RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY-THE 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
20673
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20673,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
 

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY-THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

05 Mar RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY-THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Posted at 15:20h in General, INFORMATION by
0 Likes

T.C.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
3. Law Department
2011/3430 base 2011/6636 Decision 18.4.2011 Dated

In the lawsuit petition, it was requested that 2500 liras of compensation be collected from the defendant side along with interest and expenses. The court dismissed the case and the verdict was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.

After it became clear that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary.

The case concerns the defendants’ request for compensation for the fact that their child started a fire. It is understood from the statements in the lawsuit petition that the defendants’ responsibility as the head of the family is requested.

The legal basis for the responsibility of the head of the family is Article 369 of the MK. it is found in the substance. 4 of the Law on the Establishment of Family Courts No. 4787. in article 2 of the MK. it is stated that the cases and cases arising from his book will be resolved in the Family Court. 369 of the MK in the concrete case. since compensation is requested on the basis of the article, such a case must be examined and concluded in the Family Court. The fact that the merits of the work have been examined by the court, regardless of the direction of duty, is the reason for the violation.

As of this moment, the provision in writing is invalid, without taking into account the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision in accordance with Article 428 of the HUMK.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 18.04.2011 that it would be OVERTURNED and the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the appellant upon request.

Tags:
, , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran