AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE | Damage Daused by Not Closing The Pits On The Road – Court Decision
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
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16432,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-5.4.7,vc_responsive

Damage Daused by Not Closing The Pits On The Road – Court Decision

Damage Daused by Not Closing The Pits On The Road – Court Decision

15th Department of the Council of State

Article No: 2013/10673

Decision No: 2017/40

Summary of the Claim: A claim of 30.083.25 TL was incurred by the plaintiff on the road between the Odunluk Pier and Geyikli, on the date of 27.08.2008, on the road between Geyikli Village, Ezine District, Çanakkale Province. As a result of the lawsuit filed with the request of the administrative court that the dam that is caused by the non-repaired pit should be reimbursed by the offending administration, it should be paid together with the legal interest to be processed as of 22.10.2008. In the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution dated 23/03/2011, it is stated that 25% of the defendant administration is defective and the total loss is 37.000 TL in case of accident occurrence due to failure of maintenance and repair of the pits on the road by the respondent administration. 00 TL is to be compensated by the defendant administration with the legal interest to be processed from the date of filing the lawsuit, and the decision on rejection of the request for pecuniary compensation for the surplus is requested by the defendant administration to be reversed by reviewing on appeal.

Summary of the defense: No defense was given.

Opinion: It is believed that the appeal should be rejected.


The fifteenth Department of the Council of State, who made the decision, heard the explanations of the investigating judge and examined the documents in the file.

In Article 49 (2) of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 titled ul Breaking the Decision “; as a result of the appeal review; a) A duty other than duty and authority has been taken into consideration, b) Unlawful decision, c) There are errors or deficiencies that may affect the decision in the application of the procedural provisions.
From the examination of the documents in the file and the allegations in the appeal, it was concluded that the decision subject to the appeal was in accordance with the law and procedure, and that there was no legal reason for the reversal of the decision.

For the reasons explained; and the approval of the decision of the Çanakkale Administrative Court dated 12/05/2011 and numbered E: 2009/473, K: 2011/396, the submission of the file to the Court and the Law no. In accordance with paragraph 1 and article 54 paragraph 1 of this article, it was unanimously decided on 09/01/2017 that the decision-making way is open within fifteen days from the day following the notification date of this decision.

No Comments

Post A Comment