26 Dec Prompt For Transaction Cancellation
T.C.
14.Apartment
Basis: 2016/7694 Decision: 2017/1078
Decision Date: 28.02.2017
Summary Of Request: Sakarya Province, Kaynarca District, parcel No. the name … … in the land according to law 6306 on the 31.10.2012 and the owner of the building identified as the parcel in question riskliyap after the fall by two thirds alone alone involved in the decision for the reconstruction Malik holds a majority share of the shares of his real estate plaintiff did not participate in a public auction sale will be realized by means of a 01.10.2015 in the history of the day and of the Provincial Directorate of Environment and urbanization in relation 10.09.2015 66070440/502.03-E.In a lawsuit filed with a request for the cancellation of transaction 5714; only one of the shareholders in the land where the plaintiff is a shareholder (…….) as a result of the evaluation of law 6306 with the word and spirit of law 6306, the other shareholders of the land, including the plaintiff, do not have any structures on the land.; in order for the partnership to be eliminated in accordance with Law No. 6306, the shareholders must be stakeholders in both the land and the structure., the adoption of interpretation because otherwise one of the stakeholders in a field owned cooperative in the case of malik riskliyap Under Law No. 6306 that will be taken by building a structure within the scope of administrative judicial process, and thereby initiate transactions from sales channels by disabling one or a few of the partners of the Republic of Turkey and the European Convention on human rights would be a violation of property rights secured to anayasasinc, hence only one of the partners within the scope of the law based on 6306 riskliyap which belongs to the application process could not be initiated, considering that the partnership between shareholders needs to be settled in the judicial process and to be settled; Sakarya 1 on the way to cancellation of the transaction subject to the lawsuit on the grounds that there is no compliance with the law and legislation in the transaction subject to the lawsuit due to the fact that the plaintiff did not participate in the agreement during the reconstruction process after the demolition of the structure located on the land where the shareholder is maliki.31/03/2016 day issued by the Administrative Court; E:2015/……, K:2016/……sayılı decision; it is requested by the defendant’s administrative attorney to be corrupted for the reasons put forward in the appeal petition.
Summary of the defense: it is argued that the request should be denied.
Opinion: it is believed that the court’s decision should be upheld with the rejection of the appeal request.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
The Fourteenth Department of the ruling Council of State discussed the need for work without a decision on the request for the termination of the execution, as it was seen that the file was tekemmul.:
Decisions made by administrative and tax courts can be overturned by appeal 49 of the Administrative Procedure Code 2577. it is possible if one of the reasons mentioned in the article is found. Date and number above specified and the rationale underlying the decision of the court, law and order, corruption, there is no reason, because with the denial of Appeals APPROVED the aforementioned decision, the execution request is not allowed to decide about prompt yurutmeyidurdurma fee in case of requesting extradition of the defendant the costs of the appeal to be left on file to be sent to the court, within 15 days from the date of notification of this decision, the correction of the decision path to be clear, it was decided unanimously on 28.02.2017.
No Comments