Supreme Court Decision On Adoption - 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
18416
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-18416,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
 

Supreme Court Decision On Adoption

24 Apr Supreme Court Decision On Adoption

Posted at 23:42h in General by
0 Likes

Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 2.Legal Department Basis: 2010 / 11536 Decision: 2011 / 16936 Decision Date: 28.11.2014

SUPREME COURT DECISION

Court :Aydin Family Court

Date: 24.05.2010

Number: basis no: 2010/70 Decision No: 2010/585

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the plaintiff M… P… and the defendant K… C… came to the hearing on 25.10.2011, when the decision given by the Local Court and shown above with the date number were requested to be examined by the appellant murafaa. After hearing the speech of the arrivals, it was considered appropriate to leave the work after the hearing to be examined and decided. Today, all the papers in the file have been read and discussed.

316 of the Turkish Civil Code, where the person who wants to adopt (plaintiff) and the person who wants to be adopted (defendant) have lived together since 1995 and the plaintiff has looked at, observed and trained the defendant since the same date. in the research and expert report conducted in accordance with article 313 of the Turkish Civil Code, which states that the plaintiff has conditions for adopting the defendant, thus amended by law 5399. it is understood that the conditions for the adoption of the adult in the article have occurred. For these reasons, the court should decide on the acceptance of the case; a decision to reject it in writing was not a hit and required a violation.

Conclusion: it was unanimously decided to overturn the Appellate provision for the reasons described above, to return the appellate advance fee to the depositor, to be clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision.25.10.2011 (Tuesday)

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran