232 NEWSLETTER 2021 Therefore, although the scope of the appeal review is limited by the reasons specified in the petition of appeal, it is evident that the Regional Courts of Appeal can only conduct a review in terms of public order if no reason for appeal is specified in the petition of appeal. The violation of causes of action and the judgment of the court of first instance without justification set an example for violation of public order. In practice, the consequences of not specifying the reasons for appeal in the petition of appeal usually arise when the application petition cannot be submitted within the time limit due to a lack of a reasoned decision from the court of first instance. In practice, it is not possible to submit a petition of appeal containing the reasons for appeal without a reasoned decision. For this reason, in a petition called an “application petition,” the party states that the reasons for appeal will be submitted after the reasoned decision of the court of first instance is served. This petition allows the appeal to be lodged within the time limit. However, if the petition of appeal containing the reasons for appeal is not submitted after the application petition is submitted, the Regional Court of Appeal will only be able to conduct a review limited to public order. Similarly, according to Article 342/3 of the CPC, if only the applicant’s identity and signature are stated in the petition of appeal, as well as the records that will sufficiently reveal the decision subject to appeal, the request of appeal is not directly rejected, and a review is only conducted limited to public order in accordance with Article 355 of CPC. Precedents of the Court of Cassation In a decision on the termination of an employment contract and other employment claims, the Court of Cassation decided that if the application petition was submitted, but a petition of appeal was not submitted within the time limit, a review is conducted which is limited to violations of public order decision.6However, in this case, it was decided that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been violated, and since this issue is deemed a violation of public order, the decision 6 22nd CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2018/3323 E., 2018/9615 K., 24.04.2018.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=