EN SUPREME COURT
Legal Department
Originally: 2015/11329
The Verdict: 2016/6923
Decision Date: 22.06.2016
FILING A LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGES CLAIMS – THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE GUARANTEES OF THE EVIDENCE – ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE LAWYER, THE INTERVENTION OF THE LAWYER IS FULLY ACCEPTED – APPROVAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: According to the articles in the file, the verdict was rendered in accordance with the annulment decision issued by the court, and since there were no errors in the evaluation of the evidence, the verdict had to be upheld, since all the appeals of the defendant’s attorney and the subordinate attorney were not valid.
(Law of Art. 6100 3) (Article 4 of Art. 3095)
The Case and the Decrees: In the case between the parties, … .. The decision of the Court of Cassation dated 02/06/2015 and numbered 2015/315-2015/399 issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance was requested to be examined by the defendant’s deputy, the assistant intervener’s deputy and an appeal petition was filed. Since it is understood that the provisional article 3/2 of Law No. 6100 was given during its time and the notification expenses required for the trial were not paid during the examination of the file, it was decided to listen to the report issued by the Investigating Judge for the case file, which should be applied with reference to Article 438/1 of the HUMK amended by Law No. 3156, after reading and examining the petition, petitions, trial minutes and all the documents in the file, the necessity of the work was discussed and decided:
The plaintiff’s attorneys, their clients … … and … … and the legacy of their clients … … A.Sh.that they opened a deposit account in DM at the branch of …, that its management was seized by the BRSA and transferred to …, that the said bank later merged with AŞ, the defendant of … Bank. offshore Ltd.that it was sold to , the money collected in this way … A.Sh. they declared that a shell was transferred to the bank’s account.
The defendant bank, in cooperation with the coastal bank, defrauded depositors and customers, the bank is responsible for the damage suffered by its customers, the company management became a consumer by giving irregular loans to group companies and collusive companies, found that the deposits of its customers were not paid on the grounds that they were outside the scope of overseas deposit insurance, …
will receive deposits of 109,937 DM deposited by … and will receive deposits of 28,560 DM deposited by … contractual interest from the defendant bank from the date the money was deposited to the end of the term from the date of deposit to the bank, paying paid together with the default interest to be processed not less than the contractual interest until the due payment date, claiming that the customers are customers, they demanded and filed a lawsuit to be paid to their clients and the heir, who are heirs of the inheritance, at the rate of inheritance shares.
The defendant and his lawyer, who was notified, requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that no claim of hostility could be made against their client, that the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for the case had expired, and that it was not valid from the essential aspect of the case.
14,602.50 EUROS (28,560.00 DEM) received from the defendant together with the interest to be operated in accordance with Article 4 / a of Law 3095 dated 10/12/1999 in accordance with the petition, defense, expert report and the whole file, in accordance with the cancellation decision of our court, taking into account the inheritance shares; 4/12 shares to the plaintiff (…), it has been decided that 3/12 shares will be given to the plaintiff.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney and the defendant’s lawyer.
According to the articles contained in the file, the verdict was rendered in accordance with the annulment decision issued by the court, and since there was no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, all the appeals of the defendant’s attorney are out of place.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above, the defendant’s attorney, the sub-attorney, rejected all appeals requests, APPROVED the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, there is no need to charge the second respondent, the appeal fee paid was returned to him at the plaintiff’s request, unanimously decided on 22.06.2016.