PRECEDENT-SETTING RULING FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS WHO CHANGE THEIR HOME ADDRESS WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
PRECEDENT-SETTING COURT OF CASSATION DECISION REGARDING CITIZENS WHO CHANGE THEIR HOME ADDRESS WITHOUT NOTIFICATION
This week, for my valued readers, I will try to explain, with examples, the address-related decision by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which has emerged as a much-anticipated and precedent-setting ruling.
Recently, we have frequently encountered cases where citizens change their addresses and fail to notify the authorities of their new addresses in order to delay judicial proceedings. The Court of Cassation has issued a precedent-setting decision to prevent this situation, as the inability to reach parties in a case often leads to proceedings dragging on for years. The Court of Cassation has ruled that if a party who has changed their address fails to report it and their place of residence cannot be determined in the address registration system, it shall be sufficient to post a copy of the document to be served on the door of the building at the former address. The decision noted that in such cases, the date the document is posted on the door shall be deemed the date of service.
In some cases, the inability to reach one of the parties causes the lawsuit to last for years. Regarding this situation, a precedent-setting decision has been reached by the Court of Cassation. A lawsuit regarding labor claims was filed in the Labor Court by a worker who was fired from the company where he worked as a crane operator.
In the petition, the plaintiff worker briefly alleged that he worked in shifts and that his employment contract was terminated by the defendants without just cause, and he requested that payment of his severance and notice pay, as well as claims for wages, overtime, weekly holiday pay, and national and general holiday pay, be collected from the defendants.
The defendant company argued that they were in the position of the tendering authority and requested that the case be dismissed on the merits.
The other defendant company argued that the termination notice stated that the plaintiff's employment contract would be terminated with compensation, and that the plaintiff had accepted the payment of severance and notice pay by signing it, thereby requesting the dismissal of the case.
The Labor Court ruled that, accepting that the first company was the tendering authority, the unpaid wage claims for the last three months should be collected from all defendants, and the other claims from the other company.
THE "ADDRESS" DECISION THAT WILL SET A PRECEDENT
The second company's attorney appealed the decision of the local court due to irregularities in the service of process.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which examined the case file, signed off on a precedent-setting decision.
The decision text states: “Service of process must be performed at the last known address of the natural or legal person. According to Article 35 of Law No. 7201, as amended by Law No. 6099, a person to whom service has been made in accordance with the procedures shown by law is obliged to immediately notify the judicial authority that ordered the service if they change their address.” It further states: “In this case, subsequent service shall be made to the new address provided. If the person who changes their address fails to report the new one and their place of residence cannot be determined in the address registration system, it shall be sufficient to post a copy of the document to be served on the door of the building at the former address. In this case, the date the document is posted is deemed the date of service. Even if service has not been made before, the provisions of this article shall be applied to legal entities based on their addresses in official records.”
The decision stated the following:
“Even according to the court’s method of acceptance, since the service of process made to the defendant '...' company during the trial phase was returned unserved, the defendant's address registered in the trade registry should have been investigated and service made to that address; instead, continuing to make service according to Article 35 of Law No. 7201 to the address from which it was returned without following this procedure constitutes a restriction on the right to defense. It was unanimously decided that the decision be reversed for this reason.”