T.C.
SUPREME
20. law office
MAIN NUMBER: 2017/10903
DECISION NO: 2018/95
DECISION DATE: 15.1.2018
CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE, THE MAGISTRATE’S LAW COURT AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS.
Prompt issuance of Certificate of the inheritance in the case that opened magistrates and magistrates ‘ courts of jurisdiction due to the decision to separate the file if it is issued after the expiration of the final decision in the Regional Justice Courts operational for two different regional justice by the courts and jurisdiction the jurisdiction of the court be issued Law No. 5235 36/3 mutual decision. in accordance to the jurisdiction of the duties within the jurisdiction of regional courts, law offices of first instance civil courts to resolve disputes between the authority and duty to help you, because the place of jurisdiction for determination of examined all the documents in the file that is sent, duly noted:
decision
The case is related to the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance.
… By the Civil Court of Peace, murisin … is a citizen of the Federal Republic, his last settlement is not claimed to be Izmir, there is no evidence in this direction, and his real estate included in the estate is located in the province of Mersin, Silifke, a decision of non-jurisdiction was made on the grounds that he is a citizen of the Federal Republic.
… The Civil Court of Peace, on the other hand, made an unauthorized decision on the grounds that there is no strict authorization rule in cases of issuing an inheritance certificate, the parties do not have an objection to authorization, and the court cannot make an unauthorized decision ex officio.
From the scope of the file, it has been understood that the dispute is about the request to issue a certificate of inheritance belonging to the plaintiffs’ muri.
Request for inheritance, provisional 3/2 of HMK No. 6100. article 382 of the HMK. it is counted as one of the uncontested judicial affairs in Article 384. article 11/3 of the CCP, in which the court of residence of the person or one of the interested parties is authorized, unless there is a provision to the contrary in the law, for non-contentious judicial affairs. in the article, it is stated that the court of residence of each of the heirs is also authorized in cases of cancellation of the certificate of inheritance and issuance of a new certificate of inheritance. According to this situation, since there is no definite authorization rule in the cases of granting the inheritance certificate, Izmir 10, which is the first court where the case was opened. It must be seen and concluded in the Magistrate’s Court.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons mentioned above; 21 and 22 of HMK No. 6100. in accordance with the articles Izmir 10. It was unanimously decided on the day of 15/01/2018 to DESIGNATE the Magistrate’s Court AS THE PLACE of JURISDICTION.
T.C.
SUPREME
20. law office
MAIN NUMBER: 2016/5739
DECISION NO: 2016/10025
DECISION DATE: 3.11.2016
In the Decease between the parties…. The Magistrate and … 8. All the documents in the file sent to determine the place of jurisdiction were examined and considered necessary due to the fact that the decision of non-jurisdiction was made separately by the Civil Courts of Peace:
decision
The case is related to the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance.
… By the Magistrate’s Court, murisin and the heirs are of foreign nationality (Greek citizen), murisin …. 6. The Decision of the Civil Court of Peace numbered 2012/347 Esas- 2012/560 and the Sales Officer’s 2013/98 sales file with the aim of obtaining the amount that hit the murisin share from the sale of the immovable property subject to the liquidation of the partnership, where this case was opened….it is located in l, in this case MHUK’s 20. in accordance with the article, a decision of non-authorization was made on the grounds that the courts of Istanbul are authorized to issue a certificate of inheritance.
… 8. The Civil Court of Peace, on the other hand, made an unauthorized decision on the grounds that there is no strict authorization rule in cases of issuing an inheritance certificate, the parties do not have an objection to authorization, and the court cannot make an unauthorized decision ex officio.
From the scope of the file, it has been understood that the dispute is about the request to issue a certificate of inheritance belonging to the plaintiffs’ muri.
Request for inheritance, provisional 3/2 of HMK No. 6100. article 382 of the HMK. it is counted as one of the uncontested judicial affairs in Article 384. article 11/3 of the CCP, in which the court of residence of the person or one of the interested parties is authorized, unless there is a provision to the contrary in the law, for non-contentious judicial affairs. in the article, it is stated that the court of residence of each of the heirs is also authorized in cases of cancellation of the certificate of inheritance and issuance of a new certificate of inheritance. According to this situation, since there is no definite rule of authority in the cases of granting a certificate of inheritance, the first court in which the case was opened …. It must be seen and concluded in the Magistrate’s Court.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons mentioned above; 21 and 22 of HMK No. 6100. according to the articles …. It was unanimously decided on 03/11/2016 to DESIGNATE the Magistrate’s Court AS THE PLACE of JURISDICTION.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.