Supreme
1. Law Department Principal No: 2013/22475, Decision No: 2014/4734 K., Date: 3.3.2014
COURT: MANAVGAT 4. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Date: 17/07/2013
Number: 2012/306-2013/382

At the end of the ecrimisil case, the decision given by the Local Court regarding the rejection of the case was appealed by the plaintiff with a request for a hearing within the legal period and the file was examined, the examination Judge’s report was read, his statements were heard, the request for a hearing was rejected in terms of value and;

The case relates to ecrimisil requests and Prevention of possession of large-scale relocation.
The court has decided to dismiss the case.
The plaintiff of the 466/921 share of the real estate numbered 495 ada 5 parcels and the remaining share is not in the case. Y. F. claiming that a portion of the disputed real estate was rented to the defendant without consent or consent by the acting of the other stakeholder, the plaintiff opened the case with the request of ecrimisil 3.000.00-TL, the principal value of the charge was reported in the case, the demand for ECRIMISIL was increased by reclamation to 8.880.00-TL, and the fee was completed it is understood he was not taken.
It should be stated immediately that the content of the claim and the manner in which it is put forward is clear that the case is related to the same immovable property and that it is possible to evaluate the right which constitutes the subject matter with money. In such a case, the Article 16 of the levies Act No. 492. in accordance with the article, the value of the case against the value of the place seized and the sum of the requested ecrimisil (4.3.1953 dated 10/2 No.I.B.K.) it is undisputed that it will consist of and that the transactions will be carried out according to Articles 26, 27, 28, 30 and 32 of the law on fees and that the required fees will be taken.
On the other hand, the law on fees did not leave the receipt or completion of the fees to the requests of the parties; it ruled that the mentioned direction should be observed by the court on its own (if not). 32 of Law No. 492. in Article 30, it is emphasized that” no subsequent transactions can be made unless the fees to be taken from judicial proceedings are paid.”in the provision of the article “…if it is understood that the value determined during the judgment is more than the value reported in the petition, the judgment shall be continued only for that hearing; until the following hearing, the trial shall not be continued unless the advance decision and notice fee on the value of the deficiency is completed. HMK’s 150.the application of the file within the period indicated in the article depends on the payment of the missing fee.”the arrangement is given.
Therefore, it is not legally possible to substitute and carry out the case without a relative fee for the Prevention of court action and ecrimisil requests.
In this case, it is not right to determine the value of the real estate by asking the parties or by Discovery, to make a decision on the value of the case after determining the value of the case as stated above and to make a decision on this value after that, while the basis of the work should be considered, to
For this reason, which is concerned with public order and which is taken into consideration, the provision of the Law No. 6100 is provisional 3. article 428 of the Law No. 1086 by submission. it was decided unanimously on 03.03.2014 that there was no room for further review of Appeals according to the reason for the annulment, and that the advance fee received should be returned to the appellant.