Supreme Court decision to break precedent engagement
The young man, who got engaged when he was a medical school student, allegedly broke his engagement when he became a doctor. The young girl, who was shocked by her life, sued the doctor for moral compensation due to the pain, anguish and anguish she suffered. The Supreme Court, which put the last of the years to the end, decided that moral compensation cannot be ruled for the natural cause of sadness due to the break of engagement.
He got engaged in a ceremony between a young girl working in a private company and a young family who is a medical school student. According to the claim; The young man, who graduated from school and became a doctor, sent a phone message to the young girl and said that he broke the engagement. The young girl, whose world was destroyed, took her breath in the court. 5. The young girl victim of the engagement, who made a statement in the case at the Family Court, stated that her family made the engagement according to customs and traditions, the defendant was a medical student during the engagement period and she was working at the job. He said that when the defendant became a doctor, he ended his engagement with a phone message, even though he had no fault or fault, and that he had left for someone else when he reported on Facebook that a new relationship had begun.
The plaintiff young girl asked for the payment of 10 thousand TL material and 40 thousand TL non-pecuniary compensation for the engagement costs and the allowance given to the defendant, together with the legal interest to be incurred as of the date of the case.
The defendant doctor, who made his defense at the court, noted that the engagement ceremony was not held, only the family was interrupted, that there were no unaccustomed expenses in the speech ceremony, and that he thought of marriage after passing the medical specialty examination.
He stated that the fault was in the plaintiff, that the moral compensation conditions were not met and the amount was too much, that he was also sorry because he left his fiancee, that he could not prepare for the exam he wanted to pass because he was sorry, and demanded that the case be rejected. With the partial acceptance of the case, the court ruled that one thousand 566 TL of pecuniary damage and 20 thousand TL of non-pecuniary damage be paid to the plaintiff. The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which came into effect when the defendant appealed the decision, overturned the court decision on the grounds that moral compensation cannot be ruled for the violation of the interest caused by the natural sorrow due to the breach of the engagement.
5. The Family Court ruled that the plaintiff's request for non-pecuniary damages was rejected as a result of the trial conducted in compliance with the reversal. The party lawyers appealed the decision. The Supreme Court of Appeals 3rd Legal Department has made a precedent decision.
At the decision; “Non-pecuniary damages could not be ruled for the breach of interest caused by the natural sorrow due to the rejection of all the plaintiff's and the defendant's other appeal appeals, but an exorbitant damage occurred due to the breach of the engagement. For this reason, if personal rights were also attacked, it was understood that moral compensation could be ruled in case of proof of this situation, and in the dispute subject to appeal, the defendant broke the order without giving reason. With this state of affairs, the defendant attacked the personal rights of the plaintiff and caused moral damage (objective membrane