THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE SHORT DECISION AND THE REASONED DECISION
\nHAVING CAUSE OF ABSOLUTE DISTORTING-ELIMINATE JUDGE’S CONTRADICTION
\nCONSCIENTIOUS, REGARDLESS OF PREVIOUS BRIEF DECISION WHEN REMOVING
\n– USULI VESTED RIGHT TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION
\nVIOLATION OF THE RULE
\nSummary: due to the rules of Procedure, the judge has withdrawn his hand from the work after finishing the trial and making his brief decision
\nit happens, and unless the decision is overturned by the Supreme Court, the judge cannot see the case through reconsideration. However, it is only US
\nthis short decision does not give rise to procedural rights for the benefit of any party. You are entitled to usuli vested rights
\neven the Supreme Court could not have touched this decision if it had been born. Local courts of procedural rights
\nit binds the Supreme Court as it binds it. Procedural right to decisions but to appeal to the parties
\nthey can be born with their application. For all these reasons, it is absolute that the short decision and the reasoned decision are contradictory.
\nthe reason for the annulment is and after the annulment to remove the contradiction without being bound by the judge’s previous brief decision
\nhe can decide according to his conscience.
\n(1086 P. K. m. 382, 388) (2004 p. K. m. 18, 97, 363)
\nCase: Supreme Court 10. Cahit Kad\u0131lar, a member of the legal department, reasoned that the brief was written contrary to the decision
\n10 on whether the decision should be overturned just because of this contradiction without going into effect.
\nState that there are discrepancies between the legal department and the other departments and the decisions of the General Assembly of law
\nby continuing, he requested that this discrepancy be resolved by merging the case law; by the first Presidential Committee
\n17.10.1991 day and 51 number of decisions between the conclusion that there is a discrepancy between the subject matter
\nIt was decided to be discussed at the Grand General Assembly to merge case law.
\nRapporteur member of the Grand General Assembly for the unification of case law convened on April 10, 1992
\ntheir explanations were listened to and discussed.:
\nDecision: first, whether there is a discrepancy between the decisions has been focused on the ezirende.
\nIn accordance with the decision of the General Assembly of law no. 776\/74 and day 1.2.1969
\nthe decision should be; it is stated to be related to public order, the reasoned decision to the short decision
\nit’s broken because it’s not suitable.
\nLaw General Assembly’s decision no. 847\/464 and 30.9.1970: subject to execution and Bankruptcy Law
\n18, 97 and 363. in accordance with its articles, it is considered and examined in terms of the simple procedure of trial.
\nan example is that the first decision passed is valid and the decision put in the file later is valid.
\nthe legal effect if this decision contradicts the original decision.
\nthe party concerned shall have the right to correct the inaccuracies in this example of a decision which does not have legal value.
\nit is stated that he can always ask.
\nResolution 10.2.1988 day, 520\/89 of the General Assembly of law: the procedure based on this decision is as follows:
\nrealized: the Local Court decided on the “acceptance of the case” in the short decision it passed in the last session of 27.12.1984, and rejected the case in the reasoned decision. Appeal
\non 2. Reasoned after the Legal Department referred to the short decision as contradictory to the reasoned decision
\ndecision on the grounds that it is necessary to arrange the decision in accordance with the brief decision
\noverturned; the local court complied with the overturning, but this time decided to dismiss the case in a short ruling
\nthe reasoned decision has been made in the form of a dismissal of the case in accordance with this. Appeal
\non 2. Quashing of the legal department on the regulation of reasoned decision in accordance with the acceptance of the case
\non the grounds that it is against procedure and law to decide to dismiss the case even though the decision has been complied with
\nhe overturned the decision again. The local court said the previous short decision was based on substantive error; this was substantive
\nafter the short decision he made after the break that he complied with the break in order to correct the error, then
\nhe resisted the decision on the grounds that the written reasoned decision was in the same direction. Law General
\nThe board, in compliance with the corruption, conducted research and examination in the manner described in the decision to disrupt, and
\nprocedural for the benefit of the parties regarding the decision to be made in accordance with the legal principles adopted in the dissolution
\nhaving explained that the right won will be born, but in case of material error, this rule will not be applied.
\nthen the decision to resist with this respect will not be born of usuli earned rights as a feature of the event
\nhe stated that it could be given; after the annulment, a new brief decision by the court different from the previous one
\nafter it was created, a new brief decision was made by the court that was different from the previous one.
\nit also found the formation of appropriate reasoned decisions in accordance with procedure and law.
\n11.2.1988 days, 11944\/1415; 24.2.1964 days, 952\/1008; 2. Law
\n12.12.1990 day, 7840\/12913 resolutions of the Office of the General Assembly of Law described above
\nIt is in line with the judgment of day 1.2.1969.
\nThird Legal Department 27.9.1973 day and 4007\/4016 decision of the General Assembly of law
\n1.2.1969 adopted the basis of the decision, but also the work to be done by the court
\nthe reasoned decision shall be prepared in accordance with the short decision written in the minutes of the hearing.
\nhe addressed the need to be notified.
\nThe decision of the fourth Law Department dated 28.4.1986 and numbered 3054\/3674 was the reasoned decision of tephim
\nthe fact that it was not written in accordance with the short decision was considered the reason for the disruption and the following is the same:
\nadded: “the work to be done by the court shall be written in accordance with and in accordance with the brief decision of the court.
\nif the reasoned decision is communicated to the parties and the law is applied against this decision, the file shall be submitted to the other parties.
\nit consists of sending appeals to the Supreme Court for review, along with appeals”. 4. Department Of Law
\nThe resolution of 24.12.1987 and No. 7427\/9508 is in the same direction.
\nThe sixth Law Department’s decision No. 7638\/149 and day 12.1.1962 “the court’s final judgment
\nthe decision he made against the faces of the parties at his hearing and the reasoned decision he wrote afterwards are interrelated
\nmatch is in. However, the reasoned decision shall be written in accordance with the short decision”
\nthe decision to break it has been made.
\nResolution No. 1732\/2863 of the seventh Law Office 23.2.1976 day 1.2.1969 of the General Assembly of law
\nit is in the direction of the day-to-day decision.<\/p>\n
MAIN ASPECT
\nThe annulment order issued by the Court of Cassation due to the short decision given by the court of Cassation, for the reasoned decision,
\nit is clear that it was a decision that overturned it. The reason and reason for the annulment is contrary to the brief decision
\nit is. The basis of the corruption is that everything else (including the reasons for appeal) except and above tefhim is short
\nthe decision and the facts contained therein and judicial determinations. The reasoned decision is contrary to these
\nis corrupted. Case law expressed by the honorable first president of the Assembly of the Great General Assembly
\nthis is the point he accepted unanimously, as it was. A resolution of the General Assembly of the law on this matter
\nboth decisions of the Supreme Court overturning on the basis of (not taken into account in Tawhid-i Case Law negotiations)
\nalthough a certain conclusion has been requested to be reached by asserting that it is covered by DA (reasoned decision and short decision),
\nthere was no discussion on the issue, even in the report of the rapporteur member, these issues were not addressed. Then
\nthe annulment is about the writing of a reasoned decision in accordance with the brief decision, and both decisions
\nit does not involve the removal of the contradiction between. Unanimous acceptance by the Grand General Assembly
\nthis is the decision to combine the reported case law. However, if the court wishes to change
\na brief decision may be made and referred to the parties (in order to make it appropriate to the reasoned decision), and
\nan opinion that agrees that the court of Cassation may dispose of the underlying legal cause,
\nwith the principles of appellate review and dissolution in our procedural law, nor with the principle of procedural acquired rights
\nit is possible to reconcile.
\nUnification of case law opinion accepted at the end of negotiations, contrary to the decision
\nthe reasoned decision is overturned on the basis of the appeal review only because of this discrepancy
\nit’s about what it needs. During the negotiations and until the intervention of the first president
\nNo opinion has been put forward that the Supreme Court overturned both decisions, and
\nhe must have argued. The basis of this opinion, adopted by the Grand General Assembly, is public order and with it
\nit is the protection of the principle of Rights, which is duly gained by moaning.
\nIndeed, the decision that was written and communicated, as it was persistently emphasized in many decisions of the Supreme Court
\nearlier in the trial there had been a mistrial found to be ineligible with the verdict, HUMK. 382. in the article
\nthe statement found is publicly contrary to the principle of tefhim, as well as arising from the application of this principle
\nthe confidence that needs to be heard in the courts also has jarring consequences. Such a court decision
\nThat’s why the Supreme Court is broken. When this is the reason for the annulment, the decision that needs to be changed has been changed.
\nit should be concluded that it should be the reasoned decision, not the decision, written in contravention of it. Because,
\nThe Supreme Court did not make a quashing as two conflicting decisions were made as a result of a case; one (reasoned
\nthe decision) was contrary to the other (the short decision which was promised) because it made a distortions. The need to disrupt the law and
\nlogically, the short decision is fulfilled by writing the appropriate decision. Court, brief decision, reasoned decision
\nrecognition of the option of making it suitable is incompatible with the logic of corrupting and the basis of corrupting
\nwhat is publicly contradicts the principles of tefhim and public order. General basis of Supreme Court overturning,
\nHUMK.nun 382. it is by the principle of “publicly tefhim” contained in the article. Opposition to that principle, HUMK.nun 428. as stated in the last paragraph of the article of the court
\nthe fact that he has made a mistake in the duty assigned to him by the law of the procedure of trial and that he has made a mistake in the result of this error.
\nit was realized with the nature of changing the provision. Well, then, that’s the breakdown, basically, HUMK.nun
\n430. it requires the application of the rule mentioned in the article. In this case, the short decision
\nthe reasoned decision, which is contrary, is invalid due to the annulment. Invalidity, brief verdict in open hearing
\nregarding the transactions after tefhim and the previous transactions and therefore the decision of tefhim
\nit does not cover. The reasoned decision which is invalid by law, the short decision amended and made appropriate to it
\nthe concept of “corrupting” is incompatible with its results and requirements.
\nOn the other hand, the reasoned decision, which was overturned because it was not in accordance with the brief decision, is not
\nhowever, giving the possibility of validity is also contrary to the principle of procedural rights. At this stage, a
\nit is worth repeating the point. The overturned decision is the reasoned decision. Reason for corruption, tephimilen
\nit’s a violation of the brief. Then the short decision remains valid. The decision to break it Shamil
\nis not. On the contrary, it is the basis of disruption. Then the reasoned decision is overturned by an appeal
\nsome rights gained by the party in respect of matters prescribed or adjudicated by a short decision
\nhas. These rights have been confirmed by obeying the injunction and thus have been duly gained
\nrights must be protected. His case was accepted in the short decision but rejected in the reasoned decision
\nthe plaintiff has decided in favour of cashing in the reasoned decision (the reason for the annulment is contrary to the brief decision)
\nthe decision to be written and communicated to the parties shall be valid.
\nwe will be providing. This result was obtained by the court of Cassation. At this stage, upon fumbling, and
\nan appropriate reasoned decision (in our case, a rejection decision) which is overturned by the court even though the annulment has been complied with
\nto be given the opportunity and the option to make a short decision,
\neliminate will.
\nIt seems that on the one hand, the reasoned decision that does not comply with the brief decision cannot be written,
\nwhile acknowledging that there will be a reason to disrupt, on the other hand, upon a decision to disrupt the village, comply with the Disrupt
\ncase law that the court would be free to write an appropriate short decision if the reasoned decision was overturned
\nas opposed to the general rules of logic and the concept of “corruption”, the rules of procedural law are also used.
\ninconsistent. For all these reasons, the matter of combining the case law in this matter was decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals.
\n45 of the act. within the scope of the decisions taken by the first Presidential Board in accordance with the article
\n“if there is a difference between the informed decision and the reasoned decision, this is the case only.
\nlimited to” whether or not the contrary will be made a cause of impairment without being entered into the basis of the appeal review”
\nwith the decision to be kept and joined in the way of case law “must be broken without entering into the basis”
\nI am against the majority decision with the view that it should be satisfied and for the reasons above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE SHORT DECISION AND THE REASONED DECISION HAVING CAUSE OF ABSOLUTE DISTORTING-ELIMINATE JUDGE’S CONTRADICTION CONSCIENTIOUS, REGARDLESS OF PREVIOUS BRIEF DECISION WHEN REMOVING – USULI VESTED RIGHT TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION VIOLATION OF THE RULE Summary: due to the rules of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,478,480,220,218,479],"yoast_head":"\n