Bosch<\/strong>‘un (BSH), T\u00fcrkiye’de bir d\u00f6nem ortakl\u0131k yap\u0131p sonra s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini tek tarafl\u0131 feshetti\u011fi m\u00fcflis \u015firket\u00a0Profilo<\/strong>‘ya (Telra), end\u00fcstriyel sabotajla zarara u\u011fratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 67 milyon 373 bin 233 liral\u0131k tazminat \u00f6demesine karar verildi.<\/p>\n AA muhabiri, Profilo Telra Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e’nin 13 Kas\u0131m 2012’de, bir d\u00f6nem ortakl\u0131k yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 Alman firmas\u0131 BSH (Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate) Ev Aletleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e aleyhine, “ticari ili\u015fkiden kaynaklanan menfi tespit, al\u0131m sat\u0131m tespiti, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden kaynaklanan tazminat” talepleriyle a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve Alman \u015firketin y\u00fcksek miktarda tazminat \u00f6demesine y\u00f6nelik h\u00fck\u00fcmle sonu\u00e7lanan dava bilgilerini derledi.<\/p>\n T\u00fcrkiye’de beyaz e\u015fyadan sonra 1980’li y\u0131llardan itibaren renkli televizyon \u00fcretimine ge\u00e7ilmesiyle b\u00fcy\u00fcyen ve \u00e7e\u015fitli markalar\u0131 b\u00fcnyesinde bulunduran (Profilo, Saba, Telefunken) Telra, 2003’te BSH ile tek sat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalad\u0131.<\/p>\n \u0130ki \u015firket aras\u0131nda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle \u00fcstlenilen edimlerin tam ve gerekti\u011fi \u015fekilde yerine getirilmedi\u011fi, Telra’n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihi olan 2003’ten itibaren s\u00fcrekli zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar ya\u015fanmaya ba\u015flad\u0131.<\/p>\n Telra’n\u0131n pazar pay\u0131 kayb\u0131 ve iflas erteleme ba\u015fvurusu sonras\u0131 BSH 2008’de s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi “\u015firketin sat\u0131\u015f sonras\u0131 servis hizmetlerini yerine getirmedi\u011fi ve t\u00fcketici hakem heyeti kararlar\u0131n\u0131 uygulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131” gerek\u00e7eleriyle tek tarafl\u0131 feshetti, Telra’n\u0131n iflas\u0131na karar verildi ve karar 14 Nisan 2014’de kesinle\u015fti.<\/p>\n S\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi 2008’de haks\u0131z \u015fekilde feshetti\u011fi ve firmay\u0131 zarara u\u011fratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle BSH aleyhine, u\u011fran\u0131lan zararlar\u0131n tazmin edilmesi talepli dava a\u00e7an Telra’n\u0131n avukat\u0131 Serdar Tolga Aras, \u0130stanbul 10. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi’ne 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda sunulan dava dilek\u00e7esinde, Telra’n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte y\u00fczde 25 civar\u0131ndaki pazar pay\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fczde 1’lere kadar d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, rakiplerinin pazar pay\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fckseldi\u011fi ve BSH’nin piyasan\u0131n tek sat\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 haline gelerek piyasa pay\u0131n\u0131 artt\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu.<\/p>\n Bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te yakla\u015f\u0131k 2 bin ki\u015filik istihdam\u0131na son vermek zorunda kalan Telra’n\u0131n, \u00c7erkezk\u00f6y’de 182 bin 571 metrekare y\u00fcz \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcml\u00fc arsa ve fabrika binas\u0131yla t\u00fcm te\u00e7hizatlar\u0131n\u0131n iflas dosyas\u0131nda, de\u011ferlerinin \u00e7ok alt\u0131na sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 aktar\u0131lan dilek\u00e7ede, “Bir marka u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 end\u00fcstriyel sabotaj sonras\u0131, bu \u015fekilde yok oldu. BSH ise bu \u015fekilde Telra markas\u0131n\u0131 pazardan silmi\u015f, yerine ba\u015fka bir markan\u0131n kahverengi e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 pazara sokarak, bu markan\u0131n T\u00fcrkiye pazar\u0131nda bug\u00fcnk\u00fc halini almas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131.” denildi.<\/p>\n Dilek\u00e7ede, s\u00f6zles\u0327menin haks\u0131z bi\u00e7imde feshedilmis\u0327 oldug\u0306unun ve davac\u0131 firman\u0131n bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmesi istenirken, feshin ger\u00e7ekles\u0327tig\u0306i 27 May\u0131s 2008’den s\u00f6zles\u0327menin sona erdirilebileceg\u0306i en erken tarih olan 31 Aral\u0131k 2010’a kadar maruz kal\u0131nan zarar\u0131n belirsiz alacak davas\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde tahsiline karar verilmesi talep edildi.<\/p>\n Daval\u0131 BSH avukatlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan mahkemeye sunulan cevap dilek\u00e7esinde ise fesih haks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla ilgili davan\u0131n Kad\u0131k\u00f6y 2. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesine a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve davac\u0131 lehine verilen karar\u0131n hen\u00fcz kesinle\u015fmedi\u011fi, “menfi tespit” davas\u0131n\u0131n da I\u0307stanbul 19. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hat\u0131rlat\u0131larak, bu iki davan\u0131n bekletici sorun yap\u0131lmas\u0131 istendi.<\/p>\n Dilek\u00e7ede, davac\u0131 firman\u0131n teminat g\u00f6stermesine ve davan\u0131n hem usulden hem de esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmesi talep edildi.<\/p>\n \u0130stanbul 10. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesindeki yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde dosya, bir\u00e7ok kez bilirki\u015fi heyetlerine g\u00f6nderildi.<\/p>\n Al\u0131nan iki bilirki\u015fi raporunda \u00e7eli\u015fki olmas\u0131 nedeniyle \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir heyetten tekrar rapor al\u0131nd\u0131.<\/p>\n Bu raporda, “daval\u0131n\u0131n 27 May\u0131s 2008 tarihli feshinin haks\u0131z oldug\u0306u” belirtilirken, davac\u0131 firman\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihi 27 May\u0131s 2008 tarihinden s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sona erdirilmesi gereken tarih olan 31 Aral\u0131k 2010’a kadar kadar ug\u0306ram\u0131s\u0327 oldug\u0306u m\u00fcspet zarar\u0131n 78 milyon 793 bin 572 lira oldu\u011fu kaydedildi.<\/p>\n Bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda belirtilen zarar miktar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda davac\u0131 taraf avukat\u0131 Aras, mahkemeye 25 Aral\u0131k 2019’da bir \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi sundu. Dilek\u00e7ede, 10 milyon lira olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan belirsiz alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n deg\u0306erinin, sunulan bilirkis\u0327i raporu dog\u0306rultusunda 78 milyon 793 bin 572 liral\u0131k miktar \u00fczerinden kabul edilmesi talep edildi.<\/p>\n Davay\u0131 8 y\u0131l s\u00fcren yarg\u0131lama sonras\u0131nda karara ba\u011flayan mahkeme heyeti, 27 May\u0131s 2008 tarihli fesih ihtar\u0131nda dayan\u0131lan sebebin fesih i\u00e7in hakl\u0131 bir gerek\u00e7e olus\u0327turmad\u0131g\u0306\u0131 sonucuna ulas\u0327\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirerek, daval\u0131n\u0131n 8 Ekim 2003 tarihli dag\u0306\u0131t\u0131m s\u00f6zles\u0327mesini 27 May\u0131s 2008’de feshetmesinin haks\u0131z olmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n haks\u0131z fesihten kaynaklanan zarar\u0131n\u0131 talep edebilece\u011fini dile getirdi.<\/p>\n Heyet, dag\u0306\u0131t\u0131m s\u00f6zles\u0327menin haks\u0131z s\u0327ekilde feshedildig\u0306inin tespitine ve 67 milyon 373 bin 233,68 liral\u0131k zarar\u0131n, dava tarihi olan 13 Kas\u0131m 2012 tarihinden itibaren is\u0327leyecek avans faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine h\u00fckmetti.<\/p>\n Mahkeme, har\u00e7, vekalet \u00fccreti ve yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin de davac\u0131 ve Hazine’ye (har\u00e7) verilmesini kararla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131.<\/p>\n \u00d6te yandan daval\u0131 firman\u0131n karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in istinaf mahkemesine ba\u015fvurdu\u011fu \u00f6\u011frenildi.<\/p>\n Kaynak: AA<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Bosch’un, T\u00fcrkiye’de bir d\u00f6nem ortakl\u0131k yap\u0131p sonra s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini tek tarafl\u0131 feshetti\u011fi m\u00fcflis \u015firket Profilo’ya, end\u00fcstriyel…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-manset","category-teknoloji"],"views":581,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69036"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69036\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69038,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69036\/revisions\/69038"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.haberegider.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Hukuki s\u00fcre\u00e7<\/h3>\n
Dava de\u011feri 10 milyondan 78 milyon 793 bin liraya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131<\/h3>\n
Mahkeme 67 milyon 373 bin lira \u00f6denmesine h\u00fckmetti<\/h3>\n