The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has defined procedural vested rights as follows: “A right that arises in favor of one of the parties, and consequently against the other, due to a procedural act performed by the court or the parties in a lawsuit, and which is mandatory to be observed, is called a procedural vested right. For example, when a court complies with a reversal decision of the Court of Cassation, a vested right arises for the party in whose favor the reversal decision was made.”
Once a court complies with a reversal decision rendered by a Chamber of the Court of Cassation, an obligation arises for that court to conduct an examination and research in the manner indicated in that decision and to render a judgment in accordance with the legal principles specified therein. In this respect, the fact that the subsequent judgment of the court is contrary to the principles shown in the reversal decision constitutes a ground for reversal as it is not in accordance with the procedure.
With a reversal decision, the lawsuit is deemed to have been brought into compliance with the procedure and the law. Rendering a decision contrary to this after complying with the reversal means deviating from compliance with the procedure and the law; such a result constitutes a clear violation of public policy. Accordingly, a court that has complied with the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation is bound by this decision of compliance (uyma kararı). It cannot later renege on this decision of compliance and render a decision to resist (direnme kararı); it is obliged to conduct an examination in the manner shown in the reversal decision or to render a new judgment in the manner shown.
In order for a procedural vested right to produce legal consequences, it must be possible to mention the existence of a right that has arisen in favor of one of the parties through a procedural act explicitly performed by the parties, the court, or the Court of Cassation in a lawsuit, which is not listed among the exceptions, and which must be complied with.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CIVIL CHAMBERS | Basis No: 2017/2096 | Decision No: 2017/895
“Legal Precedent” COURT: Labor Court
DECISION: The dispute brought before the General Assembly of Civil Chambers via the path of resistance concerns whether a lawsuit filed without reserving the right to claim further amounts should be evaluated as a “full action” or a “partial action,” and consequently, whether the remaining receivables can be gained through a subsequently filed additional lawsuit.
During the discussions at the General Assembly, before proceeding to the merits of the case, the preliminary issue of whether a decision to resist can be rendered after the court has complied with the reversal decision was discussed.
…In the hearing dated 27.01.2014, the court rendered an interim decision stating: “It is decided to comply with the aforementioned reversal decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.” However, despite this interim decision, the court subsequently rendered a decision to resist (direnme kararı).
…A court that has complied with the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation is bound by this decision. It cannot later renege on this decision and render a decision to resist; it is obliged to conduct an examination or render a new judgment as shown in the reversal decision.
When all these matters are evaluated together; in the concrete case, a procedural vested right was created in favor of the defendant upon the local court’s compliance with the reversal decision rendered following the defendant’s appeal. Since there is no exceptional situation to prevent the occurrence of a procedural vested right, it is no longer procedurally possible to resist the previous decision. The principle of procedural vested rights is related to public policy and must be considered sua sponte (kendiliğinden) at the appeal stage.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 03.05.2017 to REVERSE the decision to resist on procedural grounds.