SUPREME COURT DECISION ON COMPENSATION - 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
20063
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20063,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 COMPENSATION

17 Dec SUPREME COURT DECISION ON COMPENSATION

Posted at 21:02h in General, INFORMATION by
0 Likes

T.C THE SUPREME COURT .General Assembly of the Law Base: 2011/280 Decision: 2011/170 Decision Date: 15.04.2014

The Decision of the Supreme Court

COURT : Ankara 18. The Court Of First Instance

DATE : 22/12/2010

NUMBER : 2010/451-2010/457

At the end of the trial held due to the “Compensation” case between the parties; Dec 18.Examination of the decision No. 05.05.2009 and No. 2007/158-2009/154 issued by the Court of First Instance on the acceptance of the case from the defendants …Turizm A.Sh. upon request by the deputy, the Supreme Court 4.At the end of the trial, which was overturned by the decision of the Law Department dated 03.05.2010 and numbered 2009/9475-2010/5248 and reversed to the place of file, the court resisted the previous decision.

APPELLANT: Defendant …..A.Sh. attorney

DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JURISPRUDENCE

After being examined by the General Assembly of the Law and reading the papers in the file, the following was discussed as necessary: The defendant who appealed the decision of the Local Court to resist on 22.12.2010, his deputy Av. .. … …dec power of attorney or authorization document is not included in the file.After this deficiency is corrected, the file must be returned to the court of Cassation for submission to the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION : It was decided unanimously on 15.04.2011 that the file should be RETURNED to the court in order to complete the deficiency written above.

Tags:
, , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran