243 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW ficiency within this period.4 On the other hand, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation rejected lawsuits on procedural grounds due to the lack of the legal interest if the employment claim can be objectively calculated by the plaintiff.5 Although this difference between the chambers’ ruling was brought before the Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly on the Unification of Judgements,6 that court decided that employment claims can be of many different types and natures, and since it would not be possible to categorize these claims as quantified or unquantified, even for the same type and nature of claims, this matter cannot be a subject of unifying judgments.7 The Closure of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Unified Court of Cassation’s Precedent The disagreement regarding the disputes arising from the employment claims between the 9th and 22nd Chambers of the Court of Cassation, which both specialized in labor and social security law, created significant differences in practice and could have potentially led to unfair consequences. As a matter of fact, it would have been possible for a litigant to tailor its strategies to the jurisdiction of a particular Court of Cassation chamber while filing a case. While this difference in practice continues, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation was closed with the decision of the First Presidency Board of the Court of Cassation numbered 173 and dated 07.07.2020, and thus, the pending cases were transferred to the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. Following this decision, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, with its decision dated 14.09.2020,8 reversed its prior precedent regarding filing an 4 9th CC of the Court of Cassation, No.2014/1962 E., 2014/6034 K., 26.01.2014. 5 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2014/16510 E., 2015/28942 K., 09.10.2015. 6 The decision of the Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly on the Unification of Judgements No. 2016/6 E., 2017/5 K.,15.12.2017. 7 Özekes, Muhammet: “Gerçek Bir İçtihat: 9. Hukuk Dairesi’nin Belirsiz Alacak ve Sürpriz Karar Yasağıyla İlgili Emsal Kararı”, https://blog.lexpera.com.tr/ gercek-bir-ictihat-9-hukuk-dairesinin-belirsiz-alacak-ve-surpriz-karar-yasagiylailgili-emsal-karari/ (Access date: 23.11.2021) 8 9th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2016/24476 E., 2020/7547 K.,14.09.2020.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=