Unjust Enrichment-Supreme Court Decision - 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
16425
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16425,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
 

Unjust Enrichment-Supreme Court Decision

23 Mar Unjust Enrichment-Supreme Court Decision

Posted at 01:23h in General by
0 Likes

T. C.
SUPREME COURT
3. LAW OFFICE
E. 2011/12926
K. 2011/18158
T 21.11.2011

ABSTRACT: The compensation payment which is paid wrongly in the petition petition is requested from the defendant party with interest and expenses. It has been explained that the purely erroneous payments that do not rely on any condition saving can be requested by the administration according to the unjust enrichment rules. In this case the court; due to overpayment of the defendant through the expert expert, the amount of the plaintiff is entitled to be investigated and it should be decided according to the result of the report to be taken. Deciding on the rejection of the case without disputing the unjustified acquisition rules of the Law of Obligations, which is not based on any conditions saving, has necessitated the disruption of the case.

CASE: In the application of the lawsuit, TL 3,435,18 is required to collect the incorrectly paid audit compensation with interest and expenses from the defendant party. The court rejected the case and the appeal was appealed by the applicant’s attorney.

After it was understood that the appeal was within the deadline, all the papers in the file were read and considered:

DECISION: the plaintiff attorney lawsuit filed, Turkey Statistical Institute expert and assistant expert cadres contracted working as defendant by money to be shown 20.1.2006-15.2.2009 between Ministers when it is not possible payment of control compensation according to the Board, the paid ones 3435.18 per control compensation requested from the defendant to be determined with the legal interest to be carried out from the date of payment.

The Deputy Respondent; his client requested that his case be groundless after 60 days of filing a lawsuit.

Court; 60 days to open the case after the lawsuit has been filed after the decision to refuse the case, the judge has appealed the verdict.

As a rule, in accordance with Article 62 of the CC, the non-payer may, with his consent, claim back what he has paid if he proves to be in error. This article is also related to the error mentioned in this article, which is a mistake to show that there is no desire and will to forgive. In other words, the plaintiff means that if the administration did not fail, the defendant would not be present.

HGK’s date 5.12.1984. With the decision 1982 / 13-387 E – 1984/997 K., it has been explained that the purely erroneous payments, which do not rely on any conditions, can be requested by the administration according to the unjust enrichment rules. In this case the court; due to overpayment of the defendant through the expert expert, the amount of the plaintiff is entitled to be investigated and it should be decided according to the result of the report to be taken.

The decision to refuse the case on the grounds of a written claim without disputing the unjustified acquisition of the Law of Obligations on the basis of a mere erroneous payment, which does not rely on any conditions.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the provisions of the above-mentioned provisions in writing in writing, unrequited, the appeal of the objections of appeal for these reasons because it is in accordance with the provision of the provision in accordance with Article 428 of H.U.M.K.

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran