Notification of the case and results

In civil cases, there are two parties to the case, the defendant and the plaintiff, and the decision has consequences only for the parties. However, in some cases, third parties who are not parties to the case may be affected by the decision by recourse. One of the parties to the case may have recourse for the damage in question from a third party, or the third party may have recourse to itself.

In order to prevent loss of rights in such cases, the institution of notification of the case is included in Article 61 of the Civil Code. According to Article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure; If one of the parties loses the case, he may notify the third party or the third party until the investigation is concluded, if he thinks that the third party will have recourse against him.

As can be clearly understood from here, the purpose of the article is to benefit from the assistance of a third party and to provide some convenience to the whistleblower or the person who is reported. As a matter of fact, this issue was expressed as follows in the decision numbered 2020/499 K. of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals:

"Notification of the case has two purposes: The purpose of notification of the case in terms of procedural law is to ensure that the third party to whom the case is notified participates in the case and assists the party who notified the case. This assistance occurs in two ways: The third party can intervene in the case (accessory), or the third party to whom the case is notified can represent the notifying party in the case.

The purpose of the notification of the case in terms of substantive law is that the party who notified the case can assert its rights more safely in the recourse case it will file against the third party (or in the compensation case that the third party will file against the notifying party) in case it loses the case (Kuru, B.: Civil Procedure Procedure, 6th Edition, C: IV, 2001, p. 3515 et al). "

CONDITIONS FOR REPORTING THE CASE

In our explanations above, we stated that reporting is a benefit-based institution. For this reason, it is necessary to start by stating that notification is a right granted only to the party who has an interest in the notification. A party to a case may only report the case to a third party whom he/she wishes to be on his/her side. In short, a notice cannot be made to side with the other party. Finally, Article 63 of the HMK contains the following regulation:

"The person to whom the case is notified may participate in the case alongside the party who has a legal interest in winning the case."

In order for the case to be reported, some formal elements must be present. The first of these is that there is a lawsuit that has been opened and is being heard (pending). Leaving aside special circumstances, in order to be able to talk about reporting the case, there must first of all be a case that can be reported, due to the nature of the thing. In addition, other procedural conditions for notification of the case are that the third party to whom the case will be notified must have the capacity to file a lawsuit and also be a "third party" compared to the parties to the ongoing case. Undoubtedly, in addition to all these, there must also be a "reason for notification" that justifies the notification, in other words, a legal benefit.

The person to whom the case will be reported must have a recourse relationship with the notifier. Otherwise, there will be no legal benefit in reporting the case.

HOW TO REPORT THE CASE?

Notification is a unilateral procedural action. There is no need for the judge's or the opposing party's permission. The parties may make the notification themselves or request notification from the judge or the court.

Notification can be made through the court where the case is heard, or it can be made outside the court, for example by registered letter or through a notary.

If the party to notify requests the court to notify and the court does not accept the request, he/she must make the warning himself. The court's refusal to accept the request does not prevent the notification. Especially in business cases, the request for notice must be accepted in order to achieve the purpose of the trial. As stated in the following Supreme Court decisions, failure to accept the notice request caused the verdict to be overturned:

"The case is about the claim for labor receivables. While it was decided to accept the lawsuit filed for the payment of severance and notice pay and annual leave, travel and meal fees due to the termination of the employment contract of the plaintiff, who is a malfunction maintenance and repair technician, the decision was made without returning some of the notifications regarding the notification of the case made upon the request of the main defendant and without requesting documents from the companies notified. By ensuring the notification of the notification petitions, the declaration petitions of the notified companies and the collection of their evidence, if any, The decision was reversed, stating that if they did not follow the proceedings, copies of the personnel file and payment documents such as payroll and service purchase agreements of the plaintiff employee specified by the defendant company should be requested from these companies, and the court resisted the decision to reverse the case, since it would have to be satisfied with the notification of the lawsuit due to social rights and payments. "The decision to resist is not correct, as not requesting these documents, considering the request from the companies involved, is also a violation of the defendant's right to be heard." YHGK 2017/1526 K.

"In labor cases, especially in cases where the employee works continuously for more than one sub-employer in the workplace belonging to the same main employer, the defendant main or sub-employers have the right to recourse to other sub-employers for the receivables that they will have to pay at the end of the case, and especially in cases involving a long working period, since there are works for more than one sub-employer, notification of the case becomes especially important in case payments have been made for these works and the documents regarding these payments are with these sub-employers. Notification of the case by the court. In accordance with Article 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the requests should be evaluated by taking into account whether the main or sub-employer defendants' requests to notify the case are in writing, the addresses of the persons to whom the case will be notified and whether they have been notified and whether the notification expenses have been paid." Y7HD. 2016/9750 K.

It is sufficient for the court to deliver the notification petition to the addresses notified. The court cannot be expected to determine the address by conducting a separate investigation. An example Supreme Court decision on the subject is as follows:

"The case is about the request for labor receivables. The defendant's attorney requested the notification of the case to the contractor companies outside the case, whose names and addresses were stated in the response petition. It was observed that three of the notifications issued to these companies, whose addresses were reported by the court, could not be notified, but other companies were notified. As stated in Article 62 of the Civil Code No. 6100, the trial cannot be postponed to another day with the notification of the case and the notification can also be made through out-of-court means. Considering that it can be done, it is appropriate for the court to be satisfied with the notification petition based on the addresses provided. Therefore, for these reasons, the local court's decision is in accordance with the procedure and law and the decision to resist is appropriate."

In some cases, the judge is also granted the authority to notify ex officio. The following decision is an example of the issue:

"The court hearing the compensation case filed against the State must notify the responsible judge of this case ex officio. It is intended that the judge to whom the case is notified can participate in the case alongside the defendant State, thus ensuring that the responsible judge is aware of the case and can be effective in the case and bring evidence within the framework of the right to be heard. The notified judge must participate in the case in order to obtain these rights." YHGK 2017/1236 K.

It is possible for the person to whom the case has been notified to notify someone else under the same conditions, and in this way the notification can be postponed. (art. 61/2)

Notice is made in writing; The reason for the notice must be explained together with its justifications and the stage of the trial must be stated.

The trial cannot be postponed to another day due to the notice of the case, and no time can be given except for mandatory cases such as the postponement of the notice (Art. 62/2). As stated in the Supreme Court decision above, the court may be satisfied with notifying the notice petition.

Notification can be made until the investigation is concluded. Notification is not possible at the legal remedy stage (appeal and appeal).

RESULTS OF NOTIFICATION OF THE CASE

As stated in Article 63 of the HMK; The person to whom the case is notified may participate in the case alongside the party who has a legal interest in winning the case.

Notification does not make the person notified a party. According to Article 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure; The provision of the second paragraph of Article 69 shall be applied by analogy regarding the effect of the verdict given in the reported case on the notifying person. Article 69 regulates accessory intervention. The relevant article is as follows:

"The verdict is given for the parties in the main case in which the intervener is also involved.

The subsidiary intervener's claim that a wrong decision was made regarding the dispute in the main case in the recourse relationship with the party is not heard. However, the intervener may claim that he joined the case late because he was not notified on time, or that he prevented the party he joined from using its claim and defense opportunities, or that the claim and defense opportunities unknown to him could not be used due to the party's grave fault, and that the party he joined with him conducted the trial incorrectly."

It is clear from the above provision that the person notified does not have the right to appeal the decision in the main case unless he/she participates in the case. However, if the conditions are present, it can defend itself in the recourse case. If the notified person requests intervention, he/she gains the right to appeal in cases where the party he/she joins appeals the decision. In such cases, additional fees are paid. If the principal party does not resort to legal remedies, the notified party cannot resort to legal remedies either. In addition, if a decision has been made about the person reported, this time there is an opportunity to apply for legal remedies, regardless of the party involved. Below is an example Supreme Court decision:

"Since a decision in a case can only be given for the party to the case, the authority to appeal against this decision belongs only to the appellant parties to the case. In case the main party appeals, the party next to the party, that is, the intervener, can also appeal, and in this case, the appellant, the secondary intervener, has the right to appeal the decision if he pays the necessary fee and appeal expenses separately from the main appellant. The only exception to this is the establishment of a verdict for the notified party. If a verdict has been made for the notified party, then the notified party has the right to appeal the decision. "Even if he is not involved and the parties do not appeal, he has the right to appeal the verdict on his own." YHGK 2016/2 K.

The intervener cannot become a party to the case. It cannot be added as a party to the case through reformation. A Supreme Court decision on the subject is also shared below:

"On the other hand, Articles 61-70 of the HMK include notification of the case and the procedure and conditions of intervention in the case. If one of the parties thinks that if they lose the case, the third party will have recourse, or the third party will have recourse against themselves, they can notify the case to the third party until the investigation is concluded. The purpose of notifying the case in terms of procedural law is to ensure that the third party to whom the case is notified participates in the case and helps the party reporting the case. According to Article 63 of the HMK, the notified person can only file the case. "The third party to whom the lawsuit has been notified does not become a party to the lawsuit. The real or legal person to whom the lawsuit has been notified is the person who can only act as an intervenor in a pending case, and therefore, a decision cannot be made regarding the person to whom the lawsuit has been notified."

Finally, it should be noted that; The statute of limitations on bills of exchange is terminated upon notification of the lawsuit.