EN SUPREME COURT
Legal Department
Mainstay: 2015/11329
The Verdict: 2016/6923
Decision Date: 22.06.2016
COMPENSATION CASE – THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE GUARANTEES OF THE EVIDENCE – ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE LAWYER THE INTERVENTION OF THE LAWYER IS COMPLETE – APPROVAL OF THE DECISION
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 due to the fact that all of 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 attorney, the assistant defense attorney, and an appeal petition was filed. It was requested to cancel the provisional article 3/2 of the Law No. 6100 due to the understanding that it was given in due time and the failure to pay the notification expenses required for the hearing during the examination of the file.
After reading and examining the report, petitions, petitions, trial minutes and all the documents in the file, the necessity of the work was discussed and decided to listen to the report prepared 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 plaintiff’s attorneys, their clients … … and … … and the legacy of their clients … … A.Sh.that they opened a deposit account denominated in DM at the branch of …, that its management was confiscated by the BRSA and transferred to …, that the said bank later merged with AŞ, the defendant of … Bank. offshore Ltd.they declared that it was sold to and that the money collected in this way was transferred to the account of a bank named …. ,
The defendant bank, in cooperation with the coastal bank, defrauded depositors and customers, was responsible for the damage suffered by its customers, the company management became a consumer by giving irregular loans to group companies and colluded companies, found that the deposits of its customers were not paid on the grounds that their overseas deposits were not covered by insurance, the defendant bank will receive deposits of 109,937 DM and will receive deposits of 28,560 DM deposited by … …
defendant bank will receive deposits of 109,937 DM deposited by … …, paying paid interest from the defendant bank from the date the money was deposited to the bank until the end of the term, together with the default interest to be processed not less than the contractual interest from the date of maturity to the date of payment, the defendant claimed and sued to be paid to his clients and the heir, who are the heirs of the bank, 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 his client, that the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for the case had expired, and that the case was invalid in the main aspect.
When the lawsuit petition, defense, expert report and the whole file are examined, in accordance with the cancellation decision made by our court Department, 14.602, 50 EUROS (28.560,00 DEM) received from the defendant along with the interest to be operated in accordance with Article 4 / a of Law No. 3095 dated 10/12/1999, taking into account the inheritance shares; 4/12 of the inheritance shares to the plaintiff, 4/12 shares to the plaintiff … … , it has been decided that 1/12 of the shares will be given to the plaintiff … … (…), 3/12 of the 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 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, all the appeals of the defendant’s deputy, the assistant counsel, are not in place.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above, the defendant’s attorney, the sub-attorney, rejected all appeals requests and unanimously decided on 22.06.2016 to CONFIRM the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, that there is no need to charge the assistant intervener, the appeal fee paid should be returned to the appellant at his request.