At The End Of The Trial, Which Was Conducted By The Court in Accordance With The Violation, The Decision To Pay The Plaintiffs With The Acceptance Of The Ase And The Allocation Of Compensation From The Defendant Along With Commercial Interest - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
18132
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-18132,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

At The End Of The Trial, Which Was Conducted By The Court in Accordance With The Violation, The Decision To Pay The Plaintiffs With The Acceptance Of The Ase And The Allocation Of Compensation From The Defendant Along With Commercial Interest

14 Mar At The End Of The Trial, Which Was Conducted By The Court in Accordance With The Violation, The Decision To Pay The Plaintiffs With The Acceptance Of The Ase And The Allocation Of Compensation From The Defendant Along With Commercial Interest

Posted at 16:00h in General by
0 Likes

T.C. SUPREME

17.Legal Department
Mainly: 2016/8228
Decision: 2016/7079
Decision Date: 09.06.2016

COMPENSATION CASE – AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIOLATION, IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE COMPENSATION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE PLAINTIFFS WITH A COLLECTION FROM THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH COMMERCIAL INTEREST – CONFIRMATION OF THE PROVISION

Summary: the total compensation of … TL with the acceptance of the case at the end of the trial, which was made by the court in accordance with the violation .. it was decided that it should be paid to the plaintiffs with collection from the defendant along with the commercial interest to be processed from the date; the provision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney. The verdict had to be upheld.

(1086 P. K. m. 436)

Case: at the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; the file was examined and considered necessary after the appeal by the defendant’s attorney within the period of the provision given on the acceptance of the case for reasons written in the decision:

Attorney of the plaintiffs, 11.05.2012 with the petition of the vehicle that caused the accident….. at the moment, the balance is 20,000 TL of compensation by referring the case to this company…….’nden requested collection,07.11.2012 with the request for reclamation 29,530, 13 TL has raised the request for now.

Defendant ……..attorney, the vehicle is the traffic insurer, the plaintiffs on 13.09.2007 20.826 TL compensation payment was made, the case was not opened within 2 years period reported, the case was rejected due to the statute of limitations.

By the court, the defendant…… on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle insured by the traffic policy is 100% defective, the case was opened on 02.04.2012 after the expiration of the 2-year statute of limitations …. the case against him was dismissed due to the absence of passive animosity, the defendant ………. the decision to dismiss the case against him due to the statute of limitations is made by the attorney of the plaintiffs and the defendant……..on appeal by the deputy, our department was violated by Decision No.2013/5484, 2014/4716, dated 31.03.2014. The Defendant … his deputy’s request to correct the decision was rejected by our department.

At the end of the trial,it was decided that the total compensation of us $ 29.530,13,with commercial interest to be processed from 22.09.2007, should be paid to the plaintiffs with collection from the defendant (us $ 29.530,13, 26.911, 04, to the plaintiff…, us $ 2.619, 00 to the plaintiff…); the provision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

According to the articles in the file, the decision was made in accordance with the decision to overturn the court, it was unanimously decided on 09.06.2016 to uphold the provision found in accordance with the procedure and law with the rejection of all appeals that were not seen in place of the defendant’s attorney.

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran