The "Bonus Market" LLC, based on the abstract contract of debt recognition dated January 11, 2022, applied to the court, demanding the collection of a total amount of 9440 manats from E. Balakishiyev, consisting of 8000 manats as the principal debt and 1440 manats as a fine. The Binagadi District Court partially upheld the claim by its decision dated September 2, 2022, ordering the collection of 8100 manats from E. Balakishiyev, while the remaining part of the claim was rejected.
During the review of the defendant’s appeal, different positions on the issue were identified. The issue causing dispute and leading to differing positions in judicial practice is whether a civil law contract can be concluded within the framework of employment relations and whether the employee’s liability to the employer for the damage caused can be confirmed by a debt obligation contract, and in such cases, who should bear the burden of proof regarding the existence of the damage.
One of the existing positions is that the conclusion of a debt obligation contract in employment relations arises from the principle of freedom of contract, and the person recognizing the debt is exempt from proving how the debt was created. Another position argues that concluding a civil law contract within the framework of employment relations contradicts labor legislation. A further view is that concluding a civil law debt obligation contract in employment relations is possible, but the person recognizing the debt must officially document and prove the existence of the damage in accordance with labor legislation.
The plaintiff believes that the existence of these different positions hinders the formation of a unified judicial practice and complicates the implementation of the principles of predictability and legal certainty in the application of legal norms. Therefore, there arose a need to apply to the Constitutional Court to clarify the disputed issues and establish a unified judicial practice.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the conclusion of a civil law contract, including the abstract debt recognition contract, excludes the possibility of claiming compensation for the damage caused by the employee to the employer. The court also confirmed the employer's right to appeal to the court to claim compensation for the damage, showing that the termination of employment relations does not exempt the guilty party from material liability (pecuniary liability).
Employment relations arise solely based on an employment contract and are regulated within the framework of this contract. This principle also includes provisions related to material damage. According to Article 199.2 of the Labor Code, for one party to bear material liability towards the other party, the following three conditions must simultaneously exist:
a) identification of the actual damage;
b) the guilty party’s actions or omissions violate the law;
c) there is a causal link between the unlawful actions of the guilty party and the resulting damage.
For the emergence of mutual material liability between the employer and the employee, all three of these conditions must be simultaneously met. This issue is important for clarifying the rights and obligations of the parties within the context of labor law and the corresponding principles of employment relations.
An important point is that the provisions of the Civil Code can be applied only if the employment relations are not regulated by the Labor Code. However, in this case, since the employment relations are governed by the provisions of the Labor Code, the application of the provisions of the Civil Code is excluded. In this situation, only the provisions of the Labor Code, especially those related to the institution of material liability, should be applied.
As a result, the conclusion of a civil law contract, including an abstract debt recognition contract, is excluded in cases of damage caused by the employee to the employer. Additionally, according to the relevant provisions of the Labor Code, the termination of employment relations does not release the guilty party from material liability, and the employer has the right to apply to the court to claim compensation for the damage in accordance with the law.