10 Dec AN EXAMPLE OF A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CONFISCATION WITHOUT EXPROPRIATION
T.C SUPREME COURT 5.Legal Department Basis: 2019/ 8207 Decision: 2020 / 1728 Decision Date: 06.02.2020
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT : … District Court 1. law office
At the end of the trial held for the prevention of confiscation without expropriation between the parties dec: Upon the appeal of the defendant’s administrative deputy against the decision of the court of first instance issued on the acceptance of the case … District Court of Justice 1.By law, a denial of the request for appeal of the decision of the respondent on appeal counsel for the administrative costs of mail and prompt notification of the denial for the above numbers, because it is not paid within the period of the day and additional administrative decision issued by the Supreme Court as the defendant in the written examination has been requested by the petitioner, the Regent in the file showed that it was thought that after the dispute review documents and discussed the need:
– DECISION –
The case concerns the request to prevent confiscation without expropriation.
Against the decision made by the court of first instance on the acceptance of the case, the District Court of Justice 1 on the substantive rejection of the application for appeal filed by the defendant administrative deputy. The decision made by the Legal Department was appealed by the defendant’s administrative deputy, but it was understood that the decision was made to reject the appeal request on the grounds that the postal and notification costs were not deposited within the specified time limit.
In the review conducted; 3.11.2017 the defendant to appeal the administrative trustees on the date of the memorandum the memorandum of notification to be notified via mail and expenses to be paid within a certain period from the date of notification a week, otherwise you will have been deemed to have waived their appeals in the memorandum warning that is required to be paid the costs to be notified when the authority that are not specified clearly, therefore, by counsel when the defendant that is specified in a memorandum on administrative 13.11.2017 within the exact time, however, the court of First Instance 1, which inadvertently.Where the costs are deposited with the teller of the Court of First Instance, due to the fact that this situation has not been notified … the costs have not been transferred to the 2017/6801 file of the District Court of Justice, so the District Court of Justice 1. October 17, 2017, it was understood that the Legal Department decided to reject the appeal request with an additional decision taken on October 17, 2017, and since the costs that must be deposited during the period were invested, it is understood that it was not correct to decide to reject the defendant’s administrative deputy’s appeal request, in the review conducted after the decision to remove the additional decision dated March 17, 2017;
According to the evidence and documents contained in the file, the grounds on which the decision was based; There was no mistake in deciding that the appeal against the decision made by the court of first instance on the prevention of disposal was rejected on the basis of Article 353/1-b-1 of HMK No. 6100, since the real estate subject to the case was actually confiscated.
Since the appeals of the defendant’s administrative deputy are not in place, the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law is in accordance with Article 370 of the HMK. it was decided unanimously on 06/02/2020 to approve it in accordance with the article, to receive the remaining fee written below and to register the appeal fee received in advance in the will of the Treasury.
No Comments