13 Apr Request Cancellation Of The Civil Servant Process By Way Of Complaint
T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2017/12-1147
K. 2017/1304
T. 8.11.2017
* Prompt cancellation of the civil servant process by way of complaint ( a creditor
If a lien is requested within the annual period, the same period of one year
Demand For Foreclosure In Which The Debtor’s Property Has Not Been Foreclosed
Forfeiture of the right and removal of the file from Operation
Do Not Require – Creditor Surrogate Borrowers Within A Legal One-Year Period
Having requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
The Right Of The Creditor To Demand Lien Does Not Fall/Need For Renewal Fee
No Direct Lien May Be Requested )
* Right to demand Lien (from the date of notification of Payment Order
Lien Within A One-Year Term Of Creditor / Fall By Passing One Year
No claim or return of Lien claim within this one year
If It Does Not Request Re-Foreclosure, The Follow-Up File Will Be Removed From The Transaction
To Be Removed – The Debtor’s Property Within A One-Year Period
Forfeiture Of The Right To Demand Foreclosure
Not Required / Because The Foreclosure Is Requested Within A Legal One-Year Period
There Is No Need For Renewal Fees And A Direct Lien Can Be Requested )
* Request for lien within one year ( same one year)
Foreclosure Of The Debtor’s Property During The Period Of Foreclosure
Dropping the right to request and removing the file from the process
Do Not Require – Creditor Surrogate Borrowers Within A Legal One-Year Period
Having requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
The Creditor’s Right To Request Lien Does Not Fall/Within The Legal One-Year Period
Since The Foreclosure Is Requested, There Is No Need For Renewal Fees Directly
Lien May Be Requested )
* Renewal fee (creditor requesting Lien within one-year period
If the debtor’s property is found within the same period of one year
Forfeiture of the right to demand sequestration, and
That The File Does Not Require Removal From Operation/The Debtor’s Property
The Request For The Impoundment Is Not In The Nature Of The Request For Renewal –
The Creditor Having Been Legally Requested A Lien Within A One-Year Period
Where The Right To Request Lien Is Not Dropped/Renewal Order
Summary: The Right to demand lien is one year from the date of notification of the payment order.
he falls in passing. Creditor does not claim lien within one-year term
or, if the lien request is withdrawn and the lien is repossessed within this one-year period
if it does not request, the follow-up file is removed from the process. Follow this case
the file is removed from the process alone; otherwise, execution follow-up is not dropped. Refresh
it may request lien in the same follow-up file by making a claim.
If the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period, the same one-year period
the debtor’s property has not been confiscated during the period to demand foreclosure
forfeiture of the right and therefore removal of the follow-up file from the process
it does not require.In this case, the debtor’s property to be foreclosed,
it does not qualify as a renewal request.
The acting of the creditor is a legal one-year period in which the assets of the debtors and
to demand the lien of the creditor by requesting the lien of the debtor’s salary
he didn’t fall right. In this case, the creditor may request a lien again
to be notified of the renewal order to the debtor and therefore to receive the renewal fee
direct lien without the need for a creditor renewal
you may ask.
Lawsuit : cancellation of “civil servant’s action by way of complaint” between parties”
Borçka execution (Law) at the end of the trial due to his request)
10.07.2013 and 2013/2 days given by the court for dismissal of the complaint E.,
2013/12 K. by the acting of the complainant to review the appeal of the numbered decision
the court of Appeals on request 12. 05.12.2013 day of the law office and
2013/31165 E., 2013/38701 K. by numbered decision,
“…The creditor’s right to demand lien, as of the date of notification of the payment order
one year passes and falls (first article 78/2.C.1). Follow-up file in this case
removed from Operation (md.78/4) creditor, to be able to request lien
request for renewal and this request should be notified to the debtor. Another
5 of the same item from the side. paragraph; follow-up not based on the notice
it is envisaged that tuition will be taken upon request for renewal.
In the concrete case, the Payment Order Number 7, for example, is given to the first of the debtors.
On 18.9.2009, second on 30.9.2009,third on 01.10.2009
notified by the creditor on 10.3.2010 and 26.05.2010
in their history, that is, within a legal period of one year, the assets of the debtors and
the debtor … ‘ s salary has been requested to foreclose, the creditor “lien request
the right ” has not fallen. In this case, the creditor may request a lien again
for iik’s 78/5. notification of renewal order to debtor in accordance with article and
therefore, there is no need for renewal fees. In other words,
the creditor may seek foreclosure directly without requesting renewal.
Iik’s 110/3. expenses such as placing and storing the confiscation in the article
it is held that the creditor is responsible. Refresh the aforementioned edit
application in concrete case as it is not related to mortar and foreclosure request period
has no place.
Then, the court should accept the complaint and decide whether it should be rejected.
is isabetsiz…”
grounds to be redacted and the file to be turned back instead
at the end of the trial, the court resisted the earlier decision.
Appeal during the period of the decision to resist by examining the General Assembly of the law
as soon as it is understood that it has been done and the papers in the file have been read,
interviewed:
Decision: the request is related to the request for cancellation of the civil servant process by way of complaint.
The complainant’s Deputy, against the debtors who complained, at the Borçka Enforcement office
On 11.09.2009, the execution without a warrant was initiated, and the payment order
all of the debtors have been notified, as there is no objection within the period
the follow-up has been finalised, with many enforcement actions on debtors
that it was performed, but in the file, in the relevant articles of the ICJ 2004
since no foreclosure process has been performed during the specified period,
the decision to abolish the liens, granted on 22.04.2013
although the foreclosure process was requested by the petition, the file was renewed first.,
the application for renewal and the decision in the form of payment of cash fees should be made
that it was taken, that the process of the Borçka Executive Office was unfair, and that it was directed to public order
follow-up of Borçka Executive Office No. 2009/921
“decision Tensip record” dated 22.04.2013 issued from file
cancellation of the decision and renewal of the file without charge
he must have filed a complaint.
Follow-up No. 2009/921 of the Borçka Executive Office subject to the case by the Local Court
request for lien on 10.03.2010 of the creditor’s proxy in the file
located, it belongs to borrowers on 34 Tk 498 and 34 ZP 7400 plate
vehicles numbered on 11.04.2010 confiscated, after which the creditor
his deputy requested the sequestration of the debtor’s salary on 26.05.2010
there is no information or documentation in the file indicating that this seizure was carried out.,
after this date, the creditor’s attorney does not have any claim in the file,
the date of the sale of the vehicles according to the date of the confiscation of the vehicles is 11.04.2011
until it is possible to request, request foreclosure by this date
since it was not, it would be necessary to acknowledge that the foreclosure fell on that date.,
the file has been removed from the treatment since 11.04.2011 when the foreclosure was dropped
Since more than a year has passed until 12.12.2012
there were no irregularities in his removal from office.,
IIK 78/5 if the file removed from the treatment is requested to be renewed
in accordance with the provisions of the article, the re-tuition will be taken, renewal fees
Executive Office for refusal of renewal request due to non-payment
decision to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that its operation is in accordance with the law
the decision has been made by the special Office on the appeal of the complainant’s attorney
the grounds described in the title section above are distorted.
The court’s decision to resist by repeating the previous reasons
has been given.
The decision to resist was appealed by the acting complainant.
Dispute before the General Assembly of law by way of resistance, 78/2 of the ICJ
and 4. the legal requirement in its paragraphs (from the notification of the payment order to a
if a lien has been requested within the year)
at the point where the file can be removed from the process for reasons
is collected.
As is known, the right of the creditor to request lien is subject to a period of one year. Foreclosure
the right to request is one year after the notification of the payment order.
it falls. (Iik’s 78/2. article C.1) the creditor has a one-year term (iik’s 78/2. md.)
he does not claim a lien in it or claim a lien (which he did within a year)
it does not take back or claim for repossession within this (same) one-year period.
if the trace file is removed from the process. (78/4 md.) Follow-up file in this case
it is removed from the transaction alone; otherwise the execution follow-up will not drop. So execution follow-up derdest
it continues to stay. In this case it is the same by requesting renewal
he might want a lien on the tracking file. (78/5 md.)
If the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period,
in the same one-year period (or even later) the debtor’s property
not being able to foreclose the right to demand foreclosure and therefore follow-up
it does not require that the file be removed from the process. In this case, execution follow-up derdest
it continues to remain and has done so within the one-year term of the creditor
in accordance with the lien request (after a year has passed)
his request for impoundment is 78/5 of the enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. in the sense of substance
it does not qualify as a renewal request. So in this case, the creditor is charged again
there is no need for payment and notification of the request to the debtor. (Dry B.: Enforcement and Bankruptcy
EI Book of law, 2013, 2. Edition, sh 414, 415).
Example in concrete case 7 Payment order to the first of the debtors 18.9.2009
on, second on 30.9.2009,third on 01.10.2009
the creditor’s attorney has been notified of the debtors within a statutory one-year period.
having requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
the creditor’s right to seek foreclosure is not diminished. In this case the creditor
78/5 of the ICJ so that it can seek foreclosure again. to the debtor in accordance with the clause
need to be notified of the renewal order and therefore to receive renewal fees
there is no. In other words, without the creditor requesting renewal
he could seek foreclosure directly.
In this case, the Local Court, law adopted by the General Assembly
While the decision to break the special circle should be obeyed, the previous one with the wrongful justification
resisting the decision is procedural and against the law.
Therefore, the decision to resist must be broken.
Conclusion: the decision of the complainant’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of the appeal appeals
The reasons cited in the decision to disrupt the private apartment,
if requested, appeal to refund of the advance fee to the Depositor, correction of decision
to be clear, a unanimous decision was made on 08.11.2017.
No Comments