T.C. Court of Cassation 8. Department of Law E: 2018/1051, K: 2018/14800, K.T.: 03.07.2018

COURT : Executive Civil Court

CASE TYPE : Ration

At the end of the trial between the parties and conducted in the case described above, the Court decided to partially accept the case and examine the judgment by the Supreme Court by holding a hearing decider defendant 3. it was requested by the person’s deputy and, without a request for a hearing, by the plaintiff’s deputy creditor. After reviewing the file, it was understood that the work was subject to a hearing, and a call sheet was sent to the parties, which was appointed on Tuesday, 30.05.2017, for the hearing. The defendant who appealed on the day of the hearing is 3.the acting person is Av. … he’s here. After the hearing was started and it became clear that the appeal request was within the period and the oral statement of those present was heard, the hearing was terminated; After the decision was made to return the file to the mahal court for replenishment of the deficiencies seen as a result of the examination of the file, the deficiency was completed, but the file was considered necessary to be re-examined:

decision :

The plaintiff in the original and merged case is the deputy creditor; … 14. In the follow-up file No. 2011/9863 of the Enforcement Directorate, a claim for rations was filed during the foreclosures made on 18.11.2014 and 30.07.2015, these claims were unfair, the companies claiming rations with the debtor operated in the same field, had first-degree kinship relations, no evidence proving the rations claim was submitted, stating that 3. he demanded that the person’s ration claim be decided to be removed and sued.

Defendant 3 in the original and combined case. the deputy of the person asked for the rejection of the case, arguing that the case was not filed during the term, the liens were removed, the case remained uncontested, the place where the lien was made had nothing to do with the debtor, his client was the factory where the company produces, the case was unfair.

According to the expert examination conducted by the court as a result of collecting the evidence reported by the parties, the invoice for an eight-drum washing and drying machine with five pools of the confiscated goods was registered in the commercial books of the defendant company, while the other victims did not have invoices, 8 of the report. in this respect, the ration claim from the point of view of the main case is unfair, and from the point of view of the merged case, the ration claim of the third person from the point of view of embarrassment other than one five-pool eight-drum wool washing machine is unfair, with the acceptance of the main case on the grounds that the refusal of the ration claim of the third person from the point of foreclosure dated 18.11.2014, the merged case is partially by acceptance, the refusal of the third party’s ration claim in respect of embarrassments other than the 8-drum wool washing machine with 1 5 pool in respect of the lien dated 30.07.2015 is subject to IIY’s 97/13. since the legal conditions in the article have not been established, it has been decided that there is no room to rule on compensation for the benefit of the creditor.

Judgment, the plaintiff is the deputy creditor and the defendant is 3. the person has been appealed by the deputy.

The actual and combined case is determined by Article 99 of the creditor’s IIK. based on article 3. the refusal of the person’s ration claim is related to the request.

1- In terms of the actual case;

Article 101 of the Law No. 4949 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004. amended by article 363. according to the provision of the article; In order for decisions to be made by the executive courts after 30.07.2003, when the Law enters into force, to be appealed, the value of the appealed case must exceed 2,000.00 TL.

Article 102 of the Law No. 4949 on HRST. appendix 1, October 2012. in accordance with Article 298 of the Tax Procedure Code No. 213, this monetary limit is a duplicate of the monetary limits applied in the previous year, effective from the beginning of each calendar year. according to the article … It is applied by increasing the re-evaluation rate determined and announced by the Ministry every year. The parts of the limits determined in this way that do not exceed Ten million TL (10.00 TL) are not taken into account.

Accordingly, when the calculation is made, the subject of the appeal must be over 6.310,00 TL in order to appeal the decisions to be made by the executive courts in 2016.

363/1 of the IIK. paragraph (7) ration decisions that can be appealed under considered to be among cases and legal actions to follow up on the decisions made in the appellate review Talik in the last sentence of the same paragraph before it can be given according to the special arrangement of enforcement of the decision of the court of the value of the goods or the right taalluk it is imperative that you go through this amount.

In the concrete case, the value of the victims subject to appeal is less than 6.310,00 TL.

Since the provision in this case is of a definite nature, the defendant 3 in terms of the actual case. the person’s appeal must be rejected.

2- As for the unified case; According to the information and documents contained in the ava file, the evidence based on the justification for the court decision is discussed, and there is no procedural and illegal direction in its evaluation, defendant 3.refusal of appeals of the person’s deputy,

B- Appeals of the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney for compensation, part 99 of the case. according to the article, its opening is refused because it is not in place due to the absence of compensation regulation in the said article,

C- In the examination of other appeals of the creditor’s deputy;

The debtor company and the defendant 3, which are included in the case file through the reversal. in the examination of the detailed trade registry records of the person company, the debtor company’s partners…. it is located in the neighborhood of 430. street No. 10/1 … where it operates”, defendant 3. if the person is a partner of the company … and …, taking into account the share ratios …, the company is in the position of the dominant partner in the company, the company was established on 22.06.2010, the domiciled partner … in the commercial register, the address of residence, “Y…. 430. street No:10/1 …”, where it is seen that this address is the address of the company responsible for tracking, ….considering together that the husband and wife and the children of the persons mentioned are the defendant 3. it is necessary to accept that there is a strict organic bond between the person’s company and the decoupling company and that they have smuggled goods from creditors by making consensual transactions. As just mentioned above, 3. the person is the founder of the company 22.06.2010, and this date corresponds to the date after the birth of the debt, which is the subject of the case-based follow-up.

Therefore, taking into account these material and legal facts, it was not right for the court to establish a provision for partial acceptance of the merged case instead of a justification that does not correspond to the formation and content of the file.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, 3. refusal of the appeal of the person’s deputy; (2-A) for the reasons described in paragraph 3. refusal of appeals by the person’s attorney; refusal of appeals by the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney for compensation for the reasons described in paragraph (2-B), acceptance of the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney’s appeal for the reasons described in paragraph (2-C), as well as Temporary 3 of the provisions of IIK 366 and 6100 of the HMK for the adoption of the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney’s appeal for the reasons described in paragraph (2-C). article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the IIK by the parties to its DETERIORATION. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 03.07.2018 that a request for correction of the decision may be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and that the advance fee may be returned separately to the appellants upon request.