A VALID FORECLOSURE MUST BE FOUND IN THE RATION CASE – THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF PREREQUISITES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORECLOSURE HAS BEEN DROPPED – THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

16 Feb A VALID FORECLOSURE MUST BE FOUND IN THE RATION CASE – THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF PREREQUISITES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FORECLOSURE HAS BEEN DROPPED – THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

T.C. Court of Cassation 8. Department of Law E: 2018/11261, K: 2018/16502, K.T.: 01.10.2018

At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above, the Court decided to accept the case, and after the verdict was appealed by the defendant creditor’s dec, the Apartment file was examined and considered necessary.

decision :

Plaintiff 3. acting person, ……. Filling plant located within the boundaries of the Head of the Enterprise, etc. 3. with the debtor requesting the right of permission for its construction. an agreement on the construction and operation of a filling facility between people, the creditor of the water resource ……He was hired at 22.6.2007,…… With this type of 11433 and the Regional Directorate of the date 02/09/2010, the borrower subsequent to the contract notarized written consent of the company be given in a month to put a price to pay and if it is decided to cancel due to a permissions permission with the cancellation of the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of the debtor’s factory …… the ownership of property, and passed to the client, because the facility is an integral part of mahcuz, with the adoption of the case, he requested that the liens be removed.

The defendant is the acting creditor, with the debtor 3. 9 of the …, which is made between the person. dec. in his article, he argued that at the end of the leave period, it was decided that the facilities … made within the scope of the project subject to the leave … would be saved by the General Directorate, but the embarrassments were not included in the concept and scope of the facility, the rejection of the case should be decided.

In court, plaintiff 3. the person, the borrower agreed to the construction and operation of water filling facility arranged with the respective company,…… The writings of the Regional Directorate of the company within a period of one month in the written contract with defendant to be notarized and to put a price to pay, because the cancellation of the permits,the covenants in “……” and “Resort” with the words written it is, therefore, the parties of the period at the end of the business in business …… and all other equipment (including machines) that would pass the savings of the General Directorate of the agreed, on the grounds that the word facility covers the offending goods, it was decided to accept the case and to remove the liens, and the decision was appealed by the defendant creditor.

The case is based on Article 96 of the IIK of the third party. et al. it relates to a claim for rations based on its articles.

The presence of a valid foreclosure in ration cases is a condition of the case and must be observed personally at all stages of the trial until the verdict is finalized.

The subject of the case is Article 106 of the IIK, which is in force as of the date of the foreclosures dated 29.06.2010.-110. according to its articles, the creditor may request that the foreclosed property be sold within 1 year from the date of foreclosure if it is transported. HR 110. according to the article, if the sale of a property is not requested within the legal period, the lien on that property is lifted. Accordingly, considering that the liens dated 29.06.2010 on the victims of the case have been dropped as of 26.6.2012, the date of the case, the decision to accept the ration case in writing was not correct, while the ration case should be rejected due to the absence of prerequisites, it was necessary to decide that the provision should be overturned for this reason.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, the decision of the defendant creditor’s attorney on the acceptance of appeals of the Provisional 3 of IIK No. 366 and HMK No. 6100. according to Article 428 of the Code No. 1086. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the IIK by the parties to the BREAKDOWN. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 01.10.2018 that a request for correction of the decision can be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the refund of the advance fee to the appellant upon request.