SUPREME COURT 12. Law Office
ORIGINAL NO. : 2018/47
DECISION NO : 2018/6880
During this period, the files related to the work were sent to the department on appeal by the court requested by the plaintiffs in the written review of the date and number above, and the audit report was heard to file a lawsuit and kept by the judge, after all the documents in the file were read and examined, it was considered that the nature of the work was discussed:
Law No. 5235 of 26.9.2004 on the Establishment, Duties and Powers of First Instance Judicial Jurisdiction and Regional Courts of Justice, Appeal and Appeal Law No. 5311 of 18.3.2005, amendment of appeal and decision correction provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law of 2004 and amendment of the provisions of provisional Article 7 added to the Execution Bankruptcy Law, in parallel with the Law No. 5311 on decisions made after 20.07.2016, when the Regional Courts of Justice took office The provisions of the law shall apply.
342/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. in the article; “Even if there are no other issues in the appeal petition, the applicant’s identity and signature and the appeal petition shall not be rejected if there are records that will adequately show his decision, 355. the necessary examination is carried out within the framework of the provisions of the article.” while the provision is included, 355 of the same law. according to the regulation of the article; “The examination is carried out limited to the reasons shown in the petition of appeal.
However, if the district court of justice sees a violation of public order, it officially complies with it.” the judgment has taken place. It is also stated in the article that the necessary decision will be made if the application conditions do not occur or the reasons or justifications for the application are not shown at all.
In the concrete case, the decision made by the enforcement court to the debtor’s attorney at the hearing dated 03.01.2017 was referred to the debtor’s attorney’s FIRST 363. article 342/3 of the CCP. according to the article, it is observed that it was notified within the time limit (i.e. on 12.01.2017), filed a lawsuit within the appeal period in accordance with the article, the debtor’s attorney did not file his petition containing the grounds of appeal within the 10-day period, despite the fact that the reasoned decision of the court of first instance was notified on 08.02.2017.
In this case, before the petition for appeal is rejected, Art. 355 of the CCP. as stated in article 342/3 of the CCP, the work to be done by the regional court of justice. it will be done in accordance with the article. According to the article, it is limited to the examination of public order. If no violation of public order is found in the court decision under review, a decision will have to be made to reject the appeal request on the merits in accordance with Article 353/1-b-1 of the CCP, as an examination will be conducted on the merits.
Later, in accordance with Article 353/1-b-1 of the CCP, it was determined that there was no violation of public order in the decision of the court of first instance, but an application for appeal was filed with the regional court of justice within this period. HMK’s 352. according to the article, the application for appeal must be rejected on the basis. According to the article, refusal due to procedural violation is not justified.
CONCLUSION :
Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice 12. The date of the Law Office is 25/04/2017 and the date is 2017/1116 E. – 2017/1101 K. in the decision No. 364/2 of the IIK, amended by Law No. 5311, it was stated that Article 373/2 of the CCP No. 6100 should be applied by sending for the reasons mentioned above. according to the articles (ABOUT ITS DETERIORATION), since there is no room for appeal examination at this stage according to the cause of deterioration, the file was sent to the District Court of Justice, and a unanimous decision was made on 27/06/2018 by a court decision.