In the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the situations that would constitute an obstacle to the judge hearing a case are grouped under two headings. It may be the case of prohibition of the judge, or it may also be possible to apply the institution of refusal of the judge in certain cases.n the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the situations that would constitute an obstacle to the judge hearing a case are grouped under two headings. It may be the case of prohibition of the judge, or it may also bn the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the situations that would constitute an obstacle to the judge hearing a case are grouped under two headings. It may be the case of prohibition of the judge, or it may also be possible to apply the institution of refusal of the judge in certain cases.
Article 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the regulation of;
In the case that belongs to him or is directly or therefore related to him,
Even if the marriage bond is Decoupled between them, in the wife’s case,
In the case of himself or his wife’s subordinate or superior,
In the case of the one who has an adoptive bond Decoupled between him and,
In the case of those who are related by blood, including in the third degree, or even if the marriage tie that constitutes them is removed, in the case of those who are related by in-laws,
In his fiancée’s caseIn the case of those who are related by blood, including in the third degree, or even if the marriage tie that constitutes them is removed, in the case of those who are related by in-laws,
In his fiancée’s case,
It has been accepted that in a case where one of the two parties acts as a lawyer, guardian, trustee or legal adviser, the judge will have to withdraw from the case.
In the presence of any of the prohibited situations listed above, the judge cannot continue the case or conduct a trial, even if the parties consent to the continuation of the case. However, this prohibition is important betweenn the presence of any of the prohibited situations listed above, the judge cannot continue the case or conduct a trial, even if the parties consent to the continuation of the case. However, this prohibition is important between the judge and the parties to the case. The existence of a prohibition between the proxy representing one of the parties and the judge will not be evaluated in terms of the prohibition Decrees accepted by the law.
Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, dated 14.01.2016 and 2015/15973 E., 2016/292 K.upreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, dated 14.01.2016 and 2015/15973 E., 2016/292 K. in the decision numbered “During the case between the parties, the judge decided to withdraw from the case on Dec. 13.03.2015 on the grounds that “…the plaintiff’s attorney is the judge’s ex-wife, the conditions of Article 34/1-b of the CCP have occurred …”.
By the authority examining the file, the request to withdraw does not comply with the prohibition listed in Article 34/1-b of the CCP, the request to withdraw should be between the judge and the parties to the case, the plaintiff’s attorney is the legal representative of the party, the plaintiff can represent himself with another attorney, the obligation to withdraw here is Dec. 13 of the Law on Advocacy.y the authority examining the file, the request to withdraw does not comply with the prohibition listed in Article 34/1-b of the CCP, the request to withdraw should be between the judge and the parties to the case, the plaintiff’s attorney is the legal representative of the party, the plaintiff can represent himself with another attorney, the obligation to withdraw here is Dec. 13 of the Law on Advocacy. according to the article, the decision reached regarding the rejection of the request to withdraw on the grounds that he is in the attorney has been appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Article 13 of Law No.rticle 13 Law No. 1136 According to the article, “A lawyer who is the spouse of a judge or public prosecutor, or who is a relative of the judge or public prosecutor by reason or lineage, or who is a relative of the first degree (including this degree), cannot practice law in cases and affairs handled by that jArticle 13 of Law No. 1136 According to the article, “A lawyer who is the spouse of a judge or public prosecutor, or who is a relative of the judge or public prosecutor by reason or lineage, or who is a rrticle 13 of Law No. 1136 According to the article, “A lawyer who is the spouse of a judge or public prosecutor, or who is a relative of the judge or public prosecutor by reason or lineage, or who is a relative of the first degree (including this degree), cannot practice law in cases and affairs handled by that judge or public prosecutor.”” In the present case, the judge decided to recuse himself from the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s attorney was his ex-wife, however, the 13th article of the Attorneys’ Law No. 1136 stated above is due to the supervisory provision of the article, a lawyer who is the spouse of a judge or public prosecutor cannot work as a lawyer in a court where his wife is authorized. Pursuant to the special law provision, since the plaintiff’s attorney is in a prohibited situation, Article 34 of the HMK applies.ursuant to the special law provision, since the plaintiff’s attorney is in a prohibited situation, Article 34 of the HMK applies. according to the article, since this situation is not a state of prohibition of the judge, since there is no error in making a decision in writing, it was decided unanimously oPursuant to the special law provision, since the plaintiff’s attorney is in a prohibited situation, Article 34 of the HMK applies. according to the article, since this situation is not a state of prohibition of the judge, since there is no error in making a decision in writing, it was decided unanimously on 14/01/2016 to APPROVE the verdict by rejecting inappropriate appeals, to upload the approval fee written below to the appellant.” the judgment is established in the form of.
Article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides for provisions in terms of criminal proceedings. Article 23 titled Judge who cannot participate in the trialrticle 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides for provisions in terms of criminal proceedings. Article 23 titled Judge who cannot participate in the trial Article “(1) A judge who has participated in a decision or judgment may not participate in the decision or judgment to be given bicle 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides for provisions in terms of criminal proceedings. Article 23 titled Judge who cannot participate in the trial Article “(1) A judge who has participated in a decision or judgment may not participate in the decision or judgment to be given by the higher court regarding this judgment.
(2) A judge who has performed a duty in the investigation phase of the same case may not perform a duty in the prosecution phase.
(3) In case of renewal of the trial, the judge who served in the previous trial may not serve in the same job. “ it is in the form of.
In case of a request for retrial, it was added to the third paragraph that the judge who served in the previous trial cannot take part in the same case.n case of a request for retrial, it was added to the third paragraph that the judge who served in the previous trial cannot take part in the same case. Thus, the judge who had previously stated his opinion about the same dispute was prevented from serving in the process of renewing the trial later, and it was also wanted to ensure the impartiality of the judge in this aspect.
Article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the consequences of a judge’s disqualification. An appeal can be made to the higher court against the judge’s recusal decisionrticle 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the consequences of a judge’s disqualification. An appeal can be made to the higher court against the judge’s recusal decision. All the actions taken by that judge since the date the ban was imrticle 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the consequences of a judge’s disqualification. An appeal can be made to the higher court against the judge’s recusal decision. All the actions taken by that judge since the date the ban was imposed, while his trial was ongoing, can be annulled by the decision of the higher court. However, the verdicts and decisions given by that judge or in his presence are “definitely” annulled. In this case, that judge who continues the case despite the prohibition may be sentenced to trial expenses.
It is possible for the judge to recuse himself at any stage of the case, and with the birth of a prohibition, the judge is obliged to recuse himself. An appeal can be filed against recusal decisions, but the decisions of the court of appeal regarding recusal are final