Precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation affecting 1 million teachers
The Court of Cassation has issued a precedent-setting ruling regarding indebted teachers. In the decision, which closely concerns 1 million 201 thousand teachers, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation stated, "Only one-quarter of the additional course fee can be garnished."
İHA
According to information obtained from the Case Law Bulletin, an indebted teacher requested the removal of a garnishment placed on 1/4 of their salary received from the District Directorate of National Education and the entirety of their additional course fees. The teacher stated that their request had been rejected by the Dinar Enforcement Office, that they were struggling to make ends meet with their salary, that they had additional expenses due to doctor check-ups and nutritional supplements because their spouse was pregnant, and that they traveled a total of 110 km round-trip every day to the school where they worked in Dalaman because their legal residence was in Fethiye. The teacher requested the removal of the garnishment applied to the additional course fees, which exceeded 1/4 of their salary.
FIRST INSTANCE COURT DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST
The First Instance Court ruled to accept the complaint on the grounds that the debtor's salary was garnished by 1/4 and the entirety of the additional course fees were garnished separately in the Dinar Enforcement Office's file, and that this procedure was contrary to procedure and law. The court ordered the removal of the garnishment on the entirety of the additional course fees, the continuation of the garnishment on the amount calculated as 1/4 of the total of the debtor's salary and additional course fees, which amounted to 1,262.62 TL, and the refund of the over-collected deduction amount of 4,672.99 TL to the plaintiff (complainant) along with legal interest. The creditor's attorney filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision of the First Instance Court within the legal time limit.
The Regional Court of Justice overturned the verdict but issued a new ruling in favor of the indebted teacher
The Regional Court of Justice decided that the complaint should be partially accepted, as it was understood that the complainant's request for the removal of the garnishment on the entirety of the additional course fees (on the grounds that a garnishment deduction of 1/4 of the total salary and additional course fees should be made) was partially accepted. On the other hand, it found it inappropriate to order the refund of the over-collected deduction amount of 4,672.99 TL to the plaintiff with legal interest when there was no such request. Consequently, the creditor's appeal was partially accepted, the First Instance Court's decision was overturned, and it was ruled that the complaint be partially accepted, the garnishment continue over the 1,262.62 TL calculated as 1/4 of the total of the debtor's salary and additional course fees, and the request regarding the excess be rejected.
The Regional Court of Justice's aforementioned decision was appealed by the attorneys of both parties within the legal time limit.
The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the Regional Court of Justice's verdict on the grounds that, "Article 83 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) lists items that are partially subject to garnishment, and there is no provision stating that additional course fees are considered part of the salary. In this case, there is no legal obstacle to garnishing the entirety of this fee."
In the concrete case, the Regional Court of Justice issued a resistance decision on the grounds that, as stated in the creditor's attorney's statement at the hearing, the garnishment applied to the debtor's salary was at a rate of 1/4 of the salary, and that it was evaluated that a maximum of 1/4 (rate) of the salary and additional course fees should be garnished after deducting the amount deemed necessary for the subsistence of the debtor and their family, and accordingly, the garnishment exceeding 1/4 of the total salary and additional course fees was removed.
The resistance decision was appealed by the creditor's attorney within the legal time limit, and the file was moved to the agenda of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.
"ONLY ONE-QUARTER OF THE ADDITIONAL COURSE FEE CAN BE GARNISHED"
The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation used the following expressions while issuing its precedent-setting decision.
"When starting from the explained legal grounds, the additional course fee can be defined as the fee paid in return for courses given outside of the monthly teaching duty. In this sense, the additional course fee is a fee paid in return for additional course duties outside of the monthly 'salary' within the scope of Article 83 of Law No. 2004. It should be stated that, as explained above, the concept of wage expressed in Article 83 of Law No. 2004 includes all kinds of wages. Every kind of wage obtained as a result of both physical and intellectual work is within this scope. Accordingly, it is clear that the additional course fee also falls within the scope of 'all kinds of wages' included in the text of the article. As such, the resistance decision given by the Regional Court of Justice by addressing the issues explained above is in accordance with procedure and law and is appropriate."