T.C.

SUPREME

18. LEGAL DEPARTMENT

E. 2011/3358

K. 2011/6983

T. 9.6.2011

* Request to change the name ( for the same subject can only be filed once for the correction of the registration of the population )

* Correction of the registration of the population (the case can only be filed once in relation to the same subject – the request to change the name )

5490 / m. 36/1-b

Summary: the plaintiffs requested that the name of their children be changed in the petition, and the court decided to accept the case. According to the information in the population record of the child whose name was changed, it is understood that his name was changed earlier. 36 Of The Population Services Act. it was not considered right to decide the acceptance of the case in violation of the provision that the case for the correction of the population registration can only be opened once in relation to the same subject in Paragraph ( B ) of the first paragraph of the article.

Case: in the case between plaintiffs Bayram and the defendant population Directorate, Bandırma 1. The decision no. 21.9.2010 and no. 2010/150-171 issued by the court of First Instance and finalized without examination by the Court of Cassation is contrary to the law in force with the claim that the Supreme Court of Public Prosecutor’s Office 14.3.2011 days and Law-No. 2011/62965 appealed for the benefit of the law, :

Verdict: the plaintiffs requested that the name of their child Mehmet be changed to “Mert” in the petition, and the court decided to accept the case. According to the information in the Population Register of Mert, whose name has been changed, Gömeç Court of First Instance 2007/103-128 K. it is understood that the name of the plaintiff, “Mehmet Mert”, was changed to “Mehmet”. 36 of the Population Services Act No. 5490. it was not considered right to decide the acceptance of the case in violation of the provision that the case for the correction of the population registration can only be opened once in relation to the same subject in Paragraph ( B ) of the first paragraph of the article.

Conclusion: in this respect, for the reasons described above, the Court of Cassation HUMK the provision with the acceptance of the appeals of the Public Prosecutor’s office.’nun 427. it was decided unanimously on 09.06.2011 that the case should be sent to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation with a sample of the decision to be made in accordance with the article and that the case should be corrupted for the benefit of the law, provided that the result is not effective.