248 NEWSLETTER 2021 damage caused. The defendant’s attorney filed an appeal against the decision. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation decided that the decision should be reversed on the grounds that the expert report, which was served on the defendant, should have been served to the attorney, as law requires service of notice on the attorney in lawsuits pursued via attorney. The Mengen Civil Court of First Instance, which examined the file upon reversal, decided to partially accept the case since there was no review and reversal on the merits on the grounds that the decision of reversal was related to a procedural defect, the said procedural defect had been resolved by notifying the defendant’s attorney of the expert report. Upon the defendant attorney’s appeal, the dispute was conveyed to the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation for the second time. As a result of the examination, 11th Civil Chamber emphasized that the court of first instance misinterpreted the judgment of reversal, and considered notification of the expert report to the defendant’s attorney was sufficient on the grounds that the annulment was related to a procedural defect, and therefore the requirement of the judgment of reversal was not fulfilled. Furthermore, the 11th Civil Chamber held that the expert report should have been served on to the attorney and pursuant to his/her objections an additional report should have been obtained from the same committee or a new report should have been obtained from another expert committee, and that this expert report should have been evaluated together with all the evidence available in the file and a decision should have been made according to the result. Therefore, the decision of the first instance court was reversed for the second time. The Mengen Civil Court of First Instance persisted in its decision on the ground that the defendant’s attorney was given notice of the expert report on the ascertainment of defect upon the Court of Cassation’s reversal decision, but the attorney did not make any objections to the report regarding degree of negligence, the objection was related to the price of the tangerine commodity that was not brought forward
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=