T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
PRINCIPAL NO: 2014/12-1129
DECISION NO: 2016/603

DECISION

THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Court: Istanbul 16. Enforcement Law Court
Date: 27/02/2014
Number: 2014/30 – 2014/256
Plaintiff-debtor: D.O. Domestic and Foreign Trade Ltd. Ltd. deputy Av. E.He.
Defendant-creditor: O.P. Curtain Industries A.P. deputy Av. M.I.

At the end of the trial due to the “complaint” between the parties; Istanbul 16. Examination of Decision No: 2013/151, 2013/142, dated 07.02.2013, given by the court of execution law on the acceptance of the complaint, on request by the defendant-creditor deputy, the Court of Cassation 12. 16.09.2013 Days Of Law Office and 2013/18715 E., 2013/28613 K. by decree;

(…Against the follow-up initiated by the creditor on the basis of the cheque by means of lien for foreign exchange bonds, the debtor applied to the execution court with the request for cancellation of the payment order by claiming that the original of the cheque on the basis of follow-up was not in the execution vault, the court decided to cancel the payment order with

IIK’s 167/2.in accordance with the article, the creditor is obliged to add to the follow-up request the original of the bill of exchange and the certified copy as much as the debtor.

In the concrete case, it is understood that the creditor started to follow up on the foreign exchange bonds based on the check, added the original of the check to the follow-up request, but after the original of the check was seen by the Executive Directorate, the execution vault was insufficient so the bet was handed over to the creditor’s

The Creditor Is 167/2 Of The ICJ. in accordance with the article, the follow-up basis has fulfilled its obligation by adding the original check to the follow-up request and submitting it to the executive director. In this case, since the original cheque subject to follow-up has been added to the follow-up request as of the date of follow-up, it is inconceivable that the court should decide whether to dismiss the complaint and establish a written judgment.)

at the end of the re-trial, the court resisted the previous decision by overturning the case on the grounds that it was rejected.

Appellant: defendant-acting creditor

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW

The law was examined by the General Assembly after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read.:

In accordance with the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, the necessary reasons described in the dissolution decision, while the decision to disrupt the special office adopted by the General Assembly of law should be obeyed, resistance to the previous decision is against the procedure and the law.

Therefore, the decision to resist must be broken.

S o n u Ç : it was unanimously decided on 11.05.2016 that, with the acceptance of the appeal objections of the defendant-creditor’s deputy, the decision to resist was overturned due to the reasons shown in the decree of the annulment of the special office, and that, upon request, the advance fee of the appeal should be returned to the Depositor.