IN THE DECISIONS GIVEN BY THE COURTS OF JUSTICE
THE REQUIREMENT OF APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE FOLLOW-UP
NOT FOUND – FOLLOW UP WITHOUT FINALIZATION
DECISIONS THAT CANNOT BE INITIATED
Summary: In the concrete case, the judgment that has been put into execution is that it will be taken, and the above
since it is not among the specified ones, it must be Decertified in order to be followed up
you do not need. For these reasons, the complaint should be rejected, while the acceptance of the above-mentioned grounds
it’s a no-hit.
T.C.
Supreme
8. law office
E: 2013/8237 K: 2013/13579 K.T.: 26.09.2013
CASE: Within the period of the Court decision with the date and number written above, upon the request of the appellant, the appellant’s audit was sent to the Department from the scene of the file related to this work, and after hearing the report prepared by the Audit Judge for the case file, and after reading and reviewing all the documents in the file, the need for the work was discussed:
DECISION: The debtor’s attorney, by the creditor’s attorney, against the proxy Mardin 2. The Court of First Instance initiated enforcement proceedings based on the receivable decision numbered 2012/289 and the Decision numbered 2012/755, the creditor is 58 of the law numbered 6352. article 28 of the law No. 2577 as amended. 2 of the article. according to the paragraph, the proxy request and the payment of the receivables by making a written application to the administration that the 30-day statutory initiate enforcement proceedings in case of non-payment after a waiting period while you should underlying legal obligation is met before this is started, and due to being put into execution without the ref’s commentary kesinlesme tracking is asked to decide on the cancellation. After the court accepted the request and decided to cancel the execution order, the judgment was appealed by the creditor’s attorney.
Request, 41 of the IIK. 16 of the IIK by sending the article. it is related to the complaint based on the article.
58 of the law No. 6352. article 28/2 of the Administrative Trial Procedure Law No. 2577 as amended. the article, “ … the subject of a certain amount to be paid with the amount of awarded cases that require dominated in any case, attorneys ‘ fees and litigation costs, the administration will report in writing to the defendant or the plaintiff’s attorney a bank account number, from the date of this notification, 1. it is deposited within the framework of the procedures and principles specified in the paragraph. In case of non-paying within the periods specified in the first paragraph, execution and execution shall be carried out in the general provisions department …”. However, 1 of the Law No. 2577. pursuant to Article 28/2 of the Law, the resolution of disputes falling under the jurisdiction of the Council of State, Regional Administrative Courts, Administrative Courts and Tax Courts is subject to the procedures set out in this Law. the said amendment to the article is not possible to be applied in the execution of judgments issued by courts of judicial jurisdiction.
In addition, the provisional 3 of HMK No. 6100. 443/1 of HUMK, which should be applied by sending the article (H.M.K. 367/1 m.) in accordance with the article, the appeal does not stop the execution of the decision. In other words, as a rule, the fact that the decision has not been finalized does not prevent the fulfillment of the decision. Exceptions to this rule are also regulated in the laws.
Decisions on immovability and real rights related to it, family and personal law (HUMK 443/4 m.). The sections of the criminal verdicts related to the conviction related to compensation and trial expenses, (4 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures. article) Rent determination decisions (Decision on Merging Case Law No. 1979/1-3 dated 12.11.1979), Decisions on negative determination case (IIK 72. article) Decisions on the enforcement of foreign Court decisions (MÖHUK 41/2), Decisions of the Court of Accounts (Court of Accounts Law No. 832 64. article), the lien or liens against the administration in cases related decisions with applications (No. 2577 of iyuk 28/1), on the determination of ownership because they are drawn, while the warrant for the adoption of legal actions cannot be executed.
In the concrete case, the Decriminalization that is put into execution is related to the receipt and does not need to be finalized in order to be put into execution, since it is not included among the ones mentioned above. For these reasons, the complaint should be rejected, while its acceptance on the aforementioned grounds is inappropriate.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the creditor’s representative’s appeal objection, the Court’s decision was based on the 366 of the IIK for the reason described above. and HUMK’s 428. in accordance with Article 388/4 of the HUMK by the parties to its deterioration. (HMK m.297/ç) and 366/3 of the IIK. in accordance with the articles of the Court of Cassation, it was unanimously decided on 26.09.2013 that a request for correction of the decision can be made against the announcement within 10 days from the notification of the Chamber’s decision
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.