EN SUPREME COURT 15. Law Firm Basis: 2019/2160 Decision: 2020 / 679 Decision Date: 19.02.2020
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, as explained above, it was decided to reject the petitions of the plaintiff-defendants related to the merger file, as it became clear that a request for correction of the decision made on the appeal of the local court decision was filed for the second time against the decision made on the request for correction of the decision.
(1086 SK Md. 427, 457)
Filed between plaintiffs 1-… 2-… and defendant…, plaintiff… and defendants 1-… 2-… Dec. 2011/443 E. formed by combining the numbered case … 05.12.2013 days and 2011/234 E.- no. 2013, 17. 0624 K of the Office of the Judge of First Instance. No. 23. Law Office’s 07.11.2018 day and 2016/3569 E.-2018/5172 K. it has been understood that the numbered decision was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney of the consolidation case and that the decision was issued during the correction petition. By reading and discussing the documents in the file and examining them:
As a rule, the Decisional correction request should be examined by the Civil Department of the Court of Cassation, which filed the appeal; by the decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Court of Cassation on the division of labor No. 2018/1 dated 09.02.2018, construction for a land share
The task of examining the requests for appeal or decision correction in the files arising from the civil contract and brought to the Court of Cassation with a request for appeal or decision correction after 01.07.2016 is assigned to the Court of Cassation 15. Since it was submitted to the Law Department, the request for correction of the decision was examined by our Department.
Plaintiff-defendant of the combined case, Court of Cassation 23. The Law Department has requested the correction of the annulment decision dated 07.11.2018, numbered 2016/3569 Esas, 2018/5172 Dec. As a result of the examination of the petition and the case file, it was decided to accept the main case, to reject the combined case as a result of the trial in the main and combined case, upon the appeal of the defendant-plaintiff and the intervening attorney of the combined file, the Court of Cassation 23. Law Department, 09.12.2015 day, 2014/8458 Esas, with the decision numbered 2015/7972, it was decided to correct and approve the provision.
it was decided to break it. In the decision, it is stated that the way of correction is open within 15 days from the notification. As of 05.12.2013, when the local court made the decision on the subject of appeal, the District Courts of Justice did not take action, 427 and 457 of the HUMK numbered 1086. it has been accepted that the provisions related to the legal remedies regulated in the articles should be applied. In the HUMK Law No. 1086, the 440 of the Court of Cassation. it has been accepted that the decision can be corrected, except for the exceptions provided for in the article, and it has been accepted that there is no provision in the law that more than one decision can be made and that there is no provision that can be applied to the decision made upon the request for correction.
In the absence of such an arrangement in the law, it is not possible for the parties to have the right to correct the decision again and for a second time. Because the Court of Cassation, in the decision it made on the request for correction, stated that the way for correction is open.
As for the concrete incident, as described above, the petition of the plaintiff-defendants of the merger file was REJECTED, since it was understood that a request for correction of the decision was filed for the second time against the decision made on the appeal against the local court decision, and it was also understood that this was not possible. on 19.02.2020, it was unanimously decided to refund the advance payment for the correction of the decision paid to the plaintiff-defendant of the merged case who requested the correction of the decision upon the request for correction of the decision. (¤¤)</b