledged that although there is legislation regulating work start and end times, there is no explicit provision governing the processing of sensitive personal data for this purpose. It found the applicant’s claims to be acceptable and concluded that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated[2].
In its decision dated 14 September 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that receiving treatment due to psychological strain resulting from “psychological harassment-mobbing” constitutes sufficient evidence, considering the mobbing allegation to be serious and substantiated[3].
In a decision published in the Official Gazette No. 31911 on 2 August 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that in cases where a vehicle is rented to a foreign individual for a short term, it is possible to contest liability by citing KABIS (Rental Vehicle Notification System) records, asserting that the foreign individual is the liable party. In long-term rentals, since the status of “operator” is transferred to the lessee, vehicle rental companies cannot be held liable for payment obligations[4].
Decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State
• In a decision published in the Official Gazette in January 2022, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that, pursuant to Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, an electronic commerce company acting as an intermediary service provider is not liable for the defectiveness of goods. With this decision, the Court concluded that a company facilitating electronic commerce over the internet qualifies as an intermediary service provider and is not obliged to monitor the content published by natural or legal persons using the electronic platform it provides, nor to investigate whether the relevant content or the goods or services in question involve any unlawful activity or condition[5].
In its decision numbered 2022/2 E. – 2022/7 K. and published in the Official Gazette on July 26, 2022, the Council of Tax Law Chambers of the Council of State ruled that, under the Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, the first sale, transfer, and registration of newly constructed buildings resulting from transformation projects fall within the scope of the exemption, as stipulated by the regulation added to the Implementation Regulation of Law No. 6306 on July 25, 2014. However, considering that the amendment introduced on December 10, 2018, restricted the scope of the exemption with respect to the parties to the contract, the Council concluded that, for transactions carried out prior to December 10, 2018, involving the sale of newly constructed buildings by rightful owners or contractors to third parties, the exemption from title deed fees should still apply[6].
By the decision numbered 2019/5 E. – 2022/1 K., rendered by the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 4 November 2022, it was unanimously ruled that, in an action brought for a receivable that is not yet due, the court must dismiss the case on procedural grounds on the basis that the time for performance has not yet arrived[7].
By the decision numbered 2020/2 E. – 2021/3 K., rendered by the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 1 April 2022, it was held by majority vote that cooperatives and building cooperatives shall be deemed merchants/commercial companies within the scope of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102[8].
By the decision numbered 2021/6 E. – 2022/2 K., rendered by the Council of State’s Board for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 12 November 2022, it was decided by majority vote to unify the case law to the effect that a precautionary attachment may not be imposed pursuant to Article 13/1 of the Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables after the completion of a tax audit and the issuance of an assessment against the debtor[9].
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 05.07.2022 and numbered 2022/6929 E. – 2022/8687 K., it was held that a company whose trade secrets have been disclosed may claim non-pecuniary damages from the person who disclosed them solely on that ground. The decision establishes that, even if the company has not suffered material loss or reputational harm, it may still seek non-pecuniary damages in the event that an employee discloses trade secrets belonging to the company. It was further stated that the disclosure of trade secrets should be regarded as an infringement of the company’s personal rights.
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2022 and numbered 2022/2662 E. – 2022/3734 K., it was ruled that an employee who resigns without just cause and starts working at another workplace the very next day shall not be entitled to severance or notice pay.
By its decision numbered 2021/21252 E. – 2022/5913 K., the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation defined the loss of value arising from traffic accidents as “the difference between the vehicle’s pre-accident market value in the second-hand market and its post-repair value in the same market[10].
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2021/11762 E. – 2021/15902 K., it was held that an employee who served as the highest-ranking executive at the workplace is not entitled to claim overtime pay, on the grounds that, by virtue of their position, they had the authority to determine their own work schedule.
By its decision dated06.06.2022 and numbered 2022/5442 E. – 2022/7075 K., the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that an employee’s act of making a photocopy of another employee’s payroll, which they had come across by chance, in order to identify a wage disparity and subsequently seek information regarding the matter, was not carried out with the intent of disseminating personal data but rather within the scope of monitoring the employer’s duty of equal treatment. Accordingly, such conduct by the employee shall not constitute just cause for termination of the employment contract by the employer under Article 25/II(e) of the Labor Law No. 4857. In a separate decision numbered 2022/2226 E., the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract does not constitute termination, and thus neither party is required to issue a separate notice upon the expiry of such contract. In this respect, no severance or notice pay shall be claimable when a fixed-term employment contract expires by operation of law.
By the decision numbered 2022/1756 E. of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was explicitly established that the authority to determine the timing of annual leave rests with the employer; therefore, the employee does not have the right to refuse the employer’s instruction to take annual leave.
By the decision numbered 2021/1 E. – 2022/3 K., dated 03/06/2022 and published in the Official Gazette on 26 November 2022, the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation ruled by majority vote that in lawsuits filed for the cancellation of objections raised against enforcement proceedings, the petition must be duly served to the original party[11].
The year 2022 was marked by striking and noteworthy high court rulings across various branches of law. From violations of the right to a fair trial to recognizing that a worker undergoing treatment due to psychological wear and tear was subjected to mobbing, let us take a closer loo together at these precedent-setting decisions in different legal fields that we have compiled for you.
Constitutional Court’s Decision
The Constitutional Court issued a decision in January 2022, ruling that “the excessively delayed issuance of the reasoned judgment by the court in a reinstatement lawsuit resulted in a prolonged trial, thereby violating the right to a trial within a reasonable time, which is guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial[1].
In the decision given in April 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled on an application alleging a violation of the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life due to the use of a fingerprint registration system for attendance tracking. The Court acknowledged that although there is legislation regulating work start and end times, there is no explicit provision governing the processing of sensitive personal data for this purpose. It found the applicant’s claims to be acceptable and concluded that the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the right to respect for private life was violated[2].
In its decision dated 14 September 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that receiving treatment due to psychological strain resulting from “psychological harassment-mobbing” constitutes sufficient evidence, considering the mobbing allegation to be serious and substantiated[3].
In a decision published in the Official Gazette No. 31911 on 2 August 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that in cases where a vehicle is rented to a foreign individual for a short term, it is possible to contest liability by citing KABIS (Rental Vehicle Notification System) records, asserting that the foreign individual is the liable party. In long-term rentals, since the status of “operator” is transferred to the lessee, vehicle rental companies cannot be held liable for payment obligations[4].
Decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State
• In a decision published in the Official Gazette in January 2022, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that, pursuant to Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, an electronic commerce company acting as an intermediary service provider is not liable for the defectiveness of goods. With this decision, the Court concluded that a company facilitating electronic commerce over the internet qualifies as an intermediary service provider and is not obliged to monitor the content published by natural or legal persons using the electronic platform it provides, nor to investigate whether the relevant content or the goods or services in question involve any unlawful activity or condition[5].
In its decision numbered 2022/2 E. – 2022/7 K. and published in the Official Gazette on July 26, 2022, the Council of Tax Law Chambers of the Council of State ruled that, under the Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, the first sale, transfer, and registration of newly constructed buildings resulting from transformation projects fall within the scope of the exemption, as stipulated by the regulation added to the Implementation Regulation of Law No. 6306 on July 25, 2014. However, considering that the amendment introduced on December 10, 2018, restricted the scope of the exemption with respect to the parties to the contract, the Council concluded that, for transactions carried out prior to December 10, 2018, involving the sale of newly constructed buildings by rightful owners or contractors to third parties, the exemption from title deed fees should still apply[6].
By the decision numbered 2019/5 E. – 2022/1 K., rendered by the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 4 November 2022, it was unanimously ruled that, in an action brought for a receivable that is not yet due, the court must dismiss the case on procedural grounds on the basis that the time for performance has not yet arrived[7].
By the decision numbered 2020/2 E. – 2021/3 K., rendered by the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 1 April 2022, it was held by majority vote that cooperatives and building cooperatives shall be deemed merchants/commercial companies within the scope of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102[8].
By the decision numbered 2021/6 E. – 2022/2 K., rendered by the Council of State’s Board for the Unification of Judgments and published in the Official Gazette on 12 November 2022, it was decided by majority vote to unify the case law to the effect that a precautionary attachment may not be imposed pursuant to Article 13/1 of the Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables after the completion of a tax audit and the issuance of an assessment against the debtor[9].
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 05.07.2022 and numbered 2022/6929 E. – 2022/8687 K., it was held that a company whose trade secrets have been disclosed may claim non-pecuniary damages from the person who disclosed them solely on that ground. The decision establishes that, even if the company has not suffered material loss or reputational harm, it may still seek non-pecuniary damages in the event that an employee discloses trade secrets belonging to the company. It was further stated that the disclosure of trade secrets should be regarded as an infringement of the company’s personal rights.
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2022 and numbered 2022/2662 E. – 2022/3734 K., it was ruled that an employee who resigns without just cause and starts working at another workplace the very next day shall not be entitled to severance or notice pay.
By its decision numbered 2021/21252 E. – 2022/5913 K., the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation defined the loss of value arising from traffic accidents as “the difference between the vehicle’s pre-accident market value in the second-hand market and its post-repair value in the same market[10].
By the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2021/11762 E. – 2021/15902 K., it was held that an employee who served as the highest-ranking executive at the workplace is not entitled to claim overtime pay, on the grounds that, by virtue of their position, they had the authority to determine their own work schedule.
By its decision dated06.06.2022 and numbered 2022/5442 E. – 2022/7075 K., the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that an employee’s act of making a photocopy of another employee’s payroll, which they had come across by chance, in order to identify a wage disparity and subsequently seek information regarding the matter, was not carried out with the intent of disseminating personal data but rather within the scope of monitoring the employer’s duty of equal treatment. Accordingly, such conduct by the employee shall not constitute just cause for termination of the employment contract by the employer under Article 25/II(e) of the Labor Law No. 4857. In a separate decision numbered 2022/2226 E., the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract does not constitute termination, and thus neither party is required to issue a separate notice upon the expiry of such contract. In this respect, no severance or notice pay shall be claimable when a fixed-term employment contract expires by operation of law.
By the decision numbered 2022/1756 E. of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was explicitly established that the authority to determine the timing of annual leave rests with the employer; therefore, the employee does not have the right to refuse the employer’s instruction to take annual leave.
By the decision numbered 2021/1 E. – 2022/3 K., dated 03/06/2022 and published in the Official Gazette on 26 November 2022, the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation ruled by majority vote that in lawsuits filed for the cancellation of objections raised against enforcement proceedings, the petition must be duly served to the original party[11].
Turkish
