Summary: Although the defendant’s request to report evidence at the preliminary examination hearing was rejected on the grounds that the defendant did not submit a reply petition during the time, the presentation of evidence cannot be expected until the preliminary examination hearing is held and the issues agreed and disagreed with the parties are determined. The court shall give the parties the opportunity to present evidence and, if they present it, their witnesses shall be heard and a decision shall be made in accordance with the outcome. The court must give the defendant time to report his evidence, and, if he shows it, must collect his evidence and make a decision according to the resulting outcome. The provision established in violation of the defendant’s right to legal rest is against the procedure and the law and required to be overturned.

Case: the verdict given by the Local Court at the end of the proceedings between the parties, the date and number shown above, has been appealed by the defendant in terms of defect determination, compensation and alimony, and the documents have been read and discussed and considered as necessary.:

Verdict: the defendant’s request to report evidence at the preliminary examination hearing on 14.11.2013 was rejected by the court on the grounds that the defendant did not submit a reply during his term. According to the Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure, the presentation of evidence cannot be expected from the parties until a preliminary examination hearing has been held and the issues agreed upon by the parties and disagreements have been determined. The court allows the parties the opportunity to present evidence and, if they show it, to listen to their witnesses (HMK m. 241) and a decision must be made in accordance with the outcome that will take place. This is a significant procedural error that restricts the defendant’s right to defend. Therefore, the court’s work consists of giving the defendant time to report his evidence, collecting his evidence if he shows it, and making a decision based on the outcome. The defendant’s right to legal rest (HMK m. 27) the provision established by the violation is against the procedure and the law and required to break it.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 15.01.2015 that there is no room for the annulment of the appellate provision for the reason shown above, that there is no room for the examination of the other appeals appeals of the defendant according to the reason for the annulment, that the Advance Fee for the appeal is returned to the Depositor if requested, and that within 15 days