NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

273 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW ing that it was created as a sanction provision in order to enable an attorney, who has been excluded, to collect the attorney fee. There is no gap in the Law, and the Article in question does not have a need for interpretation in its current form. In this case, by accepting that Article 165 does not cover the contractual fee, this will result in changing the clear provisions of the law through interpretation, does not comply with the purpose, and the written technique and system of the Law is a special law. In the second dissenting vote, it is stated that in some legal regula- tions, those who are not parties to a contract are held responsible for the contracts, and Article 165 of the Law is one of these regulations; Moreover, it is defended that there will be no injustice or aggrieve- ment since, if the contractual attorney fee agreed between the business owner and the attorney is paid by the opposing party, it may always be directed to the side of the attorney agreement. On the other hand, the last dissenting vote states that the “attorney fee” term in Article 165 of the Law is considered to include both the contractual fee and the legal fee as part of the trial expenses for the client, but may cover only the legal fee with regards to the opposing party’s participation in the settlement. Conclusion The CCGAUJ has ruled through its Decision that the contractual attorney fee, which must be paid to the attorney in accordance with the attorney fee agreement between the attorney and client, is not included in the attorney fee that both parties will be responsible for the payment of in favor of the other party’s attorney, “in cases concluded with an agreement, and that are left without further follow-up,” under Article 165, and removed the conflicts between the different chambers of the Court of Cassation.