ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

272 NEWSLETTER 2018 The 15th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that it is compulsory to remove the contradiction between the expert report obtained by the court, and the expert opinion submitted by the party, and that this can only be resolved through the court ordering another expert report. The Supreme Court has again made it clear that expert opinion cannot be excluded if it is contradictory to the court-appointed expert report. Where the parties object to the expert report based on expert opinion, the evaluation of these objections by the court is a require- ment of the right to legal hearing. The Court of Cassation has also linked taking a new expert report for the purpose of eliminating the contradiction between the expert report and the expert opinion, and evaluating the expert opinion with justifications, with the right to legal hearing. 2 . The Doctrine also defends that the Contradiction should be resolved through New Examination This is also the point of view of in the doctrine. It is expressed that the procedure of hearing the expert by the court, where the expert answers the questions of the judges and the parties, is very important to reveal the impartiality and the scientificness of the expert opinion. 3 In the event that the parties support their objection to the opinion of the expert appointed by the court with the report of an expert witness, the court should review the expert witness’ report on a substantive basis, and should not prioritize the report of the expert witness appointed by the court without doing so 4 . Although it is not possible to generalize, as is often the case in practice, courts hold expert opinions as secondary, while continuing review and rendering judgment on the basis of expert reports that are present in the file. However, the “Expert Opinion” concept defined in 2 Özbek, Mustafa Serdar : Law Journal numbered 2017/1 of the Union of the Turkish Public Notaries. 3 Kuru, Baki; Arslan, Ramazan; Yılmaz, Ejder : Medeni Usul Hukuku Ders Kitabı, 22th ed., Ankara, 2011, p. 456. 4 Akil, Cenk : Medeni Yargılama Hukukunda Mahkeme Tarafından Atanan Bilirkişi-Uzman Tanık Ayrımı, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2011/2, p.175.