Precedent EYT ruling from the Court of Cassation for service determination lawsuits

A precedent ruling has been issued by the Court of Cassation regarding service determination lawsuits filed by employees who could not enter the EYT scope due to missing premium days. The high court ruled that witness statements and kinship relations do not invalidate testimony on their own, paving the way for a new method of evaluation regarding the determination of working periods.

Service Determination and Lawsuit Process

An employee who missed the right to retirement due to missing premium days applied to the Labor Court and filed a service determination lawsuit in order to have their past work recorded in the SSI records. The worker defended that they worked continuously for many years at the production facility, but that their insurance premiums were paid deficiently, demanding the collection of their rights and receivables.

Decision of the Court of First Instance

As a result of the trial, the court of first instance accepted that the plaintiff worked continuously in the workplace for many years. Stating that the employment contract was terminated for a justified reason, the court ruled for the partial acceptance of the lawsuit, ordering the payment of the worker's severance pay, wages, and annual leave receivables.

Evaluation of the Regional Court of Appeal

Upon the employer side carrying the decision to appeal, the Regional Court of Justice reviewed the file. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance on the grounds that the plaintiff's witnesses were close relatives and had not worked together until the termination period, taking the intermittent working period in the SSI records as basis.

Precedent Ruling of the Court of Cassation

Upon the decision being appealed, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stepped in. The high court emphasized that a kinship relation does not invalidate witness statements on its own. It ruled that taking into account the witness's working period in the same workplace, a certain period should be accepted as continuous.

Evidence in Determining the Working Period

In the Court of Cassation's decision, it was explicitly stated that SSI records, employer and workplace documents, entry-exit documents, intra-institutional correspondence, and the testimonies of workplace and neighboring employees can be taken into account in proving working periods.