Decision Made By The Court That Interest Should Be Ruled From The Date Of The Case Only For The Part That Has Been Increased - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
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
18202
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-18202,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-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

Decision Made By The Court That Interest Should Be Ruled From The Date Of The Case Only For The Part That Has Been Increased

27 Mar Decision Made By The Court That Interest Should Be Ruled From The Date Of The Case Only For The Part That Has Been Increased

Posted at 02:28h in General by
0 Likes

T.C. SUPREME

17.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/5641
Decision: 2016/7179
Decision Date: 13.06.2016

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – THE COURT MUST RULE ON INTEREST ONLY FOR THE PART OF THE PRICE INCREASED FROM THE DATE OF THE CASE – CORRECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION

Abstract: in a concrete case, interest was not requested in relation to financial compensation in TL, legal interest was requested from the date of the lawsuit for TL, which is the part that was increased by the dated price increase petition; legal interest was ruled by the court … from the date of the lawsuit for the entire TL. In contravention of the HMK clause, it is not right to decide more than the claim. In this case,; although it is not correct to rule on interest from the date of the lawsuit for the entire TL, including the TL … which is the first amount that is not requested and sued otherwise, the court should rule on interest from the date of the lawsuit; since the elimination of this error is not considered to require a repeat of the trial, the provision is HMK.nun, HUMK.it had to be corrected and approved in accordance with the nun article.

(6100 P. K. m. 26)

Case: at the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; the file was reviewed and considered necessary after the appeal by the defendants ‘ attorney within the period of the provision given for the acceptance of the case for reasons written in the decision:

Plaintiff attorney fees based on the value of $ 1,000 by showing the client of the defendant’s vehicle and the driver of the vehicle as the original Maliki defective shock that had occurred as a result of a loss of value in the vehicle with a declaration on the surplus depreciation who have requested the collection of the petition without prejudice to the rights Correctional demand with 3.010,00 TL by upgrading to the case with the acceptance of the plant part of the case from the defendant with legal interest from the date to process his education he wanted.

According to the evidence collected and the expert report adopted by the court, with the acceptance of the case, it was decided to pay the plaintiff with joint and mutual collection from the defendants,together with the legal interest to be processed from the date of the case; the provision was appealed by the defendants ‘ attorney.

1-according to the information and documents in the file, in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence based on the justification of the court’s decision, in particular, there were no irregularities in the calculation of financial compensation specified in the expert expert report organized in accordance with the occurrence, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of other appeals that were not seen in place of the defendant’s attorney.

2-the case is related to a claim for financial compensation caused by a traffic accident.

In a concrete case, interest was not requested in relation to financial compensation of US $ 1,000 in the lawsuit petition,legal interest was requested from the date of the lawsuit for us $ 2010, which is the part that was increased in the price increase petition dated 03.09.2013; legal interest was ruled from the date of the lawsuit for all US $ 3.010, 00, which was ruled by the court. 6100 HMK 26. it is not right to decide more than the demand, contrary to the article. In this case,; although it is not correct to rule on interest from the date of the case for all of us $ 3.010, 00,including us $ 1.000,00, which is the first amount not requested and sued in writing, since the elimination of this error is not considered to require a repeat of the trial, the provision is HMK 6100.nun temporary 3/2 article 1086 no.HUMK.it had to be corrected and approved in accordance with article 438/7.

Conclusion: for the reasons described in Paragraph (1) Above, the rejection of other appeals by the defendant’s attorney; for the reasons described in Paragraph (2), the acceptance of the defendants ‘ attorney’s appeals by paragraph 1 of the provision. “with the acceptance of the case; 3.010,00 TL of material compensation to be paid to the plaintiff with joint and mutual collection from the defendants together with legal interest to be processed from the date of the case,” it was decided unanimously on 13.06.2016 to correct and approve the provision by changing it.

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran