TC
Law Firm
E. 2011/3358
K. 2011/6983
T. 9.6.2011
• REQUEST FOR NAME CHANGE (Only one request for correction in the Population Registry can be filed for the same subject)
CORRECTION OF POPULATION RECORDS (Only One File Can Be Opened for the Same Subject – Request for Name Change)
5490/m. 36/1-b
SUMMARY: The plaintiffs requested the change of their children’s names in the petition, and the court accepted the case. According to the information in the population records of the child whose name was changed, it is understood that his name had been changed before. It was considered incorrect to decide to accept the case, contrary to the provision in Article 36(b) of the Population Services Law, which states that a case for the correction of population records can only be opened once for the same subject.
CASE:
In the case between the plaintiff Bayram and the late Population Directorate, without being examined by the Bandırma 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 21.09.2010, the Supreme Court Chief Prosecutor’s decision 2010/150 -171 dated 2010/150/171, which was alleged to be contrary to the law in force, and the decision of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office dated 14.03.2011, numbered 2011/62965, alleging a violation of the law, the purpose was to examine the appeals filed against such a violation through the appeal process and to record them in the file in accordance with the procedure:
DECISION: The plaintiffs requested in their petition that their child’s name be changed from “Mehmet” to “Mert,” and the court accepted the case. According to the information in the population records of Mert, whose name was changed in the file numbered 2007/103-128 K of the Gömeç Criminal Court of First Instance, it was understood that the plaintiff’s name, which was “Mehmet Mert,” was changed to “Mehmet” in accordance with Article 36 of the Population Services Law No. 5490. It was deemed incorrect to accept the case, as it was contrary to subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of the article stipulating that a case for correction of the population register can only be filed once.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the High Court has decided to accept the objections made by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with Article 427. On 09.06.2011, it was unanimously decided to amend the decision in the interests of justice and, provided that it has no effect, to send the file to the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office with a copy of the decision, if necessary.