THE EXECUTIVE COURT'S DECISION STIPULATES THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR RIGHT OF INTEREST MUST EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT - 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
19609
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-19609,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
 

THE EXECUTIVE COURT’S DECISION STIPULATES THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR RIGHT OF INTEREST MUST EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT

THE EXECUTIVE COURT’S DECISION STIPULATES THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR RIGHT OF INTEREST MUST EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT

T.C. SUPREME COURT

8.law office
Base : 2014/21867
Decision: 2016/10043
Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

FORTIFICATION CASE – WHERE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR RIGHT CARRIED OUT BY THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COURT IS REQUIRED TO EXCEED THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION

ABSTRACT: In order to conduct an appeal review in ration cases and subsequent taliki deciencies related to ration cases, which are considered among the decisions that can be appealed in the IIK, according to the special regulation contained in the last sentence of the same paragraph, the value of the property or right that the executive court decision is based on must exceed the specified amount. In the concrete case, the value of the appealed damages is less than the amount in question. It has been decided that the provision will be upheld.

(2004 P. K. m. 363, 365, 366)

Case and Decision: After the appellant requested the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the Court decision written above, the date and number of the case file was sent to the Department from the scene and the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined after the job was discussed and considered as necessary:

101 of the Law No. 4949 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 in terms of both non-foreclosure and ration claims of the parties. amended by article 363. according to the provision of the article; In order for decisions to be made by the executive courts after 30.07.2003, when the Law enters into force, to be appealed, the value of the case to be appealed must exceed 2,000.00 TL.

Article 102 of the Law No. 4949 on HRST. appendix 1, October 2012. in accordance with Article 298 of the Tax Procedure Code No. 213, this monetary limit is a duplicate of the monetary limits applied in the previous year, effective from the beginning of each calendar year. according to the article, it is applied by increasing the re-evaluation rate determined and announced by the Ministry of Finance every year. Portions of the limits set in this way that do not exceed Ten million TL (10.00 TL) are not taken into account.

Accordingly, when the calculation is made, the subject of the appeal must be over TL 5,440.00 in order to appeal the decisions to be made by the executive courts in 2014.

363/1 of the IIK. paragraph (7) ration decisions that can be appealed under considered to be among cases and legal actions to follow up on the decisions made in the appellate review Talik in the last sentence of the same paragraph before it can be given according to the special arrangement of enforcement of the decision of the court of the value of the goods or the right taalluk it is imperative that you go through this amount.

In the concrete case, the value of the victims subject to appeal is less than 5.440,00 TL.

In this case, the appeal petition must be rejected, since the provision is final.

Conclusion: October 1, 363, 365/3 of the IIK for the above reasons. in accordance with articles 366/3 of the IIK by the parties to the rejection of the appeal petition. in accordance with article 25.20, which is received in advance upon request, that a request for correction of the decision may be made against the decision within 10 days from the notification of the Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation. the restitution of the appeal fee to the appellants separately was decided unanimously on 08.06.2016.

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran