Aşıkoğlu Law Office, Author at AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE - Page 28 of 121
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
3
archive,paged,author,author-asikoglu-law-office,author-3,paged-28,author-paged-28,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,no_animation_on_touch,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

Author: Aşıkoğlu Law Office

……. THE COURT; PLAINTIFF : TC IDENTIFICATION NUMBER : ADDRESS : Deputy : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) ADDRESS : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) DEFENDANT : Address : Subject: it consists of asking for payment of what we will receive due to working without power of Attorney. LITIGATION VALUE : (In cases...

T.C. SUPREME 15.Legal Department Basis: 2015/4549 Decision: 2016/3863 Decision Date: 14.07.2016 CASE FOR COLLECTION OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVABLES – THE REQUIREMENT THAT FEES AND ATTORNEY FEES IN CASES BE RULED AS A VICTIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM ATTORNEY WAGE TARIFF – THE BANKRUPTCY TABLE IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RELATIVE...

T.C. SUPREME 1.Legal Department Mainly: 2014/16696 Decision: 2016/5804 Decision Date: 10.09.2016 CASE FOR CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF THE TITLE – THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON THE LEGAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PROVISION IS BASED – CONFIRMATION OF THE PROVISION Abstract: in the case...

T.C. SUPREME 20.Legal Department Basis: 2016/3944 Decision: 2016/7541 Decision Date: 28.06.2016 CADASTRAL TESBITINE APPEAL CASE – WHETHER THE REAL ESTATE IS WATER OR DRY AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD RECEIVE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW AND A DECISION SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK...

T.C. SUPREME 2.Legal Department Basis: 2016/13586 Verdict: 2016/12490 Decision Date: 28.06.2016 DIVORCE CASE – WHERE THE HEIRS OF THE DEFENDANT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE – THE WAIVER OF THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT RESULT IN A PROVISION – THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE CASES OF DEFECTS OF...

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran