Sicil, 2022/I Sayfa 9-21
Prof. Dr. Mahmut KABAKCI
Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Isletme Fakültesi Is ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku
2012 yilinda Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nun yürürlügüne kadar yillik izin ücretinin tabi oldugu zamanasimi hakkinda bir çekisme yoktu. Yargitay 7. ve 9. Hukuk Dairelerinin 2013-2017 yillarinda verdigi, bu Kanunda bes yillik zamanasimina tabi alacaklarin düzenlendigi 147/1 maddesindeki ‘dönemsel edim’ vurgusundan yola çikarak, yillik izin ücretinin dönemsel edim olmamasi nedeniyle on yillik zamanasimina tabi oldugu kararlari, o dönem salt akademik tartisma konusu olmustur. Is Kanunu’na 7036 sayili Kanun ile zamanasimi konulu ek 3. maddenin 25.10.2017 itibariyle eklenmesiyle, madde gerekçesinde de ifade edildigi üzere bu tartismaya son verilmisse de ek 3. maddenin uygulanmasina dair geçici 8. madde çalisma hayatinda magduriyetlere neden olmustur. 01.07.2010-25.10.2017 arasi dönemde sona eren is sözlesmeleriyle ilgili yillik izin ücretinin zamanasimi süresini on yil kabul eden kararlara dayanarak geçici 8. madde uyarinca açilan davalarin tümünde zamanasimindan ret karari verilmektedir. Yargitay 9. Hukuk Dairesi’nin “Içtihat Farkliliklarinin Görüsülmesi” baslikli Eylül 2020 tarihli karari ile son nokta konulmussa da yasanan magduriyetler, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin farkli Yargitay Dairelerinin ayni konuda farkli uygulamalariyla ilgili hak ihlali kararlari konunun incelenmesini gerektirmektedir.
Yıllık izin ücreti, ücret zamanaşımı, dönemsel edim, özel-genel ve eski-yeni düzenleme ilişkisi.
Until the Turkish Code of Obligations came into force in 2012, there was no dispute about the statute of limitations on the annual leave fee. The decisions of the 7th and 9th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation in 2013-2017, based on the emphasis on ‘periodic performance’ in article 147/1 of the code, which regulates receivables subject to a five-year statute of limitations, that the annual leave fee was subject to a ten-year statute of limitations due to the lack of periodic performance was the subject of purely academic discussion at that time. With the addition of the additional article 3 on the statute of limitations with the Law No. 7036 to the Labour Code as of 25.10.2017, this discussion was ended as stated in the legislative intention of the article, but the temporary
article 8 regarding the implementation of the additional article 3 caused grievances in the working life. Based on the decisions accepting the statute of limitations for annual leave fee as ten years for the employment contracts which has terminated between the period of 01.07.2010 and 25.10.2017, all the lawsuits filed pursuant to the temporary article 8 are dismissed due to the statute of limitations. Although the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated September 2020, titled Discussion of Differences in Jurisprudence has put an end to this, the grievances experienced and the decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding the different practices of different chambers of the Court of Cassation on the same issue require the examination of the subject.
Annual leave fee, statute of limitations of remuneration, periodic performance, relation between specific-general regulation and old-new regulation.