Evidence Of An Oath In Procedural Law - 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
17525
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17525,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
 

Evidence Of An Oath In Procedural Law

07 Nov Evidence Of An Oath In Procedural Law

Posted at 16:30h in General by
0 Likes

Evidence of an oath is an oral statement that confirms the accuracy of an event related to the resolution of the case of one of the parties in front of the court with the procedure specified in the law, values considered sacred, and has been loaded with conclusive evidence.

HMK.m.According to Article 225/1, the oath; as with all means of proof, the subject of the oath is important for the solution of the case, contentious and arising from the person himself, HMK.m.225/1

For the validity of a transaction can save the parties freely facts that, by law, two-sided if they are not adequate explanations of willpower, to take the oath to affect a criminal investigation or prosecution, or no one’s honor and dignity that will leave him facing the facts cannot be the subject of the oath (HMK.m.226).

The oath may offer the party who has the burden of proof. A party that does not bear the burden of proof has no legal consequences and benefits from offering an oath.

For the reason described, the plaintiff or defendant must clearly establish the relationship between the case and the evidence in terms of proving the claim or defense. In this context, it is possible for the party to explicitly refer to the evidence of the oath.

If a party that does not explicitly refer to evidence of the oath includes phrases such as “other evidence, any evidence, and other evidence” in its petition, there are various opinions on whether these phrases can be considered as referring to the evidence of the oath of the person concerned, and in this context, the judge will remind the party that the burden of proof falls on him “the right to offer the oath”. If HMK md 136/2 has used phrases such as” other evidence, all kinds of evidence, and other evidence ” when the evil eye is taken, it is not possible for the judge to remind the parties of his right to offer an oath. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Case Law adopted this issue with the decision of 2015/2, 2017/1 and 03.03.2017.

Tags:
, , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran