Damages for mental anguish in unlimited jurisdiction cases

The principle of administrative responsibility has been accepted in 19th century with the increase of the duties of state and the development of the rule of law understanding. During the first phase of the development of the principle, it was accepted that the administration would be held responsible only for the damages it has caused with heavy responsibility. In the following periods, however, it was recognized that the administration could also be held responsible for the damages it has caused to individuals without any fault. The scope of the principle of administrative responsibility has widened in time and the issue of moral indemnity has become important. This study examines the significant cases of unlimited jurisdiction cases in terms of damages for mental anguish in order to remedy the gap in the literature in terms of the study of moral damages of administration to people and their indemnity. While doing this, the study aims to provide information about unlimited jurisdiction cases and their conditions, to clarify the concept of moral indemnity by dealing with the concepts of damages and indemnity and to determine the most stable applications of moral indemnity in unlimited jurisdiction cases. The study tries to develop a critical approach towards the precedents of the high courts through examining the existing literature and court decisions regarding the issue. The first chapter of the study deals with the concept of harm. In the second chapter, more detailed information is provided about moral indemnity, its conditions, functions and legal status. While doing this, the chapter examines the existing views in the doctrine, the cases which require moral indemnity, the parties who are entitled for it and the other important aspects of the issue. The third and last chapter of the study provides an account of how the damages for mental anguish are assessed in the unlimited jurisdiction cases.