WHO CAN REQUEST MILITARY ACCIDENT COMPENSATION?

The cancellation and full judicial proceedings against the decisions concerning the military service and the administrative actions and procedures related to the military service are called military cases.

Even if granted by non-military authorities, disputes arising from administrative actions and actions relating to military service and involving military service remain the subject of military proceedings.

Competent Court for Military Accident:

Cases for compensation of damages arising from administrative actions related to military service are “generally esinde taken before the Military High Administrative Court in accordance with the provisions of the Law no. 1602 on the Military High Administrative Court. However, there are exceptions to this general rule.For example; As can be seen in the decision of the Dispute Court Law Department and the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the lawsuits that will be opened in case of injury and death due to traffic accidents caused by military vehicles are considered in the judicial court in accordance with the general provisions and the principles of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918.

‘’ DEPARTMENT OF LAW OF THE CONFLICT COURT E. 2014/277 K. 2014/310 T. 3.3.2014

Case: The plaintiff’s attorney summarized in the petition; Gendarmerie Ensign MA’s command and command of 4 vehicles in the direction of Silopi in the direction of safety and control while carrying out the task, as a result of the accident on the road route in the car as a result of the gendarmerie plaintiff AO injured, there is no improvement after long-term treatment he was informed that he was not eligible for military service on 27.07.2006 and that the claimant was paid a salary by the Retirement Fund due to his disability and that the degree of disability was 6, with the exception of the rights of the surplus, 500.00 TL material, 10,000 TL a total of TL 10,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages together with the interest.

Ankara 14 th Civil Court of First Instance: 28.09.2010 date, E: 2007/136, N: 2010/342 with the number; partially accepted and partly rejected the case.

Upon appeal against this decision, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 16.03.2011, E: 2011/1324, K: 2011/2761 numbered summary; the case should be dealt with at the Supreme Military Administrative Court, and it should be decided that the petition should be rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court in respect of the judicial remedy;

Ankara 14th Civil Court of First Instance: After complying with the annulment of the Supreme Court of Appeals, in summary on 05.10.2011, E: 2011/278, N: 2011/341; In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of HMK No. 6100, it is required that the lawsuits regarding the compensation of damages resulting from death or loss of body integrity and all kinds of administrative actions and transactions and other reasons which the administration is responsible should be taken before the Civil Court of First Instance. thus, the court decided to accept and partly reject the case.

Upon the appeal against this decision, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 08.05.2012, E: 2012/3297, K: 2012/8108; “…Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100 applies to lawsuits filed after this law enters into force. On the other hand, by abiding by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the rights that have been granted in respect of the party to the benefit of the decision of revocation arise. Since the acquired right cannot be removed by a new decision; according to the annulment decision of the local court, considering the directions explained, the petition of the court should be rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court in respect of the jurisdiction of the court.”
the decision was abolished
.

Ankara 14th Civil Court of First Instance: After following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn, on 01.11.2012, E: 2012/493, K: 2012/455, in summary, the decision was rejected in terms of duty and the decision was finalized. Attorney-at-law, with the same request, this time the case was opened in the military administrative jurisdiction. Second Section of the Military High Administrative Court: 19.06.2013, E: 2013/326, N: 2013/746“…
In accordance with the amendment made to the Law No. 6099 and the Article 110 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, which was enacted on 01.2011, it was concluded that the duty and remedy of this case opened by our claimant on 29.01.2013 is not a court but a judicial place. ”
The decision of the Supreme Military Administrative Court of the Second Division of the Supreme Military Court; On 04.12.2013, E: 2013/1490, K: 2013/1427, the decision was rejected and the decision was finalized.

DECISION : The case was filed by the claimant who was injured as a result of an accident in the military vehicle in which he was involved in the duty while he was performing military service, with the request to pay the 5.000 TL pecuniary and 10,000 TL non-pecuniary damage together with the legal interest to be calculated from the date of the incident.

2918 was given in the Official Gazette dated 19.1.2011 know that the law in 6099, the article 14 of the law, changed in Article 110“
Liability lawsuits arising from this law, including those related to damages caused by vehicles which are the owner or owner of the State and other public institutions, are considered in the judicial proceedings. The fact that the injured person is a public official does not prevent the application of the provision of this paragraph. The provisions of this Law shall also apply to train-traffic accidents occurring at the level crossing .Lawsuits relating to legal liability for motor vehicle accidents can be filed in one of the courts of the place where the insurer’s head office or branch office or the contracting agent is located, or may be filed in the place where the accident occurred.”
is called,temporary article 21 “ The provision of the first paragraph of Article 110 of this Law regarding the duty shall not apply to the cases brought before the effective date of the administrative courts and the Military High Administrative Court. ” he called.In the last paragraph of Article 158 of the Constitution “In the case of duty disputes between the other courts and the Constitutional Court, the decision of the Constitutional Court shall be taken as basis.”It is called. The decision of the Constitutional Court dated 26.12.2013 and numbered E: 2013/68, K: 2013/165 states that the legislator can assign an issue that falls under the duty of the administrative judiciary to the duty of the judicial judiciary and that Article 110 of Law no. In accordance with Article 158 of the Constitution, it is a mandatory decision to be followed in respect of other judicial bodies, in particular the Court.In this case, when Article 110 of the Law No. 2918 entered into force on 19.01.2011 and the decisions of the Constitutional Court are taken into consideration, the aforementioned article covers the measures to be taken by ensuring traffic order in terms of safety of life and property and ensuring all traffic safety related measures. It was concluded that the lawsuit, which was filed with the request for compensation of the damages incurred, should be solved in the judicial court, as well as the rules, conditions, rights and obligations related to traffic, their implementation and supervision, the relevant institutions and their duties, powers and responsibilities. As the opinion and solution of the case became the duty of the judiciary for the reasons explained, the decision of non-jurisdiction issued by the Ankara 14th Civil Court of First Instance had to be abolished.

CONCLUSION: The decision of the 14th Civil Court of First Instance of Ankara dated 01.11.2012, E: 2012/493, K: 2012/455 was decided to be abolished on 03.03.2014 by unanimous vote. ’’


4. “T.C.Supreme Court 4th DEPARTMENT OF LAW E. 2012/14631 K. 2012/15193 T. 16.10.2012

ABSTRACT: The case concerned pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for unjust action. It was decided by the court that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the overthrow of the military vehicle and that the settlement of the case was the Military Administrative Judiciary. “Legal Responsibility of the Operator”85-90. articles, it is foreseen that natural and private persons and public legal entities are bound to the same responsibility rules without discrimination due to the damages that occur as a result of the behaviors contrary to the traffic rules and requirements of motor vehicles. Again, in the same law, the damages caused by the vehicles which are the owner or owner of the State and other public institutions are provided. It is stated that the liability lawsuits arising from this law, including those related to them, will be seen in the judicial judiciary. In the face of these regulations, because of the damages caused by public vehicles, the administration is not in accordance with the rules of public law, “operating” In this case, the case opened with the request for compensation for the damage caused by the military vehicle, the judicial judiciary responsible for implementing these rules should be seen.

CASE:Following the petition filed by the plaintiff M. K. and his deputy on the date of 31/01/2012 against the Ministry of the Interior and the request for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; rejection of the case After the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals to decide on the acceptance of the petitions of appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendants’ deputies within the period, the report prepared by the investigating judge and the papers in the file were discussed.

Judgement: The case concerned claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for unjustified action. The court gave a decision of non-jurisdiction in terms of judicial remedy; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiffs and the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had been injured due to a traffic accident while he was in a vehicle belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and that the damages had to be covered by the respondent administration in his capacity as operator.The defendant defended the rejection of the case, stating that they did not have any flaws in the occurrence of the case subject to the case.

Article 106 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 “ Provisions of this law regarding the legal responsibility of the operator shall be applied for the losses caused by motor vehicles belonging to general and annexed budget organizations, special provincial administrations and municipalities, and state economic enterprises and public institutions. ” It is called.
The eighth part of the said law “Legal Responsibility of the Operator ” 85-90. articles, it is foreseen that natural and private persons and public legal entities are bound to the same rules of responsibility without any discrimination due to the damages resulting from the behaviors contrary to the traffic rules and requirements of motor vehicles. In accordance with this regulation, the law states that public administrations and institutions should be held responsible on the same basis with private individuals considering the nature of the damages arising from traffic incidents due to the damages caused by motor vehicles allocated to public service. In the same way, the law on the duty and authority of the 110th Amendment was amended on 11.01.2011.Article ‘the owner or owner of the state and other public companies are included in the cleaning of the cause of the vehicle, liability law arising from this law, judicial judges. was expressed as.In the face of these provisions of the law, the administration may be held responsible for the damages caused by public vehicles according to the rules of private law in the capacity of “operator değil, not according to the rules of public law. In this case, the case opened with the request of compensation for the damage caused by the military vehicle should be seen in the judicial jurisdiction responsible for enforcing these rules.The decision of non-jurisdiction by the local court without regard to the legal regulations announced was not considered correct and required to be violated,…’’

AUTHORIZED COURT                          :

In the case of compensation for traffic accidents caused by or involved in military vehicles, the general competent court is the relevant article of the Law no. 6100 ‘Article 6: The general court of competent jurisdiction is the court of residence of the respondent natural or legal person on the date of the proceedings. ’’The defendant is the court of residence of the natural or legal person on the date of the trial. When the defendant is the defendant of the ministry and other public legal entities, the Ankara courts are the competent courts in these cases.

THE RIGHTS OF THE MILITARY INJURY DURING THE MILITARY PERIOD

  • Health Aid:

In accordance with the Additional Article 6 added to the Military Law No. 1111;

‘While doing his military service in peace and war, at home and abroad, during or out of duty due to their duties, an attack or accident of the privates and soldiers, who continue treatment in health institutions, 36 months from the date of the incident / accident, following the discharge from the beginning of the month and treated by the health institution “Indicates ongoing treatment “2/3 of the net salary received by the current sergeant (1-year, headquarters, single) according to the health committee report (27/6/1989 dated 27/6/1989; 500 and dated 500) and foreign language compensation) , The Gendarmerie General Command shall be paid by the Coast Guard Command from the relevant budget organization. No deduction is made from this payment, including insurance premiums, and health care provided during the treatment period is not collected from the personnel. Health assistance is not paid if the case / accident arises from the use of pleasurable drinks and all kinds of substances, in order to benefit or harm itself or others, in any case. 856-1 Among those who continue treatment; a) 06.08.1949 dated and 5434 the Republic of Turkey Retirement Fund Act repealed by Article 45 of the scope of duties infirm or repealed Article 64 of the scope Malulü pension connect those 31/5/2006 dated 5510 Social Security and General Health Insurance From the beginning of the month following the date of the monthly attachment to those who have been assigned to the duty / war invalidity pension under Article 47 of the Law,b) From the beginning of the month following the report, the payment of health aid shall be terminated for those whose treatment is terminated with a definite procedure health board report. Health care provided during the treatment period is not collected from the staff. ’

  • Invalidity pension:

In Article 47 of Law No. 5510, ‘Invalidity duty provisions shall apply to those insured under the subparagraph (c) of the first paragraph of Article 4 for the first time after the entry into force of the Law.Invalidity specified in Article 25; while carrying out other duties of any public administration to which insured persons are assigned by their administrations at the time they perform their duties or other than their duties,or if they were born from an accident in the workplace during their arrival and return to work with a vehicle provided by their administrations, this is called duty invalidity and those who have suffered them are called duty disabled. ’ The provision of social insurance benefits to the insured or the beneficiaries due to disability pension, physical and mental failures depends on the receipt of a report within the legal framework. In case of a written request from the Institution, invalidity pension is attached.

  • Cash compensation:

One of the points to be mentioned is the issue of cash compensation. In this respect, the definition and the attached table on the website of the Ministry of National Defense is given below.

WHAT IS CASH COMPENSATION?

Cash Compensation is the cash payment made to the heirs of those who died due to the duties specified in the relevant Laws and to the heirs of the injured or injured personnel without the need for any judicial decision by the competent commissions. Within the scope of the Law, it is the decision of compensation which is self-ruled by the Administration.

When the attached table on the website of the Ministry of Defense is examined;

Indemnity Amount:

  • Widows and orphans of the dead shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the 400,000 indicator number with the salary coefficient of the civil servant at the date of decision,
  • Those who become disabled are paid according to the degree of disability to be determined in accordance with the provisions of “Regulations on the Types and Duties of the Invalidity of Duties”and the amount calculated as multiplied by the salary coefficient of the civil servant at the date of decision
DEGREE OF DISABILITY INDEMNITY INDICATORS TO BE PAID
1   2 3 4 5 6 400.000   360.000 330.000 300.000 270.000 240.000
  • This compensation is paid only once. There is no further payment on the grounds that the disability increases and the degree of disability increases. In addition, no tax and deduction shall be made from the compensation except the stamp tax and the compensation to be paid shall not be confiscated.

Payment Transactions:

  • Compensation payment procedures are completed by the units to be determined by the Force Commands to which the unit / headquarters / institution to which the obligator performs his military service and the right holder is informed. ’’*

*Letter of Cash Compensation from the Ministry of Defense;

  • Pecuniary and Non Pecuniary Damages:

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages are determined as a result of the lawsuit to be opened in the related courts for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. “ General judicial review ” In cases where a case should be filed, according to Article 109 / 1-2 of the Highway Traffic Law no. Claims for compensation for pecuniary damages arising from motor vehicle accidents shall be time-barred within 2 years starting from the date on which the injured person has learned the damage and compensation obligation and possibly within 10 years starting from the day of the accident.Pursuant to Article 43 of Law No. 1602, the period of one year’s mandatory administrative application, which is foreseen to begin after the written notification of the action causing the loss before the filing of the full judicial proceedings, commences as of the date of the report. It is necessary to apply to the administration in writing within one year from this date.
In the case of a partial or total rejection of this request, full litigation may be filed within sixty days from the date of notification of the transaction in this matter and within sixty days from the date of expiry of this period, if not responded.

TIME OUT- TERM Of THE LITIGATION 

“General judicial review”In cases where a case should be filed, according to Article 109 / 1-2 of the Highway Traffic Law no. Claims for compensation for pecuniary damages arising from motor vehicle accidents shall be time-barred within 2 years starting from the date on which the injured person has learned the damage and compensation obligation and possibly within 10 years starting from the day of the accident. The case arises from a criminal offense and if the penal code provides for a longer period of time for that act, this period also applies to claims for pecuniary damage.

General administrative jurisdiction”or “Military High Administrative Court”in cases to be opened; In case of death, the relatives of the deceased must apply to the administration within 1 year of the date of death and the injured should apply to the administration within 1 year of the report or report approval date, and file their cases within 60 days upon rejection of these applications.If the administration does not respond to this application within 60 days, a lawsuit should be filed within the second 60 days.

This issue is regulated as follows in Article 43/1 of AYİM Law No. 1602; The rights of those whose administrative acts have been violated shall be filed with the competent authority within one year from the date of the written notification of such actions or otherwise learned before filing a lawsuit with the Supreme Military Administrative Court and in any case within five years of the date of action. They need to be brought.

Pursuant to Article 43 of Law No. 1602, the period of one year’s mandatory administrative application, which is foreseen to begin after the written notification of the action causing the loss before the filing of the full judicial proceedings, commences as of the date of the report. It is necessary to apply to the administration in writing within one year from this date. In the case of a partial or total rejection of this request, full litigation may be filed within sixty days from the date of notification of the transaction in this matter and within sixty days from the date of expiry of this period, if not responded. Therefore, you should wait 60 days, which is the response time of MSB. On the other hand, since the periods are debilitating in lawsuits that constitute a compensation claim arising from administrative action, it is not possible to reserve the right of surplus when filing a lawsuit within the time limit. Therefore, when applying for an administrative application, the amount of pecuniary compensation should be calculated on the basis of factors such as disability rate, plaintiff’s age and income, and requested above the compensation calculated on the full line.