04 Mar REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION-DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE
T.C THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE
14.Department
Base: 2016/ 7694 Decision: 2017 / 1078
Date of Decision: 28.02.2017
Summary of the Request: Sakarya Province, Kaynarca District, parcel No. … name, … in the land of the building according to law 6306 identified as on 31.10.2012 riskliyap by the owner and for the reconstruction after the fall alone holds a majority share in the parcel in question involved two-thirds of his real estate alone Malik did not participate in the decision the plaintiff’s sale of shares by means of a public auction will be realized in the history of 01.10.2015 of the Provincial Directorate of Environment and urbanization in relation 10.09.2015 day and 66070440/502.03-E.in the case filed with the request to cancel the transaction No. 5714; the plaintiff’s share is owned by only one of the shareholders in the land (…….. belongs to the building, which is in the scope of riskliyap and sale of the shares as at the start of the process under Law No. 6306 riskliyap, which are based on the structure in question, the plaintiff, including the absence of any structures on the land of the land of the other shareholders, as a result of the evaluation with the letter and spirit of the law 6306; Malik shares a land and a building owned by a cooperative of riskliyap be declared after the fall of the owners re-regulating building on the property that they can start the process include the elimination of the provisions of the partnership where the partnership under the Law No. 6306 in order to eliminate both land and structure they should be the owners of the cooperative stakeholder, in the case of the adoption of the interpretation, because otherwise one of the stakeholders in a field owned cooperative malik riskliyap under Administrative Law No. 6306 by building a structure that will be taken within the scope channels and thereby initiate the judicial process sales transactions by disabling one or a few of the partners of the European Convention on human rights and property of the Republic of Turkey would be a violation of rights secured to anayasasinc, hence only one of which belongs to the partners based on riskliyap the application process could not be initiated within the scope of the law 6306, partnership between all stakeholders, elimination of joint ownership and that should be addressed in considering the case of the judicial process unfold; that the plaintiff owns the shares of the land after the demolition of the structure in the process of rebuilding due to failure to attend to deal with the case relating to the sale of the subject shares owned by the process on the grounds of lack of compliance with law and regulations in the case of the cancellation of the operation in the way Sakarya 1.Dated 31/03/2016 issued by the Administrative Court; E:2015/……, K:2016/……sayılı your decision; it is requested to be overturned by the defendant’s deputy administration for the reasons put forward in the appeal petition.
Summary of the Defense: It is argued that the request should be rejected.
Opinion: It is considered that the Court decision should be upheld by rejecting the appeal request.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
The Fourteenth Chamber of the ruling Council of State discussed the need for the work without a decision on the request to stop the execution, as it seemed that the file had been tampered with:
49 of the Administrative Procedure Code No. 2577, according to which decisions issued by the administrative and tax courts can be overturned by examining them on appeal. it is possible if one of the reasons specified in the article is found. The rationale underlying the decision of the court date and number specified above and, because there is law and order and corruption, with the denial of the aforementioned Appeals decision is approved, the execution fee is not allowed to decide about yurutmeyidurdurma prompt in case of request of the defendant the costs of extradition appeal requesting to be on the left, the file will be sent to the court, within 15 days from the date of notification of this decision, to be clear, the path to the correction of the decision, it was decided unanimously on 28.02.2017.
No Comments