“Verdict Rendered for the Unbelievable Accident Killing a Tour Guide” (Hurriyet Newspaper)
(Translation from : http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/cinli-rehberin-oldugu-inanilmaz-kazada-karar-ci-40762505 )
Verdict Rendered for the Unbelievable Accident Killing a Tour Guide
06.03.2018 – 11:02
Özden ATİK / ISTANBUL, (DHA)
Hiu Fung Yeung, a 31-year-old Chinese tourist guide died since the stone coving at the entrance door of the hotel fell on him in 2012 in Avanos town of Nevşehir. His family won the lawsuit against the insurance company as well as the hotel. The trial lasted 4 years and the court sentenced the insurance company and hotel to pay 638 thousand 33 Turkish lira compensation and an additional 50 thousand Turkish lira for non-pecuniary damages.
On October 23, 2012, Hiu Fung Yeun died because of the stone coving of a 5-star hotel in Avanos Nevşehir fell on him. 1 year later, his wife Pui Fan Lee filed a lawsuit against the hotel management and insurance company for material and non-pecuniary damage.
The trial took place in Istanbul 1st Commercial Court of First Instance and a verdict was rendered 28 December 2017. It is stated in the justified decision that the Chinese guide has no fault in the incident according to the expert reports. The Court agreed with the Chinese family and accepted the request of the family for material and non-pecuniary compensation. Hence, the Court sentenced the hotel and insurance company to pay 638 thousand 33 Turkish Lira plus the interests as the material compensation. In addition, the Court sentenced the hotel to pay to the mother 20 thousand Turkish Lira and to the son, who is now 5 years old, 30 thousand Turkish Lira as for the non-pecuniary damages.
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE
On the other hand, a criminal proceeding for the manager of the hotel and the wall builder, who constructed that stone coving, continues at Avanos Penal Court of First Instance.
“FAMILY WANTS TO PUNISH WHOEVER RESPONSIBLE FROM THE INCIDENT”
The lawyer of the Chinese family, Gökhan Cindemir stated that the insurance company and hotel paid a financial compensation of 1 million TL together with interests and court charges and added, “The family wants to punish whoever responsible from the incident, even though they have collected the material compensation”.
BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT
The incident took place in a 5-star hotel in Avanos on October 23, 2012, at 09:15. 31-year-old Chinese tourist guide, Hiu Fung Yeung was standing at the entrance of the hotel, the stone coving fell on him as a block, and he could not get away. He was transferred to the hospital as being seriously wounded and he died at the hospital.
Irish ‘boxer’ acquitted in epic brawl case – Sabah Daily News
Irish ‘boxer’ acquitted in epic brawl case
A Kuwaiti-Irish national, whose brawl with Turkish shopkeepers in Istanbul two years ago went viral after it was captured on camera, was acquitted of assault charges in a trial Wednesday.
Heavy-set Mohammed Fadel Dobbous taking out a legion of shopkeepers one by one in scenes that inspired a beat’em up game, did not attend the trial at an Istanbul court while only one of the men who was assaulted appeared before the court. Şenol Palan, the shopkeeper who broke Dobbous’s arm by hitting him with a stick, was given a suspended jail term of three years and six months.
The Irish man was trying to grab a bottle of water from a refrigerator in Palan’s shop in Istanbul’s Aksaray district when he accidentally knocked down all the bottles in the refrigerator with his muscular arm. What follows – as captured by the security camera footage – is Palan grabbing a stick and jumping on Dobbous. The tourist, who was on the street by the time the shopkeeper came at him, suddenly found himself surrounded by other shopkeepers in the area. Using his amateur boxing skills, Dobbous knocked out the men coming at him with sticks and even a chair, not flinching despite repeated blows. Şenol Palan and others have claimed Dobbous argued with him when he refused to sell him alcohol and deliberately knocked down the bottles. The Irish national had filed a complaint against the shopkeepers for his broken arm.
The court ruled that Dobbous acted in self-defense and Palan was guilty of “deliberate injury.” Judges also suspended a requested fine for Özbey and Mohammad Raie, another assailant of the Irish tourist, ruling that their kicking and punching of Dobbous “did not cause any damage.”
Dobbous, who was represented by his lawyers in yesterday’s hearing, had told the court in the first hearing that the brawl happened “because of a water bottle.”
“I don’t remember what happened next. I was trying to save my life,” he said. “When the bottles fell, the man in the shop tried to hit me with a stick. I grabbed it and threw it away. I was confused. Then, others came at me. I don’t remember their faces. One man tried to stab me in the back,” he claimed. Dobbous also said he “would be done” if he fell when the assailants hit him repeatedly.
Dobbous became an overnight sensation after the video of the almost comical beating emerged. He even received free holiday offers from Turkish tourism companies while several shops started offering “free water for Irish tourists” following the incident. A trade association whose members include shopkeepers in Aksaray has called on its members to be more tolerant and resort to legal means if they have a problem with tourists. The association then handed out leaflets to shops in Aksaray, urging them to improve their manners with tourists.
Turkish game developers even created a game called “Irish Boxer” following the incident. In the game, a character in the likeness of Dobbous starts with the “boxer” standing next to a refrigerator full of water bottles and proceeds with the character beating up angry shopkeepers wielding clubs, chairs and several other objects.
Irish-Kuwaiti tourist acquitted in street brawl case in Turkey – Hurriyet Daily News
An Irish-Kuwaiti tourist, who made headlines in August 2015 when video footage of his brawl with shopkeepers in Istanbul went viral online, was acquitted in the case by a Turkish court on July 12.
The Istanbul court acquitted Irish-Kuwaiti tourist Mohammed Fadel Dobbous, a former boxer, saying the case was a legitimate incident of self-defense so the suspect should not be punished.
The court sentenced one of the suspects who attacked Dobbous, Şenol Palan, to 3.5 years in jail on charges of “deliberate injury.”
The court also handed monetary fines to two other suspects, whose sentences were postponed.
In the incident captured on camera, Dobbous can be seen going to a corner store in Istanbul’s Aksaray neighborhood to get a bottle of water before accidentally toppling all the bottles in a refrigerator. The owner of the shop immediately confronts Dobbous, brandishing a stick and threatening him. Around 15 shopkeepers then can be seen coming to the shop owner’s support to confront Dobbous.
However, the tourist can then be seen taken on the army of Turkish shopkeepers one by one, expertly parrying blows as the attackers hurl stools and sticks at him.
After footage of the incident emerged, it was revealed that the Dobbous had in fact once been a professional boxer.
ICSID Decisions given in favor of Turkmenistan is enforced by Cindemir Law Office in Turkey.
Turkish Companies were sentenced to compensation at the International Arbitral Tribunal by Republic of Turkmenistan.
Turkmenistan’s Ministry of Justice resorted to the Turkish judicial system through Cindemir Law Office in order for Republic of Turkmenistan to collect the compensations that are contingent with the World Bank’s arbitration (ICSID), against the Turkish Companies. In the statement of the law office’s representative Lawyer Gökhan Cindemir said;
“Turkish Companies were sentenced to compensation at the International Arbitral Tribunal by Republic of Turkmenistan.”
Turkish Companies were sentenced to pay compensation to Republic of Turkmenistan by International Arbitral Tribunal. Headquarters located in Washington, “The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Arbitration Court” shortly known as “ICSID”, rejected all claims against Republic of Turkmenistan by Turkish companies and sentenced Kılıç İnşaat A.Ş. to pay a compensation of 1,078.215,00 American Dollars.
Within the frame of ten different contracts pursuant to Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments Treaty, which is signed between Republic of Turkey and Republic of Turkmenistan in 2009, Kılıç İnşaat resorted to referring to arbitration of the World Bank against Republic of Turkmenistan with the claims of harmful activities towards the construction of the facilities, delaying the payments in this context, imposing unfair penalties, commencing judicial process unannounced and without the defendant party’s attendance. After claiming for 275.124.575 American Dollars, the lawsuit was rejected by three arbitrators by a large majority and Turkish company was sentenced to pay compensation.
In another trial, plaintiff İçKale Ltd. Şti.’s claims against Republic of Turkmenistan were rejected and aforementioned company was sentenced to pay a compensation of 1,747,521 American Dollars.
“Arbitration Board Rejected Appeal”
Appeal request by Kılıç İnşaat A.Ş. against the aforementioned sentence submitted in January 13 2014 was rejected by the arbitration board in July 14 2015 and confirmed the compensation of Republic of Turkmenistan.
“Republic of Turkmenistan began the initiatives to collect their dues”
It was found out that through their lawyers in Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan initiated the necessary legal actions against the companies that were sentenced by the arbitration in order to collect their dues.
Arbitral rulings by the ICSID in the relevant countries in accordance with “Contract of Settling the Investment Disputes between Founding Countries of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Citizens of Other Countries”, of which Turkey is known to be a party of and is signed on 24.6.1987, are considered as a local court ruling and can be directly subjected to enforcement.
“Other International Arbitration Boards Also Decided that Turkish Companies acted under Unjust Manners”
UNCITRAL, Affiliated to United Nations, other arbitral rulings in accordance with the arbitration rules put into effect by “United Nations Council of International Trade Law” also sentenced Turkish companies to remit compensation to Republic of Turkmenistan. Within this scope, 11 Turkish claimants of the pending case (Erhas and others) and businessman Faruk Bozbey were sentenced to compensation as well.
Mr. Gökhan Cindemir , Phd Candidate , Senior Partner
Criminal complained against Mr. Eleftherios Sinadinos
Attorney Gokhan Cindemir filed criminal complained against Mr. Eleftherios Sinadinos by submitting application to Public Prosecutor of Istanbul for the words he mentioned in a debate on the EU-Turkey summit on 9th March 2016 (prosecution registration numbered 2016/37324, dated 11,03,2016). ,Synadinos, a member of Greece’s Golden Dawn party, told the Strasbourg-based European parliament that “as it has been expressed in scientific literature, the Turks are dirty and barbaric.” “Turks are like wild dogs when they play, but when they have to fight against their enemies, they run away,” he added. “The only effective way to deal with the Turks is with decisive and resolute attitudes.” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsIgRj8N5nM )
Under Turkish Penal Code, Article 122 explicitly penalizes the conducts based on racial, lingual discrimination with motivation of hatred and in addition Article 301 of Penal code penalizes the act of a person who publicly denigrates Turkish Nation. Unlike article 122, Article 301 Paragraph (4) is subjected approval of Turkish Justice Ministry to be proceeded. Accordingly, we are in the stage of waiting for approval decision of Turkish Justice Ministry to initiate prosecution for the crime which was committed explicitly in Strasbourg, France. Turkish Authorities may also request from European Parliament to give a statement regarding racist speech of Mr. Synadinos. It is believed that painful memories and unforgettable experiences of Europe stemming from WW2 will lead the Parliament for cooperation with Turkish Authorities in order to prevent further breaches of article 165 of the rules of procedure representing a breach of the values of the EU.
Under Turkish Penal Code, alleged crime is also committed in territory of Turkey by means of press and broadcast. In our complaint, alleged crimes attributed to Mr. Synadinos mentioned as the following:
-(1) Any person who makes discrimination between individuals because of their racial, lingual, religious, sexual, political, philosophical belief or opinion, or for being supporters of different sects and therefore;
a) Prevents sale, transfer of movable or immovable property, or performance of a service, or
benefiting from a service, or bounds employment or unemployment ofa person to above listed reasons,
b) Refuses to deliver nutriments or to render a public service,
c) Prevents a person to perform an ordinary economic activity, is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to one year or imposed punitive fine.
Denigrating the Turkish Nation, the State of the Turkish Republic, the Institutions and Organs of the State
1. A person who publicly denigrates Turkish Nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the Government of the Republic of Turkey or the judicial bodies of the State, shall be sentenced a penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months and two years.
2. A person who publicly denigrates the military or security structures shall be punishable according to the first paragraph.
3. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.
4. The prosecution under this article shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice.
Compensation of Damages for Foreign Victims due to Terror under Turkish Law
Prosecutor demanded acquittal of our client ” Irish Tourist” based on the defence of Cindemir Law Office
A Turkish prosecutor has demanded the acquittal of an Irish-Kuwaiti tourist who made headlines in August 2015 when video footage of his brawl with Turkish shopkeepers in Istanbul went viral.
The indictment, which was prepared by Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Mehmet Sami Çağlayan, said Irish-Kuwaiti tourist and complainant-suspect Mohammed Fadel Dobbous legally defended himself in accordance with the 25th Article of Turkish criminal law over self-defense and compulsory situation in his brawl with Turkish shopkeepers in Istanbul’s Aksaray neighborhood.
Çağlayan also demanded jail terms for three shopkeeper suspects, Şenol Palan, Mohammed Raie and Şerafettin Özbey, ranging from five to seven years over charges of aggravated malicious wounding. In addition, the prosecutor also demanded a three-to-nine-year sentence for Fadel Dobbous but left the decision to the court, highlighting that his actions were in line with self-defense and thus demanded an acquittal.
The case will be brought to the criminal court of general jurisdiction if the indictment is accepted.
During the incident, Fadel Dobbous went to a local market in Aksaray to get a bottle of water before accidentally toppling all the bottles in a refrigerator after opening the door. The owner of the shop immediately intervened, brandishing a stick and threatening the tourist. Around 15 shopkeepers then came to the shop owner’s support carrying different tools, ranging from sticks to stools.
However, the Irish tourist beat up the army of Turkish shopkeepers one by one, parrying blows as they hurled stools and sticks at him. It later came to light that the Irish tourist had in fact been a professional boxer.
“They just picked the wrong man,” he told private broadcaster Show TV on Aug. 26, 2015, after the incident.
The video of the incident had become a trending topic on Twitter, with most users declaring Fadel Dobbous a hero.
He was also likened to a number of fictional figures, including a Spartan facing 300 Persians, the Hulk, Jackie Chan and Neo from the Matrix.
Our press statement regarding Keshia Handa
Cindemir Law Office, Istanbul, Turkey, 29.11.2015 – Those who caused the death of Phscholofist Keshia Handa are found halfly negligent due to their wrongful act stemming from lack of taking sufficient precautions in order to prevent possible injury ended with unfortunate death of victim Keshia Handa.
Under investigation file, Istanbul prosecutor claimed that hotel owner and the manager of Büyük Londra Hotel situated in Taksim commited killing by conscious negligence.
Deceased’s parents are repeated their reliance on Turkish Justice despite the fact that their daughter is also found 50 percent negligent based on lack of adequate care. They believe upon our Law Office’s objection to expert report, Turkish Justice will focus on “subjective liability criteria of misconducts” for Keshia who grew up with high standarts of living in developed country.
Cindemir Law Office ,
Adress : Al Mazaya İstanbul Ritim Residences
Cevizli Mahallesi, Zuhal Caddesi no: 44 , b blok daire 18,
Maltepe , İstanbul, Turkey Zip : 34846
Phone : 00902165506775
Irish Tourist ‘s attorney Gokhan Cindemir ‘s press statement.
Introduction to Jurisdiction of Divorce in Turkey
The competent court related to the foreign elements involved divorce cases are the courts which have jurisdiction over concerning alimony, guardianship, liquation and compensation. Accordingly, a foreign decree encompassing orders of alimony, guardianship, compensation and liquation may refer to Turkish Courts’ competence as an international jurisdiction arising from articles 40 and 41 of international private law. Articles concerned also refers to Article 168 of Turkish Civil Code. According to the provision, competent court for divorce is the court of the place where one of spouses resides or the place both spouses resides together last 6 months prior to the divorce case. Therefore, generally speaking, Turkish Law does not prohibit foreign court’s divorce jurisdiction based on location principle which is indicated in the provision mentioned above.
The other possibility is in case of judgement given by foreign court containing elements related to alimony, guardianship, compensation which are against “Turkish Public Order”, that judgement will not be enforced by Turkish Government. In that situation, solely judgement’s recognition can be carried out by Turkish Court, not enforcement. For instance if foreign court decided that guardianship of common child must be given to one of the spouse but child’s psychology is disregarded while giving the judgment, in that case Turkish Courts only recognize the decision and rejects enforcement of the decision based on violation of Turkish Public Order. In that situation, both spouses must open a new case again in Turkey to fix guardianship status in accordance with Turkish Law. As can be seen that, Turkish Law envisages that issues which can be against Turkish Public Order must be reviewed again under Turkish Jurisdiction. Turkish Public Order criteria related to Divorce Cases are explained with more details below:
Boundaries of Jurisdiction in Divorce Under Turkish Law
It is noteworthy to mention that below criteria cannot be found in Turkish Legislation. These principles became precedent by high court decisions
Child Support Maintenance
A foreign court may give a judgement regarding child support, this judgement solely does not constitute a problem for Turkish Public Order. On the other hand, if a foreign court did not consider the income of the spouse who will pay the alimony, Turkish Court may find it as a violation of Turkish Public Order. Accordingly, rocketing amounts of child maintenance will not be enforced by Turkish Court and that issue must be reviewed under Turkish Jurisdiction with an independent case.
From the perspective of consideration of spouse’s income, the same criteria related to “Turkish Public Order” mentioned under title of Child Support also exists for Alimony.
In case that a foreign court will give a judgement concerning guardianship without taking consideration of child’s benefits. For instance, if foreign law gives guardianship Rex Officio to the mother or to the father without examining the needs of the child, Turkish Court will reject enforcement of the judgement based on “Turkish Public Order” Especially if guardianship is decided based on discriminative purposes such as ethnicity, religion, ages or sexuality would be found against “Turkish Public Order”. There are also high court decisions which support this point of view. In case that foreign court does not touch on guardianship issue in its judgement, then there would be no violation of “Turkish Public Order.
In case of enforcement of foreign divorce decree in Turkey, Turkish Courts will not examine justness of conviction of compensation. Thus, Turkish Court will not review the reasons related to compensation issue. However, if amount of the compensation given by foreign court significantly causes over exploitation of one of the spouses, Turkish courts would reject enforcement of that decision. Accordingly, compensation determined by foreign court must not cause poverty on one party and at the same time enrichment on another party.
It is very important to note that Turkish Courts will not reject enforcement of a foreign divorce decree given by foreign court if the decision does not refer any real estate property in Turkey (Turkish Civil Procedural Law). Main principle of Turkish Law related to real estate property situating in Turkey is defined as “exclusive competence”. Therefore, in case foreign court gives an order related to the real estate property in Turkey, that part of foreign decision cannot not be regarded as enforceable. Thus, a new case must be filed in Turkish Courts related to real estate property for liquation of common assets stemming from family relationship. “Disputes involving real property is to be suited in the court of place where it located” (CC. Pr.Art. 13)
In that case as mentioned already, Turkish Law and related high court decision refers to the necessity of opening an another case in Turkish court of real estate property which has jurisdiction. If the divorce case is filed in Turkey, Turkish Courts would be able to give a decision related to real estate property located in Turkey. However under reciprocity principle, Turkish Court would also avoid to give a judgement concerning the real estate property located in other country
Lastly, it is important to state that, assets stemming from inheritance are regarded as private personal belonging under Turkish Law which means that in case of litiquation of the assets, property acquired by inheritance are totally belonging to the heir.
Asset division/liquidation of the matrimonial property regime
Under Turkish Law, the spouses may regulate their property relations before or after their marriage by means of a contract “marriage settlement”. They may choose one of the contractual systems which are of three kinds as, property separation (mal ayriligi), common property system (mal ortakligi) and partionary property separation system (paylasmali mal ayriligi) The legal property system is called as “system of fusion of the acquired property” (Civil Code Art. 218.241) which basically depends on the participation of the property and income acquired during the marriage. This property may be called as “marital” or “community property”, in other words matrimonial property systems.
Accordingly, Turkish Law also recognizes matrimonial property system as one of the selection of contractual marriage. In that regard, decision given by foreign court related to liquidation based on matrimonial property system will not constitute any problem regarding enforcement of the judgement in Turkey. And under Turkish Law, competent court which has jurisdiction for liquidation is the court which also have jurisdiction for divorce. In other words, the court which has jurisdiction for divorce must decide on liquidation of assets also. (Article 168 of Turkish Civil Code). As a response to your question, there is no separation between jurisdiction to liquidation of assets and jurisdiction of divorce.
Jurisdiction of Divorce under Turkish Divorce Law
Divorce suits may be brought in the place of court of the plaintiffs domicile or the cohabitated domicile of the spouses used within the last 6 months (CC.Pr. Art 9/3)
As can be seen above, there is no any provision prohibiting divorce case against Turkish Citizen in foreign country. Unlike some strict countries, jurisdiction principle is not based on nationality principle, it is based on location principle.