LAW NO. 5464
LAW ON DEBIT CARDS AND CREDIT CARDS
Unfair use and insuring of the card
Article 12-if the card or the information mentioned in Article 16 is lost or stolen, the card holder is liable for damages arising from unlawful use within twenty-four hours prior to the notification to be made, limited to one hundred thousand new Turkish Lira. This limit does not apply if the unlawful use is based on the gross negligence or intent of the bearer or if the notification is not made.
The card issuer is obliged to insure the card holder’s liability in the amount of one hundred new Turkish Lira specified in the first paragraph, provided that the claim to be made and the related insurance premium is paid. The principles and procedures for the insurance of the cards and the sharing of responsibility are determined by the regulation to be issued by the institution.

Notification Requirement
Article 16 – the deposit of an instrument to be used the card holder the card and the card code number, a password or ID requires the use of another method of determining this information if securely protect and to take measures to prevent the use by others of the card loss, theft or in case of any learning process that occurred outside of the Will, must notify the card issuer immediately.
The card holder is obliged to notify the card issuer within fifteen days of the date of the change.

T.C.
SUPREME
19. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/15753
DECISION NO: 2018/813
DECISION DATE: 21.2.2018

> IF THE DEBIT CARD IS STOLEN OR TAKEN BY FORCE AND THE CARDHOLDER INFORMS THE BANK OF THIS SITUATION WITHIN 24 HOURS, THE CARD HOLDER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLY 150 TL OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN UNJUSTLY.

> THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE ACCOUNT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE CARDHOLDER BY THE BANK, EVEN IF THE CONTRACT SAYS OTHERWISE. DEFECT DISCOUNT CANNOT BE MADE AGAINST THE CARD HOLDER.

At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, the file was examined and considered upon appeal by the defendant’s attorney within the period of the sentence given for the acceptance of the case due to reasons written in the decree.

DECISION

The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the credit card of the plaintiff from the defendant’s bank was taken by force by non-litigants, that the password of the card was learned from the plaintiff by threatening him with a gun, that cash withdrawal was made from the defendant’s bank on the same day, that the cash withdrawal was collected from the plaintiff despite notification to the defendant’s bank, that the plaintiff

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff was responsible for the protection of the credit card and password, that the defendant had not been notified to the bank, and that no fault could be imposed on the defendant.

By the court, the plaintiff has been extorted and notified to the bank within 24 hours of the wrongful action, by law No. 5464 No. 12. according to the article, it was decided to accept the case and collect the payments from the defendant with interest on the grounds that the amount collected from the plaintiff due to the use of the card other than 150 TL for the cash withdrawal due to the unlawful use of the card and the cash withdrawal process is against the law,

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 21/02/2018 that the articles in the file were based on the evidence and the necessary reasons, that there was no fault in the discretion of the evidence, that the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law should be upheld with the rejection of all appeals not seen in the case of the defendant’s attorney, and that the

T.C.
SUPREME
19. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2015/18393
DECISION NO: 2016/8120
DECISION DATE: 3.5.2016

At the end of the trial of the case against the parties, the file was examined and the need was discussed and considered upon appeal by the defendant’s attorney within the period of the sentence given for the partial acceptance of the case due to reasons written in the decree.

DECISION

Attorney of the plaintiff, the credit card and salary card belonging to his client on 26.09.2010 at 18.00 – The defendant had been stolen from his car between the hours of 20.30, and was immediately notified to the defendant bank by telephone, although TL 3,080-TL from his pay card and TL 1,900-TL from his credit card were withdrawn in cash against the client’s consent, whereas the ATM withdrawal limit was 800-TL daily, and the defendant bank did not give a warning about the cash withdrawal stating that the card holder is responsible for damages arising from unlawful use occurring within 24 hours prior to the notification to be made in accordance with the article 150-TL, his client is not indebted and unfairly charged 4.980-TL’ s legal interest as of the date of payment requested and sued.

The defendant’s attorney is responsible for the 8th amendment of the credit card agreement between the parties. according to Article 10, if the card is stolen, the card holder must be notified to the bank immediately and the card holder will be responsible for the expenses until the card holder is notified. according to the article, the obligation to protect the password and the card belongs to the plaintiff, expenses were made before the notification of the plaintiff, the client can not have a responsibility, wrongful earnings should be directed to the persons, the card holder will be responsible if the notification is made late, the statement that the basis, the case was rejected.

As a result of the trial made by the court, plaintiff’s statement as a result of theft of stolen credit and debit card on 26.09.2010 27.09.2010 made, therefore, within 24 hours from debit cards and credit cards the law of transactions of the plaintiff’ s 12.it is the responsibility of the TL to be limited to under 150 md, the job of operations from the date of notification of the bank the defendant is responsible under the contract between the parties for reasons of partial acceptance of the case, with account taken from the plaintiff’s using the cards loaded into the 4.980 TL from, it was decided that the balance of TL 4,830 with the deductible of TL 150-which is the amount he is responsible for, should be paid to the plaintiff by collecting from the defendant together with the legal interest to be operated from the date of the case, and the sentence was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

Conclusion: it was unanimously decided on 03/05/2016 to reject all appeals of the defendant’s attorney that were not seen in the case and to uphold the provision that was in accordance with the law and procedure, according to the articles in the file, the evidence based on the decision and the necessary reasons, and the fact that there was no fault in the

T.C.
SUPREME
13. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO. 2013/32840
DECISION NO. 2014/18798
DECISION DATE. 12.6.2014

5464 / m.12,15,16,19

Case: at the end of the trial of the claim case between the parties, the case was dismissed for reasons written in the decree and within the period of the decision given by the plaintiff and the defendant’s lawyer on appeal, the file was reviewed and considered as a matter of fact.:

DECISION

The plaintiff said that the credit card he received from the defendant’s bank was stolen while traveling in the van on 14.03.2005, and then reported the situation to the defendant’s bank in writing at 14.43.the defendant operated by M.4.000-TL purchases were made from Kuruymiş, the defendant informed that the bank could not meet this amount due to the fact that it had been made before the notification, the defendant bank claimed only 750-TL liability, and had to pay 3,275-TL to the defendant bank even though it had no fault in the theft and use of the credit card, the other defendant s.claiming that the defendants had joint and joint responsibility and that the defendants had been tried in the Criminal Court and were punished for fraud because of this action, he requested that a total of TL 3,420,30-TL and TL 5,000-TL of non-pecuniary compensation be collected jointly and severally from the defendants.

The Defendant Bank stated that the exchange in the case took place at 14.39 am, 4 minutes before the plaintiff’s notification, on the 19th day of the contract. he rejected the case, arguing that they had no responsibility for the expenses before the notification reached the bank.

Defendant M. they rejected the lawsuit, arguing that it was a routine transaction, that they had no defects, that the plaintiff was responsible for not carefully storing the credit card.

The court decided to reject the case against the defendant bank,with the partial acceptance of the case against the other defendants, to take TL 1,645, 30-TL jointly and severally with the rediscount interest from the defendants as of the date of the case and to give it to the plaintiff, and to reject the claim for excess claims and moral damages; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff and

1 -) due to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons required in accordance with the law, and especially the absence of a fault in the discretion of the lunatics, all other appeals of the defendants, other appeals of the plaintiff outside the scope of the following paragraph should be rejected.

2 -) the plaintiff claimed that the credit card was not responsible for the expenses due to the use of the credit card by third parties in violation of the law; the defendants argued that the bank was not responsible for the expenses made before the notification of the theft and that the plaintiff should be responsible for the expenses made. The Akbank Axess credit card of which the plaintiff is the patron was stolen on 14.03.2005, the defendant reported it stolen to the defendant bank at 14.43 hours, and the transaction of 4,000-TL in the case was made at 14.39 hours.

In order to resolve the dispute between the parties, the provisions of the “law on debit cards and Credit Cards”No. 5464 must be examined.

15, titled “obligations of card holders”” in the article, ” the responsibility arising from the use of the card belongs to the card holder from the moment the contract is signed and the card passes to his possession or the card number which does not have physical assets is learned.”

Entitled” notification obligation”, 16. the article says, “the deposit of an instrument to be used the card holder the card and the card code number, a password or ID requires the use of another method of determining this information if securely protect and to take measures to prevent the use by others of the card loss, theft or in case of any learning process that occurred outside of the Will, must notify the card issuer immediately.”

12, titled” unfair use and insuring of the card”. in the article,” if the card or the information mentioned in Article 16 is lost or stolen, the card holder is liable for damages arising from unlawful use within twenty-four hours prior to the notification to be made, limited to one hundred thousand new Turkish Lira. This limit does not apply if the unlawful use is based on the gross negligence or intent of the bearer or if the notification is not made.”there are provisions.
Again, the credit card agreement between the parties, 19. in the article, ” if the credit card is lost, stolen or corrupted so as not to be used, the member or the additional card holder is obliged to notify the bank immediately by telephone and then confirm it in writing. This notice credit card, password or credit card number to the card holder using the additional members belongs all liability arising from transactions, and the receipt of the notification from the bank to the bank required to be deactivated for domestic and overseas use the credit card with your credit card after a reasonable period of 3. the member and the additional card holder cannot be held responsible for the transactions to be performed by the individuals.”the arrangement is available.

As can be seen, the credit card holder is obliged to protect and retain the credit card deposited with him in accordance with the mentioned law from the moment he signs a contract with the bank and the card becomes his possession, as well as the information related to the use of this card. However, in accordance with the law No. 5464, if the credit card or this information is lost or stolen, unless there is gross negligence or intent, the bank is liable for damages arising from unlawful use occurring within twenty-four hours prior to the notification to be limited to one Hundredelli Yeni Turkish Lira. In this case act 12. the substance must be evaluated according to the property of each concrete event. In the concrete case, it is understood that the plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to notify the defendant bank, that the 4.000-TL purchase made 4 minutes before the notification was made by signing the slip and that the signature on the slip did not belong to the plaintiff was determined by the expert report.

It cannot be said that this unlawful expenditure was based on the plaintiff’s gross negligence and intent. Because the plaintiff had his card stolen while travelling in the van, there is no claim or evidence in the file that he had a negligence that would facilitate the theft of the card. According to the usual course of life, it is not possible for the plaintiff to check his credit card by opening his wallet continuously while traveling in the van. Again, making the exchange with the signature on the slip is also the plaintiff’s password, etc. indicates that it is also securely protecting its information. In this case, the plaintiff’s Act No. 5464 was amended to act 12. in accordance with the article, The Bank must accept that it is liable for damages arising from this unlawful use which occurred within twenty-four hours prior to the notification, limited to one hundred thousand new Turkish Lira. ½ Fault deduction cannot be made against the plaintiff in respect of the other defendants on the grounds described.
The court’s decision to dismiss the case in writing from the point of view of the bank on the grounds that the plaintiff’s password was reached in a short time, that the password was not chosen or kept securely, that the plaintiff did not check whether his card was in his wallet, that it was possible to steal the card through carelessness, and that it was

Result: above 1.all of the defendants for the reasons described in the paragraph, to the rejection of the plaintiff’s other appellate appeals, 2.it was decided unanimously on 12.06.2014, in accordance with Article 440/III-2 of Humk, that the provision would be impaired for the benefit of the plaintiff due to the reasons described in the paragraph.