Legal Department 2009/5037 E. K 2010/8390
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT : Bursa 2. The Court Of First Instance
DATE :25.12.2008
NUMBER : Basis no: 2007/250 Decision no:2008/571
Although the decision issued by the local court at the end of the procedure of the case between the parties and the date number shown above was appealed by the plaintiff dec a request for a hearing of the examination; 438/1 of the Civil Procedure Code.since it was not one of the cases mentioned in the article, it was decided to reject the request for a hearing and to conduct an examination of the documents. The paperwork has been reviewed. It was discussed and considered as necessary.
In the photo “Life Certificate” dated 14.05.2008 issued to the plaintiff by the Turkish Embassy in Riyadh, the photo of the conjoined person is our citizen S..It has been reported that he is a worker, alive and residing at the address shown in this document in Riyadh, and has long been known to Embassy staff. Plaintiff witness A..H.. T.., he stated that he has known the plaintiff since 1990 and that he has been working in Arabia and that he has been following his affairs in Turkey as a deputy; this statement of the witness is also confirmed by the power of attorney dated 02.05.2007 issued by the Riyadh Embassy issued by the plaintiff to this person. The identity information contained in the identity card that the plaintiff received from the Riyadh Embassy on 02.05.2007 for the reason of “renewal” and the identity information in the population registration sample dated 05.10.2005 in the error file also match one-on-one. With the help of these collected evidence, the fact that the person who was decided to be the winner on 14.11.2006 is the plaintiff has been proven beyond any doubt. In this case, while it should be decided to remove the decision of the winner, the rejection of the request was not found to be correct.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously to overturn the appealed decision for the reasons shown above, to return the advance fee of the appeal to the depositor, within 15 days of the notification of this decision, the way to correct the decision will be clear, and the majority of the reasons were unanimous in overturning it.27.04.2010 (Tuesday)
POST, VOTE AGAINST
The evidence collected is insufficient, so that there is no doubt that the person who was decided to be the winner is the plaintiff. Therefore, it is beneficial for the court to request the plaintiff. However, I do not agree with the majority decision considering that it is not appropriate to establish a rejection provision in writing without evaluating this issue, while a decision should be made according to the result by giving a reasonable period of time for the plaintiff to be present, taking into account the reasons set out in the answer article on this issue.
POST, VOTE AGAINST
The plaintiff S., who asked for the annulment of the decision of the judge, claiming that he was not the victor.. I..in order to understand that the defendant is alive and to determine his identity in a way that leaves no room for doubt; the local court required the defendant to be heard in person; it decided to dismiss the case because the defendant did not attend the hearing in the given time and thus did not comply with the resignation. The plaintiff argued that he was located and lived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that he could not come to Turkey at the right time due to this restriction of foreign country law, and therefore did not comply with the request. In that case, the plaintiff and his deputy should be asked for a reasonable period of time during which they can remove the obstacle and allow the plaintiff to attend the hearing in person in Turkey; an assessment should be made and decided according to the result by giving the appropriate time again for resigning; it was not correct to make a decision with an incomplete examination. I think it should be decided that the decision should be overturned on a different basis. I do not agree with the justification of the worthy majority for spoiling.
THE ABOLITION OF THE DECISION OF THE WINNER, TO WHOM THE ENMITY WILL BE DIRECTED
T.C
COURT OF CASSATION 2. law office
Mainly No:2011/363
Decision No:2012/6883
Date of Decision: 22.03.2012
Related Articles:MK.32
Related Concepts: TO WHOM WILL THE HOSTILITY BE DIRECTED IN CASES OF REMOVAL OF THE DECISION OF THE WINNER
T.C. Y A R G I T A Y 2.LEGAL DEPARTMENT BASIS NO: DECISION NO: 2011/363 2012/6883 Y A R G I T A Y I L A M I
COURT OF THE EXAMINED DECISION : Küçükçekmece 3. DATE OF the Court of First Instance:05.10.2010 NUMBER: Basis no:2008/343 Decision no:2010/586
PLAINTIFF :……..
THE DEFENDANTS :1-…… 2-………
TYPE OF CASE :Removal of the Decision of the Judge
The APPELLANT; The defendants At the end of the procedure of the case between the parties, the decision given by the local court, the date and number shown above, was appealed, the documents were read and discussed as necessary and considered: The case is related to the request to “lift the decisiveness decision”. The decision of the winner, which has been taken, gives the opportunity to use these rights to those whose rights depend on death, just as the death of the winner has been proven, except for marriage. For this reason, in the case of the abolition of the decision of the winner, the animosity should be directed to all those whose rights depend on death, as well as those who have made the decision of the winner.
Ensuring the organization of the party, on the other hand, is related to public order and is officially monitored by the judge. According to the population record taken in the file, the person who was born on 29.10.1993, who was asked to remove the decision of the winner about B….it is seen that he has an out-of-wedlock child named, and that the kinship between this child and the decider was established through “recognition” before the decider. Therefore, it was not right to make a judgment with incomplete adversary and incomplete examination, while it was necessary to direct the hostility to this person as a “defendant”, to collect his evidence if he showed it, and to judge according to the result by evaluating all the evidence together.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason shown above, that there is no room for examining other aspects according to the reason for the violation, that the advance fee for the appeal should be returned to the depositor, and that the way to correct the decision within 15 days of the notification of this decision should be clear.22.03.2012