Employment Law
Cassation Case No. 237497
- Any claim for payment submitted due to the termination of an employment contract shall be barred by limitation if not filed within 6 months of the termination of the employment contract (Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 163(4)).
- A claim for the right to reinstatement to work arising from an employment relationship shall be barred by limitation if not filed within 3 months in accordance with Article 163(3) of the Proclamation.
- The limitation period shall begin to run from the day following the day on which the right could be exercised, unless otherwise specified in the Proclamation (Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 164(1)).
- In a situation where the termination of the employment contract remained unknown due to it not being clearly stated, known, or being ambiguous, making it impossible to decide to file a suit, the limitation period shall run from the time the termination of the employment contract was known and a suit could be filed.
- The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division, on Cassation File No. 221212, has given a binding interpretation regarding the time when the limitation period for a claim for payment related to the termination of an employment contract begins to run.
- If an employer is unable to fulfill their employer obligations stipulated under Article 12 and 13 of Proclamation No. 1156/2011, based on a government directive and a prohibition order issued by the Federal Police, the employment contract shall be deemed terminated by circumstances.
- Article 39 of Proclamation No. 1156/2011 stipulates that severance pay shall be paid to an employee who is not eligible to receive pension.
Cassation Case No. 238017
- The rule of limitation (limitation of action) is a legal concept that renders a suit filed to enforce a right void if not filed within the time limit specified by law.
- The time within which claims for rights arising from an employment contract must be filed varies depending on the nature of the case (Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 163).
- A suit for reinstatement to work claiming that the employment contract was unlawfully terminated shall be barred by limitation if not filed within three months of the termination of the contract (Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 163(2)).
- Any claim for payment filed due to the termination of the employment contract shall be barred by limitation if not filed within six months of the termination of the employment contract (Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 163(4)).
- Article 165(3) of the Proclamation indicates that acknowledging a right in writing can be a ground for interruption of limitation.
- A claim filed by an employee stating that they should be reinstated to their former position merely because they were acquitted of a criminal charge has no legal support (Binding decision rendered on Cassation File No. 37256).
Cassation Case No. 238246
- An employee’s absence from work for five consecutive working days without good cause is sufficient reason for termination of the contract of employment without notice (Proclamation No. 1156/2011, Article 27(1)(b)).
- If the employer’s action of terminating the contract of employment is deemed unlawful, the outcome, depending on the circumstances, may be reinstatement of the employee or termination of the employee’s employment with payment of compensation and other related payments (from the content of Article 43 of the Proclamation).
- If it is believed that reinstating the employee would cause significant problems due to the nature of the job, it may be decided that the employee be terminated with compensation, even if the employee wishes to be reinstated (to ensure industrial peace).
- Transferring an employee is the employer’s administrative right.
- Considering the harm caused by the lack of trust between the employer and the employee in light of the nature of the job, the employee may be terminated with compensation, especially in relation to security work (Cassation File No. 37454, Vol. 8).
Criminal Procedure
Cassation Case No.237964
- Articles 119 to 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code outline the procedure by which criminal proceedings are conducted (reading of the charge, preliminary objections, prosecutor’s evidence, defendant’s defense, judgment).
- Article 240(3) of the Criminal Code provides for inciting or aggravating inter-communal conflict. Article 539(1)(a) provides for homicide.
- Articles 32(1)(a) and 35 of the Criminal Code provide for complicity as a principal offender in a criminal act. Article 38(1) is a related provision.
- The preliminary objections stipulated under Articles 130(1) and 130(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are illustrative examples.
- According to Article 184(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a decision given on a preliminary objection is not subject to appeal until a judgment on guilt and sentence is rendered.
- Based on Article 20(1) of the Constitution and Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is a right to a speedy trial.
- The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division rendered a decision regarding the application of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Cassation File No. 120762 (Vol. 19).
- If the charge is amended and submitted in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, judgment shall be rendered based on the amended charge.
- Article 192 of the Criminal Code deals with mitigating circumstances for sentencing. A binding legal interpretation was given on this in Cassation File No. 177216.