T.C.
SUPREME
17. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2014/1591
K. 2014/2198
T. 20.2.2014
* Failure to apply the provisions of the HMK in cases where there is a provision in the Special Law (request for change of name – there is a provision in the HMK that there is a judicial work without dispute and that it will appear in the Magistrates Court/it will appear in the First Instance Court taking into account the provisions of the Population Services )

* Request to change the name (the request is not within the scope of non – contentious jurisdiction-will be seen in the Court of First Instance)

* The request to change the name in the registration of the population (to be filed in the Civil Court of First Instance, where the address of the settlement of the persons who want to correct the cases for the correction of the registration of the population is located)

* Court in charge of the request for name correction (the request to change the name in the registration of the population is not within the scope of a non – contentious jurisdiction- it cannot be seen in the Court of First Instance/Magistrates Court where the Court of First Instance is in charge)

* Rectification case concerning population records (change of Name case – where the Court of First Instance is the court in charge)

6100 / m.382, 383

4721 / m. 27

5490 / m.36

Summary: the case relates to the request to change the name of the plaintiff in the population register. In the law on Population Services, it is decided that the cases for correction of population records will be filed in the Civil Court of First Instance, which is located at the location of the settlement address of the persons who want to correct. Uncontested judgment is not within the scope of the plaintiff’s claim under the law can be seen in the courts, law Day and 2013/18 of the General Board of the Supreme Court 25/12/2013-464 main 2013/1698 the courts and the dispute can be seen in the sentence is set by Decision No. must be concluded.

Case: all documents in the file sent for the determination of the place of jurisdiction due to the decision of non-duty by the Ağrı Magistrates Court and Ağrı first instance courts in the request for the name correction between the parties were examined and considered as necessary.:

Decision: the case is related to the plaintiff’s request to change the name of “Gülhan” in the population register to “Şerzan” and the Magistrates Court of law 36 of the Population Services Law No. 5490. in Paragraph 1/a of the article, it has been ruled that the Civil Court of First Instance, where the address of the settlement of the persons who want to correct the cases for correction of the population records will be opened, because there is a clear regulation in the special law on this matter, in the direction of non-duty by betting. HMK 383, in which the request for change of first name and last name by the court of First Instance was issued as a non-contentious judicial work in HMK 382/2-a-2 No. 6100.according to the article, a non-duty decision was made on the grounds that the court in charge of non-contentious judicial work was a magistrate’s Court. The prompt to change the name was arranged as a non-contentious judicial work at HMK 382/2-a-2 No. 6100. HMK 383.according to the article, the court in charge of non-contentious judicial work is the Court of magistrates in such a way that there is no contrary arrangement. 27 Of The Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. in accordance with the article, the judge may be asked to change the name on the condition that it is based on a justifiable reason. On the other hand, the law No. 5490 on Population Services 36. in Paragraph 1/a of the article, it is decided that the correction cases concerning the population records will be filed in the Civil Court of First Instance in charge of the location of the settlement address of the persons who want to correct. In Paragraph B of the same law, there is regulation on name and surname. The plaintiff’s request is not within the scope of non-contentious jurisdiction, and it is determined by the decree of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law on 25/12/2013 day and 2013/18-464 basis 2013/1698 decision no., and therefore the dispute within the scope of Article 36/1-a-b of law no. 5490 must be seen and concluded

Conclusion: for the reasons described above; HMK No. 6100.of 21. and 22. in accordance with its articles, it was decided unanimously on 20.02.2014 to determine the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Ağrı.