Supreme Court 12.Legal Department Basis: 2010 / 33360 Decision: 2011 / 15607 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

Supreme Court Decision

Court: Küçükçekmece 1. Executive Law Court

Date: 24/09/2010

Number: 2010/1150-2010/1039

Above, the date and number of the written court decision within the period of the appeal examination by the debtor after the request of the file related to this work was sent to the apartment from the scene and the need was discussed and considered :

Execution proceedings have been carried out by the creditor against the debtor company through general foreclosure, authorized K.Drawer 4. The payment order sent by the Executive Directorate was notified to the permanent employee signature on 20.08.2010 as the debtor company’s deputy.

Law of Civil Procedure 67/1.in accordance with the article, a surrogate who does not give the original or example of a power of attorney may not file a lawsuit and may not perform any duties related to the trial. So far, in cases where damage is expected in the delay, the court may allow the attorney to file a lawsuit or take procedural actions, provided that he brings the power of attorney “within a certain period of time.” If a power of attorney is not given during this period, or if the Noble does not inform the court of its acceptance of the transactions made within the same period, the case is considered not filed, and the transactions made remain invalid.

In the concrete case, Bakırköy 32. In the power of attorney dated 23.05.2008 and numbered 23244 yevmiye, organized by the notary public office, only Av. It seems that Yalcin Sengul was appointed as a deputy, but

there is no document in the file that a power of attorney has been granted or authorized. Although the unauthorized Beyoğlu Executive Director of the appeal petition Av. Although Özlem şengül’s name is also written; this appeal petition is Av. It is understood that Yalcin was signed and given by Shengul. In this case, notification cannot be made to the deputy who does not have power of attorney. In that case, instead of canceling the payment order notification process by the court, the provision for dismissal of the complaint with written justification is not accurate.

Conclusion: Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law 366 and Law of Civil Procedure428 for the above reasons of the court’s decision on the acceptance of the debtor’s appeals. it was decided by unanimous decision on 07/07/2011.