-SAMPLE PETITION-
ANKARA SENTINEL ( ) TO THE EXECUTIVE CIVIL COURT
Executive File No: Ankara … Executive Directorate 2021/……. E.
An Injunction is a Request to Stop the Pursuit.
THE COMPLAINANT
(DEBT) :
ADDRESS :……
ATTORNEY :
ADDRESS :
PHONE :
(LENDER) : :
ADDRESS :…………
ATTORNEY :
ADDRESS :……………………………
SUBJECT :Cancellation of Enforcement Proceedings Conducted in Violation of the Law and Immediate Termination of the Proceedings
OUR EXPLANATIONS
Ankara …..The date of 28/06/2021 of the Executive Directorate is 2021 /….. The provision of money or collateral debt or a main numbered the job done, or not done, or easement of the right of easement rights on the abolition of the court decisions on the ship the fulfillment of executive order (Appendix 1), we 15/08/2021 UETS on e-notification within the period and have been notified via the system (“by reason of violation of public order, the probate of complaints made relating to enforcement can be brought in front of the court indefinitely due to” 8. HD. 23.05.2016 T. 25835/8996) our complaints against this bailiff treatment are presented below.
A follow-up request submitted by the counterparty (Creditor) to the Enforcement Directorate file (ANNEX-2) and the documents related to this request (ANNEX-3), Ankara 2, which is a case of return to work.The date of the Employment Tribunal 10/06/2019, 2019/….. E., 2019/….. K. As can be seen from the reasoned decision No. 4, This ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS, which were Made Contrary to the Law, should be STOPPED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THEN CANCELED.
AN EDA PROVISION is NOT INCLUDED in the decision of the Local Court that is followed by the other party. Because the case in which the reasoned decision was made is a case of return to work.
As can be seen from the relevant part of the reasoned decision of the court, the so-called receivable items monitored by the counterparty contain a DETERMINATION PROVISION, and AN EDA PROVISION THAT CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIMS OF THE COUNTERPARTY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REASONED DECISION. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE DETERMINATION PROVISIONS CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF ILAM ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
HR 38. According to the article, the right to carry out ilam enforcement proceedings belongs to the person who is in favor of an ilam or ilam document, that is, containing an eda provision.
An ilam may only be placed in ilam enforcement proceedings against the debtor containing an eda provision against him. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FACT THAT AN ILAM CONTAINS AN EDA PROVISION MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT, FROM WHOM IT WILL BE COLLECTED AND TO WHOM IT WILL BE GIVEN IS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE ILAM. It is also clear that a party that does not have an eda provision in its favor in a court decision cannot follow up the other party in a divine way. The SUPREME Court has the same opinion on this issue as the DOCTRINE. The Supreme Court consistently issues decisions stating that ilams that do not contain an eda provision cannot be the subject of ilam monitoring.
At this point, the Decisions of the established Supreme Court are also as follows:
“Administrative court decisions that do not contain an eda provision for a liquid receivable, related to the cancellation of the transaction subject to litigation – other than the trial expenses and the power of attorney fee stipulated in the decision – cannot be subject to ilam follow-up” (8.HD.10.09.2013 T. 6366/11553)
“Enforcement proceedings cannot be carried out without finalizing the determination of the ilam, as well as written trial expenses and attorney’s fees, etc. in the ilam. for such requests, it cannot be followed up unless the decision is finalized; the complaint in this regard is not subject to the deadline, this issue will be taken into account directly by the executive court”(12. HD. 29.09.2011 T. 1687/17075; 06.12.2011 T.9558/26836)
Based on all these Supreme Court decisions and Doctrinal opinions, based on the DETERMINATION PROVISION contained in the reasoned decision of the Local Court (WHICH IS CLEARLY STATED IN THE REASONED DECISION THAT THIS PROVISION IS A DETERMINATION PROVISION, WRITTEN IN BOLD AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE), there is no compliance with the law in the ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS it has conducted, and first of all, it is necessary to IMMEDIATELY STOP THE PURSUIT, and then decide to CANCEL the unfair and legally unfounded pursuit.
LEGAL REASONS : IIK (16., 18., 38 and all other substances), HMK, Av.Law and other relevant legislation
THE EVIDENCE :
1-Tracking Request, Payment Order, Documents October in the Annex to the Tracking Request and a Reasoned Decision of the Local Court,
1-Ankara …..Executive Directorate ‘s 2021/….. E. Subpoena of numbered files,
2-Ankara 2.The date of the Employment Tribunal 10/06/2019, 2019/….. E., 2019/….. K. No reasoned decision and subpoena of the case file,
3-Witness (Information Will Be Provided If Deemed Necessary),
4-Oath (If Deemed Necessary),
5-Exploration (If Deemed Necessary),
6-Expert report (If Deemed Necessary),
7-Any other delail (We reserve the right to provide evidence against the evidence that the other party will provide.)
Conclusion and demand :re Mahkemenizce described above, and’ you of all the reasons to consider the enforcement proceedings related to the complaint made in violation of probate to a halt until the matter is resolved (primarily unsecured) and as a result of the unfair trial, without legal basis, and the monitoring and enforcement probate enforcement in contravention of the cancellation of the order, the court decided to the opposite side of the retainer fees and costs and expenses yukletilm we will request that it be given by proxy. 16/08/2021
The Complainant is A….. B….. Attorney