Supreme Court made its decision… Bad news for EYT members whose premiums were not paid on time.

With the EYT regulation, two and a half million people are entitled to retirement, while hundreds of thousands of people are at court doors to benefit from the EYT regulation. Employees, whose employers do not pay their insurance premiums despite their work, are seeking rights in the courts.

The plaintiff EYT candidate, who applied to the Labor Court, claimed that although he worked in 1999, his premium was not paid to the SGK.

He stated that although he started working at the law firm on April 1, 1999, the part of his work until April 23, 2000 was not reported to the institution, but his work, which started on April 1, 1999, continued uninterruptedly until April 24, 2000, when he was hired.

Claiming that the period of infringement had not passed in terms of the period in question and that the actual work would be proved by witness statements, he demanded that it be determined that he worked at the defendant’s workplace between April 1, 1999 and April 23, 2000.

DECLARED THAT IT WORKS UNINTERRUPTED

The defendant stated that the plaintiff worked uninterruptedly at the workplace of his party between April 1, 1999 and April 23, 2000, which was stated in the petition before April 24, 2000, when the first insurance entry was made, and that he did not have any objections.

SGK INTERVENTION IN THE CASE

SGK, which was involved in the case, defended the rejection of the case by stating that the case was not filed within the period of disqualification, the plaintiff’s name was not on the payrolls at the time he claimed to be working, and the fact of actual employment should be proven beyond any doubt. The court, listening to the parties, pointed out that the witnesses of the neighboring workplace, who were notified and determined ex officio, also confirmed the claim of uninterrupted work, their statements were consistent with each other and were compatible with the statements of the payroll witness.

When the evidence and witness statements were evaluated together within the framework of the whole file, it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that it was concluded that the plaintiff was working with a service contract at the workplace belonging to the defendant, and to determine that the plaintiff worked at the workplace belonging to the defendant between April 1, 1999 and April 23, 2000.

DECISION GOES TO APPEAL

The Social Security Administration appealed the decision. The District Court’s Civil Chamber dismissed the appeal. This time, SGK took the decision to the Supreme Court. The 10th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the decision should be reversed due to the statute of limitations. In the re-trial, the Court resisted in its first decision. With the appeal of the SGK, this time the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals stepped in.

DECISION WAS TAKEN BY BLOOD VOTES

The decision, which millions of people have been waiting for with hope, was taken by a majority of votes.

In the decision of the General Assembly, it was noted that the defendant employer made a service notification on behalf of the plaintiff between April 24, 2000 and May 03, 2000, requested the determination of the plaintiff, and that the defendant employer did not make any notification regarding the working period between April 01, 1999 and April 23, 2000, which is the subject of the dispute.

The decision said:

“Considering that, in terms of the working period before notification, it is necessary to file a lawsuit within 5 years from the end of the year in which the working period between April 24, 2000 and May 03, 2000, but the case at hand was filed on 05 November 2020, the subject of the dispute was the pre-notification study between 01 April 1999 and 23 April 2000. It has been concluded that the period of disqualification has passed in terms of the period.

During the negotiations in the General Assembly of Law, in the event that there are block studies combined with the period subject to the lawsuit due to the services of the plaintiff notified to the Institution between April 24, 2000 and May 03, 2000, the legal basis of the case is 506, which contains a parallel regulation with the 86th article of the Law No. 5510. It has been said that it is not possible to talk about the expiry of the period of disqualification regulated in Article 79 of the Law.

In this respect, since the decision to resist is in accordance with the procedure and the law, it was suggested that the file should be sent to the Special Chamber for the examination of the appeal objections regarding the merits of the case, which were not examined according to the reason for reversal, but this opinion was not adopted by the majority of the Board. As such, it was not right to resist in the previous provision, while the decision to overturn the Special Chamber, which was also adopted by the General Assembly of Law, should be followed. In that case, the decision to resist was overturned by a majority of votes.”