NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

244 NEWSLETTER 2019 the issue in cases where a material mistake is identified, and agreed to correct the material mistake that was made at the beginning. Under Article 8 of Labor Courts Law numbered 5521 that applies to the case at hand, a revision of decision is not possible by the Court of Cassation with respect to decisions rendered by the labor courts. However, decisions based upon a material mistake are beyond the scope of this principle. In the event there is a clear material mistake in reversing and upholding decisions, the case may be revised. If a right has been gained through a faulty decision, through reversing and upholding decisions that are based on a material mistake, this violates the basic principles of universal law, and these decisions cannot create a right on behalf of the opposing party. Nevertheless, in the event a result is obtained by manner of evaluating the evidence on a legal basis in a reversal decision, even though it is later understood that the verdict is wrong, or the evidence was evaluated erroneously, the presence of an acquired right should be accepted. Regarding the principle of “legal security,” the Assembly of Civil Chambers expresses in summary that the rules of law are predictable, and individuals can have confidence in the state in all of their transac- tions and acts, and legal regulations of the state are clear, transparent, understandable and applicable both for the individuals and the admin- istration. Conclusion In the decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of Court of Cassation numbered 2016/22-388 E. 2018/1607 K. and dated 06.11.2018, the verdict and following stages were evaluated in detail, and as a result of the extensive investigation made, by also referring to the changes with the entry of the regional courts in our legislation, and it upheld the decision of insistence which was reviewed. In the decision, the court of first instance findings that have been upheld by rejecting the request of appeal of the respondent employer, and which had a finalization statement written underneath, was up- held by the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation through evaluation of evidence and legal qualification. This was made with