The Court Did Not Hear The Appeal Of The Authority- in Phases, There Was No Objection To The Authority Duly Made In The Case-The Rejection Of The Authority Appeal Must Be Decided By The 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
18821
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-18821,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,no_animation_on_touch,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

The Court Did Not Hear The Appeal Of The Authority- in Phases, There Was No Objection To The Authority Duly Made In The Case-The Rejection Of The Authority Appeal Must Be Decided By The Court

26 Jul The Court Did Not Hear The Appeal Of The Authority- in Phases, There Was No Objection To The Authority Duly Made In The Case-The Rejection Of The Authority Appeal Must Be Decided By The Court

Posted at 19:30h in General by
0 Likes

Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey

19.Legal Department
Mainly: 2016/2068
Decision: 2016/10869
Decision Date: 16.06.2016

CASE FOR CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – THE COURT DOES NOT HEAR THE APPEAL OF THE AUTHORITY – THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORITY DULY MADE IN THE CASE IN SAFAHAT – THE NEED TO DECIDE THE REJECTION OF THE APPEAL OF THE AUTHORITY – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

Summary: The Court decides to reject the appeal of the authority due to the fact that it is not hearable (HMK. m. 19 / f.II). In Safahat, the case was duly decided to reject the authority appeal, since there was no objection to the authority made during the period, while the decision to decide the court’s incompetence required the provision to be broken.

(2004 p. K. m. 67) (6100 P. K. m. 19)

Case and decision: at the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was reviewed and considered by the plaintiff’s attorney during the period of the decision made for the lack of authority of the court due to the reasons written in the decommissioning.

Attorney of the plaintiff claimed that a sales contract was made between the client company and the defendant regarding the purchase and sale of iron, that the cost of the iron was paid as an advance, but the iron was not delivered by the defendant, and that the defendant objected to the unannounced pursuit initiated for the collection of the Iron costs given as an advance, and demanded and sued to decide on the cancellation of the appeal, the continuation of the pursuit and compensation for the decommissioning of 20%.

The defendant’s attorney asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were not true.

It was decided by the court that the competent court was the Fethiye Court of First Instance as the Commercial Court of the competent court, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy.

The petition for the lawsuit was notified to the defendant on October 16.09.2014, the defendant’s attorney requested that the response period be extended by two weeks with the petition dated 30.09.2014 (titled Our first objections) and that additional documents to the petition for the lawsuit were not notified, he appealed the authority, but did not show the competent court. The request was rejected on the grounds that the court was wrong in the comment on the notification document regarding the notification of the petition of the case and did not request an extension of the response time within the period. An appeal against this interim decision was also made in the petition for decertification, but the competent court was not shown. The court decided to extend the response period by two weeks from the notification with the interim decision dated 22.12.2012. The defendant’s attorney, 12.01.2015 with the petition of the transfer of authority again appealed and this time as the competent court showed the courts of Fethiye.

In cases where the authority is not certain, in order for the appeal of the authority to be heard by the court, in this appeal, it is necessary that the defendant, in his opinion, has shown the competent court, if there are more than one competent court, one of them. Otherwise, the court decides to reject the appeal of authority due to the fact that it cannot be heard (HMK. m. 19 / f.II). In the concrete case described above, in accordance with the safahat, since there is no objection to the authority made during the period, it is necessary to decide on the rejection of the authority appeal, while it is against the procedure and the law to decide on the lack of authority of the court in writing.

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran