15 Jan THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXPROPRIATION PRICE
T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
5.law office
Main: 2016/3179
Decision: 2016/11873
Date of Decision: 14.06.2016
THE CASE OF DETERMINATION OF THE EXPROPRIATION PRICE – THE EXPROPRIATION PRICE DETERMINED AFTER THE CANCELLATION IS THE SAME AS THE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE FIRST DECISION – THE ENTIRE EXPROPRIATION PRICE IS PAID TO THE DEFENDANT – THE LEGAL INTEREST ON THE PRICE MUST BE OPERATED
Summary: after the break detected with the cost of expropriation under terms of the initial decision, the price is the same and the cost are paid by the defendant with the first decision of expropriation since 19.12.2011 detected on the compensation date 15.06.2012 legal interest from the date of the first decision should be operated until the day is not the person, is isabetsiz.
(2942 P. K. m. 10)
Case and Decision10 of the Expropriation Law No. 2942, amended by the Law No. 4650 between the Parties. the item-based compensation of expropriated immovable determination and made the case due to the plaintiff on behalf of the administration at the end of the trial registration: the case for the acceptance of the verdict to the Supreme Court and the numbers given above as day written examination, the plaintiff’s attorney the defendant with the petition requested by the administrative direction has been given in the file showed that after review documents the need and the dispute was discussed.
In accordance with the decision to overturn complied with by the court, the judgment was established by conducting an examination and processing; the decision was appealed by the parties.
Although the court’s decision to overturn has been complied with, the requirements for overturning have not been fully met. That is to say;
1)move the case warrant the reversal of the previously only observed under clause No. 1 the easement premises that have been passed in favour of the General Directorate of the impairment by considering that the move will bring the price should be reflected in the report should be based on the provision of additional dated 25.06.2014 considering that, without more price determination in writing with justification out of place,
2) Establishment of a provision in such a way as to create hesitation in the execution of the cancellation of the title deed registration of the 667.80 m2 part of the real estate seized under kain 112/23 parcel number in the district of Kurtuluş, Kose district, Gümüşhane province, the subject of the lawsuit,
3)the cost of expropriation under terms after the break detected with the initial decision, the price is the same and the cost are paid by the defendant with the first decision of expropriation since 19.12.2011 detected on the compensation date 15.06.2012 legal interest from the date of the first decision should be operated until the day, not the person,
Although it is not true; since the elimination of these misconceptions does not require a retrial,
The provisions of the first paragraph of the reasoned decision;
a) instead of the number (7.164,52-TL) in subparagraph No. 3, the number (6.212,52-TL) should be written,
b) As a separate bent (If the amount of 950.00-TL invested in excess has been paid to the defendant, it will be collected from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff administration, if it has not been paid, the plaintiff will be returned to the administration) to add the sentence,
c)clause No. 1 with all removed instead (with the acceptance of the case, …………… 112/23 parcel No. 23b, as shown in red in the schematic science and the expert report dated immovable 14/03/2012 M2 667,80 record with the cancellation of the deed, the deed to the plaintiff on behalf of the administration, registration, 14/03/2012-dated decision of the expert report to be counted science and the plans of the sentence to be written Oct,
d) As a separate clause (Applying legal interest to the determined price for the period from 19.12.2011 to 15.06.2012, the date of the first decision) to add the sentence,
It was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 to CORRECT and APPROVE the provision thus, to refund the appeal fees received in advance when requested, and to register the appeal fees in the Treasury at will. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program
No Comments