Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 11.Legal Department Basis: 2019/543 Decision: 2019/7499 Decision Date: 25.11.2019

SUPREME COURT DECISION

COURT: ANKARA DISTRICT COURT 21. LEGAL DEPARTMENT

ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION

1 in the case between the parties. 15/03/2018 date given by the Court of First Instance and 2016/698 E-2018/410 K. after the appeal of the decision no.by the attorney of the plaintiff, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice on the fundamental rejection of the request for appeal 21. Law department issued 05/12/2018 date and 2018/2057 E-2018/1327 K. after hearing the report organized by the examination Judge for the case file and again the petition, layihas, hearing minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, the work was discussed and considered as necessary.:

4 O 287/07 of the Wuppertal Court of First Instance of the Federal Republic of Germany with the decision given in file O, the client was decided to be a creditor of the defendants, the defendants were notified of the petition and the decision given by the German court, the notification documents were certified and the original of the decision was submitted to the file, and therefore the recognition and enforcement of the Foreign application was decided.

The defendant, on 25/06/2001 handing shares in a company is a shareholder at FILE scope, the plaintiff and he didn’t know if you exchange shares between them, a lawsuit has nothing to do with the rejection of the case by stating that the subject is asked to decide.

The defendant did not respond to the lawsuit.

At the court hearing on 21/09/2017, the deputy of the plaintiff was one of the defendants, Hamatek Holding A.P. on the grounds that they have declared that they have left their case to atiye, that no renewal petition has been filed from the date of the declaration to the date of the decision, the defendant …in terms of the case, HMK 150. and in accordance with the continuation articles, it was decided to dismiss the case against him on the grounds that the foreign court did not establish a provision for the collection of the price from the defendant.

The decision was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff.

Ankara District Court, the decision of the court of First Instance was not contrary to public order because it was understood that the application of the attorney of the plaintiff to the way of the law of Appeal was essentially rejected.

The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff. In accordance with Article 353/B-1 of the HMK, the decision to reject the application for appeal was in accordance with the procedure and the law, since it was concluded that the decision to reject the application for appeal was in accordance with the procedure and the law, it was necessary to decide on the approval of the decision of the District Court.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the decision made by the District Court with the refusal of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal is 370/1 of HMK. approval in accordance with Article 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 25/11/2019 that the case file should be sent to the District Court for processing, since the appellate fee was received in advance, no other fees were received.