RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT - 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
20021
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20021,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
 

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

10 Dec RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Posted at 13:11h in General, INFORMATION by
0 Likes

T.C SUPREME COURT 13.Legal Department Basis: 2019/ 2478 Decision: 2019 / 11298 Decision Date: 14.11.2019

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

COURT : … District Court 3. law office

Recognition and decriminalization between the parties
at the end of the trial of the tenfiz case, he was appointed as a court of first instance for the reasons written in the letter … 9. Decision No. 2018/223 of 2018/78, issued by the Court of First Instance, on the fundamental rejection of the application for appeal against the decision made to accept the case … District Court of First Instance 3. Upon appeal by the defendant’s lawyer within the period of the decision No. 2018/1993-2019/296 of the Law Department, the file was examined, discussed and considered as a matter of necessity.

DECISION

The plaintiff, the defendant … in the capacity of the plaintiff … and … that he has filed a lawsuit against him, the case he has filed … is the 6th of the State Court of Freiburg im Breisgau. He was seen by the registry office with the file No. 6 o 349/16, he came to a decision and the file was finalized, about the same case issue … by … 7. 6 of the State Court of Freiburg im Breisgau, claiming that the Court of First Instance has reopened the case in its case No. 2017/3871. Recognition in Turkey of the finalized decision dated 12/07/2017, dated 6 O 349/16, issued by the Civil Department and

he requested that a decision be made on his enforcement.

The defendant did not file a response request during the period.

By the Court of First Instance, with the acceptance of the case; … 6 of the State Court of Freiburg im Breisgau. Recognition in Turkey of the finalized decision dated 12/07/2017, dated 6 O 349/16, issued by the Civil Department and

a decision has been made on its enforcement; the defendant has filed an appeal against the decision.

… District Court 3. It is understood by the Legal Department that the decision being examined is in accordance with the law in terms of procedure and principle; 353/1-b of the Civil Procedure Code of the application for appeal of the defendant’s attorney.according to Article 1, it has been decided to reject it on the basis of principle.

… District Court 3. The decision of the Legal Department was appealed by the defendant’s deputy within the time limit, but the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.

CONCLUSION: As a result of the review conducted by evaluating the scope of the file together, according to the legal rules that should be applied to the dispute, there was no error in the decision of the Regional Court of Justice, it was unanimously decided to approve the procedural and legal provision by rejecting all appeals that were not in the defendant’s place, send the file to the court of first instance, a sample of the decision to the Regional Court of Justice, on 14/11/2019.

Tags:
, , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran