{"id":11834,"date":"2023-11-10T10:25:56","date_gmt":"2023-11-10T09:25:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/"},"modified":"2023-11-21T12:19:43","modified_gmt":"2023-11-21T11:19:43","slug":"is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0130\u015f hukukuyla ilgili kararlar 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row content_width=”grid” content_aligment=”center” triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1696926719838{padding-bottom: 10px !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_column]

\n\t
<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n[\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608850402{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

Burada 2011 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki \u00f6nemli kararlar\u0131n bir \u00f6zetini bulacaks\u0131n\u0131z. Konulara g\u00f6re s\u0131ralanm\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7mi\u015f y\u0131llara genel bir bak\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in l\u00fctfen ilgili ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 takip edin:\n<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608627930{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 1<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tK\u00fcndigung eines Orchestermusikers<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608647755{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]\u0130\u015fveren, orkestran\u0131n boyutunu k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltmek istedi\u011fi i\u00e7in bir orkestra m\u00fczisyenini i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131rsa i\u015f mahkemeleri bu karar\u0131 sanatsal a\u00e7\u0131dan yerinde inceleyemez. Davac\u0131 korna \u00e7alan bir ki\u015fidir. Kendisi 1991 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yan\u0131nda orkestra m\u00fczisyeni olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu. \u00d6zg\u00fcr Th\u00fcringen Devleti’nin daha \u00f6nce verilen hibeleri \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde azaltmak istedi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan, daval\u0131 di\u011fer \u015feylerin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra orkestray\u0131 da desteklemeye karar verdi. Boyutu k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltmek ve gerekirse kalan \u00e7ekirdek orkestray\u0131 tamamlamak i\u00e7in t\u00fcm korna \u00e7alan pozisyonlar\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rarak. 31 Temmuz 2008 tarihinde i\u015f konseyini dinledikten sonra davac\u0131 ile i\u015f ili\u015fkisini sonland\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lgili toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 5. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi fesih \u00f6ncesinde orkestra kurulunun olaya dahil olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131d\u0131r. Davac\u0131, fesih i\u015fleminin etkisiz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Kornas\u0131z veya kornosuz bir oda orkestras\u0131n\u0131n kompozisyonu anlams\u0131z ve keyfidir, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc korna bir\u00e7ok orkestra m\u00fczi\u011fi eseri i\u00e7in gereklidir – dolay\u0131s\u0131yla “Peter ve Kurt” par\u00e7as\u0131 yaln\u0131zca “Kurtsuz Peter” olarak icra edilebilir. Alt mahkemelerde oldu\u011fu gibi, Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi \u0130kinci Senatosu \u00f6n\u00fcnde de dava ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z oldu. Orkestra anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ekonomik nedenlerden dolay\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fclt\u00fcld\u00fc. Senato’nun m\u00fczik standartlar\u0131yla \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde bunun do\u011fru olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermesi gerekmiyordu. Her durumda, bu taciz niteli\u011finde de\u011fildi ve bireysel, belki de istenmeyen m\u00fczisyenleri i\u015f ili\u015fkilerinden \u00e7\u0131kmaya zorlamay\u0131 ama\u00e7lam\u0131yordu. Toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye g\u00f6re orkestra kurulunun s\u00fcrece dahil edilmemesi fesih i\u015flemini etkisiz hale getirmez.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608659939{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 27 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 2 AZR 9\/10 – Alt mahkeme: Th\u00fcringen Eyaleti \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 25 A\u011fustos 2009 tarihli karar – 1 Sa 1\/09 -[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608715820{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 2<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tGeschlechtsspezifische Benachteiligung wegen Schwangerschaft bei einer Stellenbesetzung<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608722578{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Hamile bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n bir pozisyona ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 ve hamileli\u011fin fark\u0131nda olan i\u015fverenin bu pozisyonu bir erkekle doldurmas\u0131 durumunda, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n hamileli\u011fin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, \u00f6nerdi\u011fi \u00f6neri nedeniyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa i\u015faret eden ba\u015fka ger\u00e7ekleri de sunmas\u0131 halinde, cinsiyete \u00f6zg\u00fc ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir \u015fekilde ortaya koymu\u015f olur. cinsiyet. Bu ilave ger\u00e7ek beyan\u0131 i\u00e7in kat\u0131 gereklilikler yoktur. Davac\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u201cBa\u015fkan Yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131\u201d E.’nin ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u201cUluslararas\u0131 Pazarlama\u201d departman\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7 daire ba\u015fkan\u0131ndan biri olarak g\u00f6rev yap\u0131yordu. Eyl\u00fcl 2005’te E.’nin pozisyonu bo\u015fald\u0131. Daval\u0131 bu konuyu o s\u0131rada hamile olan davac\u0131yla de\u011fil bir adamla me\u015fgul etti. Cinsiyetine dayal\u0131 ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle tazminat istiyor. Hamileli\u011fi nedeniyle i\u015fe al\u0131namad\u0131. Bu karar a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kendisine hamileli\u011fi soruldu. San\u0131k, yap\u0131lan se\u00e7imin objektif gerek\u00e7elerinin oldu\u011funu iddia ediyor. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi \u015fikayeti onad\u0131. Eyalet i\u015f mahkemesi ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta onlar\u0131 reddetti. Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi Sekizinci Senatosu, Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu ve konuyu ona geri g\u00f6nderdi. Davac\u0131n\u0131n, Alman Medeni Kanunu’nun (17 A\u011fustos 2006’ya kadar ge\u00e7erli) 611a B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc 1. Paragraf\u0131 uyar\u0131nca cinsiyete \u00f6zg\u00fc dezavantajl\u0131 durumda oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrebilecek ger\u00e7ekleri sundu\u011funu varsaym\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, yeni karar\u0131n\u0131 verirken delilleri toplad\u0131ktan sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n sundu\u011fu di\u011fer delillerin terfi karar\u0131nda cinsiyeti nedeniyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair bir karine olu\u015fturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsayd\u0131. Yine davay\u0131 reddetti. Davac\u0131n\u0131n itiraz\u0131na yan\u0131t olarak, Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi Sekizinci Senatosu, Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin karar\u0131n\u0131 bir kez daha bozdu ve Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin karar vermede hukuki hatalar yapmas\u0131 nedeniyle konuyu yeni bir duru\u015fma ve karar i\u00e7in Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’ne geri g\u00f6nderdi. ger\u00e7ekleri ve davac\u0131n\u0131n dezavantajl\u0131 oldu\u011fu varsay\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 reddetmek.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608740978{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 27 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 8 AZR 483\/09 -\u00d6nceki \u00f6rnek: Berlin-Brandenburg Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 12 \u015eubat 2009 tarihli karar – 2 Sa 2070\/08 –<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699609335939{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 3<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tSchutz behinderter, aber nicht schwerbehinderter Menschen<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699609362057{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Genel E\u015fit Muamele Kanunu’nun (AGG) 18 A\u011fustos 2006’da y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden sonra, Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kanunu’na (SGB IX) g\u00f6re a\u011f\u0131r engellilere y\u00f6nelik koruyucu d\u00fczenlemelerden yaln\u0131zca bu kanun kapsam\u0131na giren ki\u015filer yararlanabilmektedir. Bunlar, engellilik derecesi (GdB) en az 50 olan ciddi engelli ki\u015filer veya resmi bir prosed\u00fcr arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla e\u015fit stat\u00fcye sahip ki\u015filerdir. Bu gruba dahil olmayan herkes, A\u011fustos 2006’dan itibaren, engellilik nedeniyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi konusunda AGG’ye g\u00fcvenebilir. Davac\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, Sa\u011fl\u0131k memuru e\u011fitimini tamamlayanlar\u0131n GdB’si 40 olarak belirlendi. A\u011f\u0131r engelli insanlarla e\u015fitlik talebi kabul edilmedi. Davac\u0131, ba\u015fhekimlik sekreteri pozisyonu i\u00e7in daval\u0131ya ba\u015fvurmu\u015f ve sahip oldu\u011fu GdB’nin 40 oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtmi\u015fti. Daval\u0131, SGB IX’un a\u011f\u0131r engellilerin korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine uymadan veya davac\u0131y\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeye davet etmeden, pozisyonu ba\u015fka bir ba\u015fvuru sahibiyle doldurmu\u015ftur. Davac\u0131, kendisini engelli biri olarak dezavantajl\u0131 g\u00f6rmekte ve daval\u0131dan tazminat talep etmektedir. GdB’si 50 olmamas\u0131na ve e\u015fit muamele g\u00f6rmemesine ra\u011fmen ihtiya\u00e7 halinde kendisine garanti verilmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 pozisyonu doldururken SGB IX’u birka\u00e7 kez ihlal etti, bu da davac\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesinde engellili\u011finin rol oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 varsay\u0131m\u0131na yol a\u00e7\u0131yor. San\u0131k bu varsay\u0131m\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fctemedi. Her \u00fc\u00e7 durumda da dava ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7land\u0131. Daval\u0131n\u0131n SGB IX h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya muamele yapmas\u0131 gerekmemi\u015ftir \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc davac\u0131 bunun i\u00e7in ki\u015fisel \u015fartlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamamaktad\u0131r. SGB \u200b\u200bIX’un koruyucu d\u00fczenlemelerinin kapsam\u0131na girmez. Bu nedenle davac\u0131, SGB IX h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin di\u011fer ihlallerine dayanamaz. Bunu yapabilmek i\u00e7in kendisinin de a\u011f\u0131r engelli olmas\u0131 veya a\u011f\u0131r engelli insanlarla e\u015fit \u015fartlarda olmas\u0131 gerekir. Ancak A\u011fustos 2006’dan bu yana t\u00fcm engelli ki\u015filer AGG taraf\u0131ndan korunmaktad\u0131r. Ancak davac\u0131, yaln\u0131zca SGB IX h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ihlaline at\u0131fta bulunmu\u015f ve AGG anlam\u0131nda ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k karinesine yol a\u00e7acak herhangi bir olguyu sunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 27 Kas\u0131m 2000 tarih ve 2000\/78\/EC say\u0131l\u0131 Konsey \u00c7er\u00e7eve Direktifinin AGG ile Alman hukukuna uygulanmas\u0131ndan sonra, SGB IX kurallar\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r engelli olmayan ki\u015filere uygulanmas\u0131 art\u0131k bir se\u00e7enek de\u011fildir.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699609368793{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 27 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 8 AZR 580\/09 – Alt mahkeme: Berlin-Brandenburg Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 2 Haziran 2009 tarihli karar – 3 Sa 499\/09
\n <\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699609405104{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 4<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tFortsetzungsverlangen gegen\u00fcber dem Betriebserwerber<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610103926{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]\u0130\u015fin devri sonucunda yeni i\u015fvereni olmas\u0131 nedeniyle i\u015f al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131ndan i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin devam\u0131n\u0131 talep eden bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin devredilmesine itiraz etmek i\u00e7in uymas\u0131 gereken s\u00fcrelere uymak zorundad\u0131r. ili\u015fki. Davac\u0131 neredeyse on y\u0131ld\u0131r Magdeburg’daki V GmbH’de \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu. V GmbH, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7i olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 daval\u0131ya ait bask\u0131 merkezinde \u201ck\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ambalaj \u00fcretimi\u201d ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131, 31 Mart 2007 tarihinde V GmbH ile olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri feshetti ve 1 Nisan 2007 tarihinden itibaren bask\u0131 merkezinde k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ambalaj \u00fcretimini \u201ctek ba\u015f\u0131na\u201d devrald\u0131. Bu noktadan sonra daval\u0131, ge\u00e7ici i\u015f ve i\u015f\u00e7i bulma kurumunun \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck paketler \u00fcretmek i\u00e7in kulland\u0131; V GmbH’de kalan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n art\u0131k bask\u0131 merkezine eri\u015fmesine izin verilmiyordu. Muafiyetin ard\u0131ndan V GmbH, davac\u0131yla olan i\u015f ili\u015fkisini 31 Temmuz 2007 tarihinde s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde sonland\u0131rd\u0131. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k davac\u0131, \u00fc\u00e7 hafta sonra i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmaya kar\u015f\u0131 koruma davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f ve daval\u0131 aleyhine, 1 Nisan 2007 tarihinde faaliyet devri nedeniyle i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin o tarihte daval\u0131ya devredildi\u011fini ve daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan devam ettirildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Eyalet i\u015f mahkemesi davac\u0131n\u0131n devam talebini kabul etti. San\u0131\u011f\u0131n itiraz\u0131 sonu\u00e7suz kald\u0131. \u0130\u015fin bir k\u0131sm\u0131 hakl\u0131 olarak daval\u0131ya devredildi\u011finden, daval\u0131n\u0131n kendisine devredilen davac\u0131 ile i\u015f ili\u015fkisini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmesi gerekmektedir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ilgili ba\u015fvurusu ne zaman s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ne de kaybedilmi\u015ftir. Bir i\u015fletmenin sat\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 veya al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131, etkilenen \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 bir i\u015fletme devri konusunda bilgilendirmelidir, B\u00f6l\u00fcm 613a Paragraf 5 BGB. Buradaki durumda oldu\u011fu gibi bu t\u00fcr bilgilerin hi\u00e7 sa\u011flanmamas\u0131 durumunda, ne B\u00f6l\u00fcm 613a BGB Paragraf 6 uyar\u0131nca i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin devredilmesine itiraz i\u00e7in ge\u00e7en bir ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar, ne de devam talebinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu s\u00fcre i\u015flemeye ba\u015flar. \u0130\u015f ili\u015fkisinin i\u015fletmeyi sat\u0131n alan tarafa y\u00f6nelik olmas\u0131 gerekir. Ancak, mevcut davada buna dair hi\u00e7bir kan\u0131t sunulmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, ilgili beyanlar belirli ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda kaybedilmi\u015f olabilir.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610109959{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 27 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 8 AZR 326\/09 – Alt mahkeme: Saksonya-Anhalt Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 20 Ocak 2009 tarihli karar – 8 Sa 146\/08 –
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610200246{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 5<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tKeine Anrechnung der Elternzeit auf die Stufenlaufzeit im Entgeltsystem des TV\u00f6D<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610178175{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Kamu hizmeti toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine (TV\u00f6D) g\u00f6re \u00fccret, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fccret grubuna ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dccret grubunda \u00fccret miktar\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n g\u00f6revlendirildi\u011fi seviyeye g\u00f6re belirlenmektedir. Bir sonraki \u00fcst seviyeye terfi, TV\u00f6D (VKA) 16. B\u00f6l\u00fcm 3. F\u0131kras\u0131nda belirtildi\u011fi gibi ayn\u0131 \u00f6deme grubunda bir s\u00fcre kesintisiz faaliyet gerektirir. TV\u00f6D B\u00f6l\u00fcm 17 Paragraf 3 C\u00fcmle 1’e g\u00f6re di\u011fer hususlar\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra: Anneli\u011fi Koruma Kanunu’na (MuSchG) g\u00f6re koruma s\u00fcreleri kesintisiz faaliyete e\u015fde\u011ferdir. Ebeveynlik izni ise TV\u00d6D 17. Madde 3. F\u0131kra 2. C\u00fcmle uyar\u0131nca be\u015f y\u0131la kadar olan s\u00fcreye dahil edilmemektedir; daha uzun bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7in, genellikle 17. Madde uyar\u0131nca bir kademe d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f s\u00f6z konusudur. Paragraf 3 C\u00fcmle 3 TV\u00f6D. Do\u011fum izninin al\u0131narak be\u015f y\u0131la kadar a\u015famal\u0131 s\u00fcrenin engellenmesi, Avrupa Birli\u011fi hukuku ve Temel Kanun’a uygun olup, \u00f6zellikle cinsiyet ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na yol a\u00e7mamaktad\u0131r.Davac\u0131, 2003 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren daval\u0131n\u0131n kost\u00fcm b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu. 2009 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar belediyeye ait tiyatroda \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131 ve terzilik yapt\u0131. 28 Nisan 2005’ten 29 \u015eubat 2008’e kadar ebeveyn izni ald\u0131. Bu ebeveyn izni s\u0131ras\u0131nda TV\u00f6D 1 Ekim 2005’te y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi. Davac\u0131, toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca 5. maa\u015f grubuna dahil edilmi\u015f ve bu maa\u015f grubunda 2. seviyeye atanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131, ebeveynlik izni s\u00fcresini a\u015famal\u0131 s\u00fcreye saymam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131, cinsiyeti nedeniyle ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131\u011fa u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmekte ve maa\u015f grubunun bir \u00fcst kademesi olan 3. kademeye g\u00f6re \u00fccret talep etmektedir. Bu, ayl\u0131k br\u00fct \u00fccretin yakla\u015f\u0131k 100,00 Euro daha y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lanacakt\u0131r. \u00d6nceki \u00f6rneklerde oldu\u011fu gibi, Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi Alt\u0131nc\u0131 Senatosu \u00f6n\u00fcndeki dava ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7land\u0131. Do\u011fum izninin TV\u00f6D a\u015famal\u0131 s\u00fcresine dahil edilmemesi nedeniyle davac\u0131ya cinsiyeti nedeniyle ne do\u011frudan ne de dolayl\u0131 olarak ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k yap\u0131lmamaktad\u0131r. Ebeveynlik izni s\u0131ras\u0131nda i\u015f ili\u015fkisi ask\u0131ya al\u0131n\u0131r ve temel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00f6revler ask\u0131ya al\u0131n\u0131r. Bu s\u00fcre zarf\u0131nda herhangi bir mesleki deneyim kazan\u0131lmaz. TV\u00f6D \u00fccretlendirme sistemindeki art\u0131\u015fla, daha fazla deneyim sayesinde i\u015f performans\u0131nda meydana gelen iyile\u015fmenin \u00f6d\u00fcllendirilmesi ama\u00e7lan\u0131yor. Bu nedenle TV\u00f6D, cinsiyete dayal\u0131 ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131kla hi\u00e7bir ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 olmayan nesnel bir kritere dayanmaktad\u0131r.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610183614{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 27 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 6 AZR 526\/09 – Alt mahkeme: LAG Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, 17 Haziran 2009 tarihli karar – 12 Sa 8\/09 –
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610208014{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 6<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tBetriebliche Altersversorgung \u2013 Nichtber\u00fccksichtigung von Zeiten eines fr\u00fcheren Arbeitsverh\u00e4ltnisses<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610225727{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Deutsche Lufthansa AG, \u015firket emeklilik planlar\u0131n\u0131n standardizasyonuna ili\u015fkin toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin (TV) 2. B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca Lufthansa \u015firket emeklili\u011fi olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan maa\u015f\u0131n geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck hayali hesaplamas\u0131nda u\u00e7u\u015f g\u00f6revlisinin \u00f6nceki i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin s\u00fcresini dikkate almak zorunda de\u011fildir. Birle\u015fme) ile birlikte. toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fme Lufthansa \u015firketinin kabin ekibi emeklili\u011fi (TV \u015firketi emeklili\u011fi) dikkate al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 1994 y\u0131l\u0131 sonuna kadar Federal ve Eyalet Emeklilik Fonu’nun (VBL) kat\u0131l\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131yd\u0131. Bu noktaya kadar VBL kapsam\u0131nda sigortal\u0131 olan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar, toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle d\u00fczenlenen VBL’ye e\u015fde\u011fer bak\u0131m hizmeti ald\u0131lar. Bundan sonra i\u015fe al\u0131nan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar i\u00e7in, TV \u015firketi emeklili\u011fi, emeklilik bile\u015fenlerine (Lufthansa \u015firket emeklili\u011fi) dayal\u0131 bir emeklilik plan\u0131 sa\u011flar. 1 Ocak 2002’de TV standardizasyonu y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girdi. TV standardizasyonunun 2. maddesine g\u00f6re, ayn\u0131 VBL’ye sahip sigortal\u0131lar, VBL-e\u015fitli\u011fin ba\u015flang\u0131c\u0131ndan bu yana i\u015f ili\u015fkisi nedeniyle TV \u015firketi emeklili\u011fine g\u00f6re yard\u0131m vaadi alm\u0131\u015f gibi ek tarife h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re i\u015flem g\u00f6r\u00fcr. sigorta y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc (Lufthansa’n\u0131n geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck olarak uygulanmas\u0131 – \u015firket emeklili\u011fi). Ayr\u0131ca, B\u00f6l\u00fcm 3 TV Birle\u015fmesi’ne g\u00f6re, 31 Aral\u0131k 2001 itibar\u0131yla edinilen ve \u00f6nceki i\u015f ili\u015fkilerinden gelen hizmet s\u00fcrelerini de i\u00e7eren VBL’ye e\u015fde\u011fer emekli maa\u015f\u0131ndan hak kazan\u0131lmayan haklar belirlenir (ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 \u200b\u200bmod\u00fcl\u00fc olarak adland\u0131r\u0131l\u0131r). Daha sonraki d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in emeklilik mod\u00fclleri sat\u0131n al\u0131nacakt\u0131r. Bu, s\u00f6zde garantili emeklilikle sonu\u00e7lan\u0131r. Emeklilik durumunda, TV standardizasyonu, bir yandan TV \u015firketinin emekli maa\u015f\u0131na, di\u011fer yandan garantili emekli maa\u015f\u0131na g\u00f6re faydalar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131rmal\u0131 bir \u015fekilde hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fan daha y\u00fcksek emekli maa\u015f\u0131na hak kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.Davac\u0131, 22 A\u011fustos 1978’de daval\u0131 Lufthansa AG’ye u\u00e7u\u015f g\u00f6revlisi olarak kat\u0131ld\u0131. 30 Haziran 1987’de \u00e7ocu\u011funun do\u011fumundan sonra i\u015finden ayr\u0131ld\u0131. 1 \u015eubat 1992’den bu yana san\u0131\u011f\u0131n u\u00e7u\u015f g\u00f6revlisi olarak yeniden i\u015fe al\u0131nd\u0131. Bu, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 \u200b\u200bmod\u00fcl\u00fcn\u00fc hesaplarken yaln\u0131zca davac\u0131n\u0131n 1978’den 1987’ye kadar olan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresini dikkate al\u0131r, ancak Lufthansa \u015firket emekli maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131n hayali geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck hesaplamas\u0131n\u0131 hesaplarken dikkate almaz. Alt mahkemeler, Lufthansa \u015firketinin emekli maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131 hesaplarken \u00f6nceki istihdam\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 talep eden davay\u0131 reddetti. Davac\u0131n\u0131n temyiz ba\u015fvurusu Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Senatosu \u00f6n\u00fcnde ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7land\u0131. \u00a7 2 TV standardizasyonu ile birlikte TV \u015firketi emeklili\u011fine g\u00f6re, daha \u00f6nceki i\u015f ili\u015fkisinin s\u00fcresi dikkate al\u0131nmayacakt\u0131r. Bu cinsiyete dayal\u0131 dolayl\u0131 ayr\u0131mc\u0131l\u0131k anlam\u0131na gelmez. Toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fme taraflar\u0131, toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zerklikleri nedeniyle yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemeye hak kazand\u0131lar.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610231822{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 19 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 3 AZR 29\/09 – Alt mahkeme: Hessen Eyaleti \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 24 Eyl\u00fcl 2008 tarihli karar – 8 Sa 1370\/07
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610299665{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 7<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tR\u00fcckzahlung von Weiterbildungskosten bei Beendigung des Arbeitsverh\u00e4ltnisses vor Abschluss der Ausbildung \u2013 Inhaltskontrolle<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610312630{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Genel \u015fart ve ko\u015fullardaki, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n, ileri e\u011fitim tamamlanmadan \u00f6nce kendi iste\u011fi \u00fczerine i\u015f ili\u015fkisinden ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 durumunda, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanan ileri e\u011fitim masraflar\u0131n\u0131 geri \u00f6demesi gerekti\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6ren bir madde, d\u00fczenli olarak i\u00e7erik kontrol\u00fcne tabi tutulur. Alman Medeni Kanunu’nun (BGB) 307. maddesinin 1. paragraf\u0131, ileri e\u011fitimin ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 ko\u015fuluyla, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fana parasal fayda sa\u011flar. Bu ayn\u0131 zamanda, ileri e\u011fitimin s\u00fcrekli olarak de\u011fil, birbirinden ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f birka\u00e7 e\u011fitim periyodu halinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesi durumunda da ge\u00e7erlidir; ancak, bireysel e\u011fitim periyotlar\u0131n\u0131n zamanlamas\u0131n\u0131n ileri e\u011fitim kurumunun gerekliliklerine uygun olmas\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayal\u0131 anla\u015fman\u0131n, ileri e\u011fitim kurumunun gerekliliklerine uygun olmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131yla. i\u015fverene, ilgili e\u011fitim a\u015famalar\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek i\u00e7in yaln\u0131zca kendi \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda kat\u0131lma f\u0131rsat\u0131. Geri \u00f6deme s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilecek e\u011fitim a\u015famalar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki kesintilerin uzunlu\u011funun uygunluk kontrol\u00fcne tabi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde oldu\u011fu belirsizli\u011fini koruyor.Davac\u0131, davac\u0131 tasarruf bankas\u0131nda \u00f6zel ama\u00e7l\u0131 banka memuru olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu. \u015eubat 2002’den bu yana dernek. Haziran 2006’da taraflar, daval\u0131n\u0131n Bavyera Tasarruf Bankalar\u0131 ve Giro Birli\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen bir tasarruf bankas\u0131 i\u015fletme y\u00f6netimi kursuna kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir kurs anla\u015fmas\u0131 imzalad\u0131lar. Bundan sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n kurs ve s\u0131nav \u00fccretlerini \u00f6demesi ve \u00fccreti \u00f6demeye devam ederken daval\u0131y\u0131 kursa kat\u0131lma konusunda serbest b\u0131rakmas\u0131 gerekir; Daval\u0131, e\u011fitimi tamamlamadan \u00f6nce kendi iste\u011fiyle i\u015f ili\u015fkisinden ayr\u0131l\u0131rsa davac\u0131ya bu yard\u0131mlar\u0131 tazmin etmek zorundad\u0131r. Daval\u0131, yakla\u015f\u0131k sekiz ayl\u0131k bir s\u00fcre boyunca her biri yakla\u015f\u0131k be\u015f haftal\u0131k iki e\u011fitim d\u00f6nemini tamamlad\u0131. Daha sonra i\u015fine son verdi ve daha sonra olan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ve son e\u011fitim a\u015famas\u0131na art\u0131k kat\u0131lmad\u0131. Eyalet i\u015f mahkemesi esas olarak e\u011fitim masraflar\u0131n\u0131n geri \u00f6denmesini talep eden davay\u0131 onad\u0131. Daval\u0131n\u0131n Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc Senatosu \u00f6n\u00fcndeki itiraz\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7land\u0131. Davac\u0131, e\u011fitim masraflar\u0131n\u0131n geri \u00f6denmesini talep etme hakk\u0131na sahiptir. Geri \u00f6deme maddesi etkilidir.Tasarruf Bankalar\u0131 ve Giro Derne\u011fi taraf\u0131ndan belirlenen tasarruf bankas\u0131 i\u015fletme y\u00f6netimi kursunun tamamlanmas\u0131na kadar i\u015f ili\u015fkisine ba\u011fl\u0131 kalarak daval\u0131, bu anlamda makul olmayan bir \u015fekilde dezavantajl\u0131 duruma d\u00fc\u015fmez. \u00a7 307 Paragraf 1 BGB.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610319278{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 19 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 3 AZR 621\/08 – Alt mahkeme: M\u00fcnih B\u00f6lge \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 8 May\u0131s 2008 tarihli karar – 2 Sa 9\/08 –
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610327869{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 8<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tERA-TV und Mitbestimmung des Betriebsrats bei Ein- und Umgruppierungen<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610348430{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg’de metal ve elektrik end\u00fcstrisindeki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara y\u00f6nelik 16 Eyl\u00fcl 2003 tarihli \u00fccret \u00e7er\u00e7evesi toplu s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi (ERA-TV), i\u015f konseyinin yeniden grupland\u0131rma ve yeniden grupland\u0131rmaya kat\u0131lma konusundaki yasal hakk\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131. BetrVG Genel olarak 20’den fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n oy kullanma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu \u015firketlerde, i\u015fveren herhangi bir yeniden gruplama veya yeniden gruplama \u00f6ncesinde i\u015f konseyini bilgilendirmeli ve onun onay\u0131n\u0131 almal\u0131d\u0131r. Yasal kat\u0131l\u0131m hakk\u0131, i\u015fyeri konseyinin, i\u015fverenin bireysel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 \u015firkette ge\u00e7erli bir \u00fccretlendirme sistemi kapsam\u0131nda belirli bir \u00fccret grubuna atamas\u0131 konusunda yasal s\u00f6z sahibi olmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar. \u00a7 9.1 ERA-TV’ye g\u00f6re \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan, ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen i\u015f g\u00f6revinin s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k gelen \u00f6deme grubunun temel \u00fccretini alma hakk\u0131na sahiptir. \u0130\u015f g\u00f6revinin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ERA-TV’de belirlenen prosed\u00fcre g\u00f6re ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilir. \u0130\u015f konseyinin ortak karar alma hakk\u0131 yoktur. \u00a7 9.2 ERA-TV’ye g\u00f6re i\u015fveren, i\u015f g\u00f6revi s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rmas\u0131 sonucunda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan \u00fccret grubunu yaz\u0131l\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fana ve i\u015f konseyine bildirir. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n bir ERA-TV \u00f6deme grubuna zorunlu olarak atanmas\u0131, BetrVG B\u00f6l\u00fcm 99, Paragraf 1, C\u00fcmle 1 C\u00fcmlesi uyar\u0131nca ortak karara tabi olan s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rmay\u0131 veya yeniden grupland\u0131rmay\u0131 olu\u015fturur. \u0130\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken bu atama, toplu olarak d\u00fczenlenen prosed\u00fcrde i\u015f g\u00f6revinin s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 olarak belirlenmesi nedeniyle ortadan kalkmamaktad\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle, iletilen \u00f6deme grubunun de\u011ferlendirilen ve s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lan i\u015f g\u00f6revine uyup uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n i\u015f g\u00f6revini ger\u00e7ekten yerine getirip getirmedi\u011fi kontrol edilmelidir. \u0130\u015f konseyinin bu i\u015fe dahil olmas\u0131 gerekiyor. ERA-TV’de d\u00fczenlenen \u015fikayet prosed\u00fcr\u00fc, ki\u015finin ortak karar alma hakk\u0131n\u0131 ask\u0131ya almamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle, \u00f6nceki mahkemelerden farkl\u0131 olarak Yedinci Senato, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma konseyinin ERA-TV’deki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve yeniden grupland\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na kat\u0131lma hakk\u0131n\u0131 belirleme ba\u015fvurusunu onaylad\u0131.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610356150{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 12 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 7 ABR 34\/09 – Alt mahkeme: LAG Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg, 16 Ocak 2009 tarihli karar – 5 TaBV 2\/08 –
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610365654{padding-top: 20px !important;}”]<\/p>\n

\u00a7 9<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text]\n

\n\tUnterweisung zum Arbeitsschutz<\/h2>[vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610417598{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]BetrVG Madde 87 Paragraf 1 No. 7’ye g\u00f6re, i\u015f konseyi sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u015firket d\u00fczenlemelerinde s\u00f6z hakk\u0131na sahiptir. Bu ayn\u0131 zamanda ArbSchG’nin 12. Maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015fverene, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara i\u015fyerinde g\u00fcvenlik ve sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131 konusunda talimat verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de i\u00e7ermektedir. Operasyoncu taraflar\u0131n talimat\u0131n t\u00fcr\u00fc ve i\u00e7eri\u011fi konusunda anla\u015famamas\u0131 durumunda, uzla\u015ft\u0131rma kurulunun bunu d\u00fczenlemesi gerekir. Bunu yaparken, bir risk analizinin bulgular\u0131n\u0131 (\u00a7 5 ArbSchG) dikkate almal\u0131 ve spesifik i\u015fyeri veya g\u00f6reve ili\u015fkin talimatlar\u0131 buna g\u00f6re d\u00fczenlemelidir. Kendisini i\u015fyerindeki tehlikelere ili\u015fkin talimatlara ili\u015fkin genel h\u00fck\u00fcmler olu\u015fturmakla s\u0131n\u0131rlayamaz. \u201c\u0130\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi gerekliliklerinin uygulanmas\u0131\u201d konusunu ele almak \u00fczere kurulan uzla\u015fma kurulu, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara i\u015fyerindeki stres, i\u015f ekipmanlar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru kullan\u0131m\u0131 ve i\u015f organizasyonunun tasarlanmas\u0131 konusunda bilgi verilmesine ili\u015fkin genel d\u00fczenlemeler konusunda k\u0131smi karar alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Karar\u0131n verildi\u011fi tarihte risk de\u011ferlendirmesi mevcut de\u011fildi. \u0130\u015fveren buna itiraz ederek k\u0131smi h\u00fckme itiraz etti. Eyalet i\u015f mahkemesi k\u0131smi tazminat\u0131n etkisiz oldu\u011funa karar verdi. \u0130\u015f konseyinin buna kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yasal \u015fikayet ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7land\u0131. Uzla\u015ft\u0131rma kurulu d\u00fczenleyici g\u00f6revini yerine getirmedi. C\u00fcmleniz eksik. \u0130\u015fyerine veya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131n sorumluluk alan\u0131na \u00f6zel olarak haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f somut talimat ve a\u00e7\u0131klamalarda eksiklik vard\u0131.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699610428251{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]Federal \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 11 Ocak 2011 tarihli karar – 1 ABR 104\/09 – Alt mahkeme: Berlin-Brandenburg Eyalet \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi, 19 \u015eubat 2009 tarihli karar – 1 TaBV 1871\/08 –
\n<\/em>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row content_width=”grid” content_aligment=”center” triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1696926719838{padding-bottom: 10px !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_column][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608850402{padding-top: 20px !important;}”] Burada 2011 y\u0131l\u0131ndaki \u00f6nemli kararlar\u0131n bir \u00f6zetini bulacaks\u0131n\u0131z. Konulara g\u00f6re s\u0131ralanm\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7mi\u015f y\u0131llara genel bir bak\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in l\u00fctfen ilgili ba\u011flant\u0131y\u0131 takip edin: [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row triangle_shape=”no” css=”.vc_custom_1697624231414{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608627930{padding-top: 20px !important;}”] \u00a7 1 [\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1699608647755{padding-top: 15px !important;}”]\u0130\u015fveren, orkestran\u0131n boyutunu k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fcltmek istedi\u011fi i\u00e7in bir orkestra m\u00fczisyenini i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131rsa i\u015f mahkemeleri bu karar\u0131 sanatsal a\u00e7\u0131dan yerinde inceleyemez. Davac\u0131 korna \u00e7alan bir ki\u015fidir. Kendisi 1991 y\u0131l\u0131ndan bu yana san\u0131\u011f\u0131n yan\u0131nda orkestra m\u00fczisyeni olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu. \u00d6zg\u00fcr Th\u00fcringen Devleti’nin daha \u00f6nce verilen hibeleri \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde azaltmak…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-11834","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nRechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/STEINWACHSRechtsanwaltskanzlei\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-21T11:19:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@rasteinwachs\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"22 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-10T09:25:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-21T11:19:43+00:00\",\"description\":\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\",\"description\":\"Wir leisten mehr als Recht bietet\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":[\"Organization\",\"Place\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/logo.webp?fit=174%2C76&quality=80&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/logo.webp?fit=174%2C76&quality=80&ssl=1\",\"width\":174,\"height\":76,\"caption\":\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\\\/tr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/STEINWACHSRechtsanwaltskanzlei\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/rasteinwachs\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/steinwachs_rechtsanwaelte\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/stephan-steinwachs-7a270197\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCffmodDlQx81remXm395RWA\"],\"telephone\":[]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","description":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","og_description":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht","og_url":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/STEINWACHSRechtsanwaltskanzlei\/","article_modified_time":"2023-11-21T11:19:43+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@rasteinwachs","twitter_misc":{"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"22 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/","url":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/","name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei in Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-11-10T09:25:56+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-21T11:19:43+00:00","description":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei f\u00fcr Arbeitsrecht, Arzthaftung, Mietrecht, Gewerbemietrecht ,Gastronomierecht, Immobilienrecht, Schadensersatz Yachtrecht","inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/is-hukukuyla-ilgili-kararlar-2011\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/","name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","description":"Wir leisten mehr als Recht bietet","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":["Organization","Place"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#organization","name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck","url":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/logo.webp?fit=174%2C76&quality=80&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/logo.webp?fit=174%2C76&quality=80&ssl=1","width":174,"height":76,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Anwalt Hamburg Berlin Bremen Hannover L\u00fcbeck"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/STEINWACHSRechtsanwaltskanzlei\/","https:\/\/x.com\/rasteinwachs","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/steinwachs_rechtsanwaelte\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/stephan-steinwachs-7a270197\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCffmodDlQx81remXm395RWA"],"telephone":[]}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11834\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kanzlei-steinwachs.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}