General Assembly of Law

Base Number: 2013/1203

Decision Number: 2014/442

“text of jurisprudence”

COURT : Ankara 10. Court of First Instance Law
DATE : 27/06/2012
NUMBER : 2012/310-2012/310

At the end of the trial for the case of “material compensation” between the parties; Ankara Dec0. 14.06.2011 days and 2009/168 E. The decision of the Court of First Instance on the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case was given., 2011/213 K. examination of the numbered decision M. from the plaintiff and defendants. E.. upon request by their deputies, the Supreme Court 13. 07.03.2012 day of the Legal Department and 15783/5615 E., K. with the numbered announcement;
(…The plaintiff, the defendant offered for sale Second Hand Car Market in 18.03.2007 Fahrettin to a license of the defendant from the defendant shoot the deputy of the victors and the other victorious tool 33.000,00 TL or bought 10.000,00 TL in the value of the tool when the defendant was victorious, 23.000,00 TL Yi also gave the triumphant hand of the defendant, the defendant company before receiving an appraisal tool to do in the car when you go to the other verbal confirmation that it was not a problem, given continuously when the vehicle malfunctions, have suffered financial losses because of the service fees, consequently, the main problem of the vehicle remain in a flood because the tool is dedicated to 12.2.2009 learned in pert, citing the cancellation of the contract without prejudice to the rights and negative on the surplus compensation by the court to be declared effective, 33.000,00 TL the price of the car together with legal interest, victorious, from the collection Fahrettin Erol and service, negligence or wrongful received 5.700,00 TL costs, the flywheel Kucukyilmaz Ltd. Sht.he asked for a refund.
The defendants have expressed their rejection of the case.
The court decided to partially accept the case, the decision was made by the plaintiff and defendant M.. E.. the decision has been appealed by the Court.
HMK No. 1-6100.nun 294. in accordance with the article, the court interprets the judgment at the hearing where the trial ends by giving the verdict. In any case, the interpretation of the verdict is made by passing the verdict result to the hearing record and reading it. For mandatory reasons, only in cases where the result of the judgment has been interpreted, the reasoned decision must be written within one month starting from the date of interpretation. HMK.nun 297/2. in accordance with the article, in the concluding part of the provision, with the provision given about each of the claims, the debts and recognized rights imposed on the parties are listed under the sequence number; it is necessary to show it clearly, so as not to arouse suspicion and hesitation. HMK.nun 298/2. a reasoned decision in accordance with its article cannot contradict the result of the provision being interpreted. In fact, there is no legal possibility for a judge who has written a short decision and withdrawn his hand from the case by examining it to change this decision anymore. 141 Of the Constitution on the public interpretation of decisions, which is related to the public interpretation of decisions, differs from each other in that the reasoned decision with a short decision is public. with the addition of HMK.it also creates a situation contrary to the above-mentioned mandatory clauses. In addition, this issue is related to public order, the observance of which is a duty assigned to the judge by law.
In a concrete case, in a short decision when establishing a provision by the court, the defendant was partially accepted by the Victorious side of the case,the acceptance of the case was decided on the condition of the return of the vehicle over 33,000.00 TL, and in a reasoned decision, the defendant was partially accepted by the Victorious side of the case, the cancellation of the contract dated 22.03.2007,the cancellation of the vehicle price of 33,000. 00 TL, the legal interest that will be processed from the date of the lawsuit it was decided to collect the defendant from Muzaffer. It is clear that the reasoned decision and the provision in the short decision contradict the principles and provisions of the law that the short decision described above and the reasoned decision should be in accordance with each other. As described above, the Court, as adopted in the Decision to Consolidate the Case Law No. 1992/4 dated 10.4.1992 and 1991/7, had to break the provision established as a contradiction in order to make a decider again without adhering to the short decision, but so that the contradiction between the short decision and the reasoned decision would be eliminated and there would be no hesitation in the execution.
2-According to the reason for the disruption, the plaintiff and the defendant M.. E..there was no need to examine the other appeals of the.)
at the end of the retrial, the previous decision was resisted by the court.

After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of Law and the papers in the file were read, it was discussed as necessary:
The case relates to the claim for financial compensation.
The decision by the local court on the partial acceptance of the case was made by one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants, M.. E.. upon the appeal of his deputies, the Private Office was violated on the grounds written in the title section above; the previous decision was resisted by the court.
The decision to resist was made by one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants, M.. E.. it brings the proxies to the appeal.
During the interview at the General Assembly of Law, the nature of the dispute and the defendant ….. Mot. Vehicle. Truz. Ins. Ltd. comp.taking into account the adjective of, the question of whether the case should be heard in the Consumer Court or in the Civil Court of First Instance was considered as a preliminary issue.
It is useful to make the following explanations about the task that constitutes the preliminary problem.
law No. 4822 and the Law No. 4077 on Consumer Protection (Turkish Commercial Code No. 4077) have been amended by Law No. 1 entitled “Purpose”. after the purpose of the law is explained, the scope is entitled 2. in the article;” This law covers all types of consumer transactions in which the consumer constitutes one of the parties in the markets for goods and services for the purposes specified in the first article ” The provision is included. 3 Of the Law. in the article, the goods mean movable property that is subject to exchange, immovable property for residential and holiday purposes, as well as software, audio, video and similar intangible goods prepared for use in electronic media. The seller includes natural or legal persons offering goods to the consumer within the scope of their commercial or professional activities, including public legal entities. A consumer, on the other hand, is defined as a natural or legal person who acquires, uses or uses a good or service for commercial or non-professional purposes.
In order to recognize that a legal transaction remains within the scope of DEC 4077, there must be a legal transaction between the parties defined above for the purpose of the law on the sale of goods and services. In a concrete dispute, the defendant who provides vehicle maintenance and repair services (…..Mot. Vehicle. Truz. Ins. Ltd. comp. since it has been suggested that the plaintiff (buyer) provides an expert examination of whether there are any defects in the vehicle received from other defendants, it is understood that the relationship between the parties remains within the scope of DEC 4077.
23 of the TKHK No. 4077. the article provides that any disputes related to the implementation of this law will be considered in the consumer courts. The plaintiff with the defendant ….Mot. Vehicle. Truz. Ins. Ltd. comp. the dispute between them is caused by the pre-sale inspection service, and since it remains within the scope of the DECR, the Consumer Court is responsible for looking at the case. Although, as a rule, taking into account the adjectives of other defendants, it can be considered that they are officers of the general court; in cases where cases in the general court and the special court should be heard together, the case should be continued in the special court, so the case should also be considered in the Consumer Court in terms of these defendants. In addition, the regulations related to the task are related to public order and are observed at all stages of the trial, even if the parties do not put it forward. There is no earned right in matters related to the task. In this case, the court should send the file to the consumer court with a decision on non-duty, while the fact that the merits of the work were decided by examining it is contrary to procedure and law.
In this case, it is necessary to decide according to the result of the local court taking this situation into account, while it is contrary to the procedure and law to resist the previous decision.
For this different reason, the decision to resist had to be overturned; according to the reason for the violation, other appeals were not examined.
CONCLUSION: 1-The plaintiff and the defendant M.. E.. temporary 3 of the Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure due to the various reasons and reasons shown above for the decision to resist, with the acceptance of the appeals of their deputies, the decision to resist. taking into account the attribution of the substance HUMK.nun 429. according to Article 440/I of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1086,there is no place for a procedural violation in accordance with the article, an appeal fee to be returned to the depositor upon request, other appeals on the merits of the work based on the reason for the violation are not subject to consideration at this stage. in accordance with the article, a unanimous decision was made on 02.04.2014, with the possibility of correcting the decision within 15 days from the notification of the decision in accordance with it, on the day of 02.04.2014.