Unfair Enforcement Proceedings and Unfair Lawsuit Compensation
TC
judgment
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2011/14-289
K. 2011/335
T. 18.5.2011
COMPENSATION DUE TO WRONGFUL EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AND UNFAIR LITIGATION (THE ACTUAL AND LEGAL FACT THAT THE SIGNATURE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RELEASE COMMITMENT, WHICH IS DETERMINED AND FINAL IN THE RELEASE CASE, DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTES THE FINAL PROVISION FOR THE CASE) EL)
MATERIAL AND MORAL DAMAGES ( DUE TO UNFAIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND UNFAIR LITIGATION – THE MATERIAL AND LEGAL FACT THAT THE SIGNATURE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EVICTION COMMITMENT DETERMINED AND FINAL IN THE EVICTION CASE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PLAINTIFF IS THE FINAL DECISION IN TERMS OF THE CASE IN HAND)
SIGNATURE ON THE FINAL RELEASE COMMITMENT (THE MATERIAL AND LEGAL FACT THAT IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PLAINTIFF CONSTITUTES THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE CURRENT CASE)
FINAL DECISION (COMPENSATION DUE TO UNFAIR EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AND UNFAIR LITIGATION – CREATES A material and legal FACT IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT THE SIGNATURE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FINAL COMMITMENT COMMITMENT STATED AND CONCLUDED IN THE DISCHARGE CASE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PLAINTIFF. CASE IN HAND) 818/M .41,49,61 1086/M.237,275
SUMMARY:
The case relates to the claim for compensation for material and moral damages suffered due to unfair enforcement proceedings and unfair litigation.
The material and legal fact that the signature within the scope of the eviction commitment, which was determined and finalized in the eviction case filed with the same parties at the peace civil court, does not belong to the plaintiff constitutes the final provision for this case.
It is indisputable that there is no need to discuss whether the signature belongs to the plaintiff in the concrete case and to obtain an expert report on this issue again. The receipt of the report does not eliminate the consequences of the final decision. It is contrary to procedure and law for the court to ignore this issue, to obtain an expert report in the current case and to reject the compensation claim by accepting that the signature in the release Decrees belongs to the defendant. According to this report, the plaintiff expresses an opinion in the opposite direction.
LAWSUIT :
At the end of the lawsuit filed due to the “compensation” lawsuit filed between the parties, the plaintiff’s lawyer’s Ankara Dec. 10. Upon the request of the examination of the decision of the Court of First Instance dated 24.12.2008 and numbered 2007/492 E-2008/479 K on the rejection of the case,
Supreme Court 4. Upon the request of the attorney of the plaintiff to correct the decision of the Civil Chamber on the decision dated 18.3.2010 and numbered 2009/6564 E-2010/3097 K, 4. Decision of the Court of Cassation dated 8.7.2010 and numbered 2010/6760 E-8326 K by the decision of the Civil Chamber;
(…The case relates to the claim for compensation for material and moral damages suffered due to unfair enforcement proceedings and unfair litigation. The claim was rejected by the local court. Upon the objection of the plaintiff, the decision was approved by our Office. The plaintiff has requested that the decision be corrected.
The plaintiff, who is the defendant’s tenant, stated that the signature under the eviction commitment submitted as the basis for the enforcement proceedings initiated by the defendant and the eviction case filed in the magistrate’s court did not belong to him; Upon the defendant’s objection to the enforcement proceedings filed in the magistrate’s court, it became clear that the signature did not belong to him upon the enforcement proceedings filed by the defendant in the magistrate’s court and the eviction case. as a result of the signature examination, the eviction request was rejected, the defendant suffered moral damage due to the enforcement proceedings and eviction proceedings filed using false documents, material damage due to losing his job, and made some expenses and had authority due to the enforcement proceedings and eviction proceedings.
Defendant, on the other hand, argued that the elements of material and moral compensation did not occur in the case, and that the signature under the release undertaking belonged to the plaintiff, and that the request should be rejected.
The local court decided to reject the request on the grounds that the signature was stated to belong to the plaintiff in the expert report on the subject of the case.
In the objection and eviction case filed by the defendant at the magistrate’s civil court, the defendant’s request for eviction was rejected on the grounds that it was determined by an expert report that the signature at the bottom of the document containing the eviction commitment did not belong to him. plaintiff C.D. and the decision was finalized without appeal.
Since the material and legal fact that the signature within the scope of the release undertaking determined and finalized in the eviction case filed with the same subject and parties in the civil court does not belong to the plaintiff constitutes the final provision for the case, there is no longer any need to discuss whether the signature belongs to the plaintiff in this case and to obtain an expert report.
The fact that the plaintiff is spiritually affected and financially spends time, effort and money due to the enforcement proceedings and eviction proceedings filed in accordance with the release commitment determined by the court is in accordance with the usual course of life. The decision not signed by the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant should be held responsible for the material and moral compensation to be determined.
Since the plaintiff’s claim for material and moral compensation was completely rejected by the local court without taking into account the above-mentioned issues, the decision should be overturned because it is not in accordance with the procedure and the law, while the decision should be overturned because it was upheld. the plaintiff’s request for correction of the decision must be accepted, the approval decision of our Chamber must be annulled and the decision must be overturned for the reason explained above …),
When the case was disrupted, the file was returned to its place, and at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision.
After it was understood that the decision to resist was reviewed by the HGK and objected within the time limit, and the documents in the file were read, its necessity was discussed:
DECISION:
The case relates to the claim for compensation for material and moral damages suffered due to unfair enforcement proceedings and unfair litigation.
The plaintiff stated that the signature under the eviction commitment submitted as the basis for the enforcement proceedings initiated by the defendant and the eviction case filed at the magistrate’s civil court did not belong to him, and that the request for eviction was rejected for this reason. In the cancellation of the objection filed by the defendant against the enforcement proceedings filed in this regard and in the signature review of the eviction case, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff suffered moral damage due to the enforcement proceedings filed by the defendant and the eviction case. he demanded that a decision be made to collect the financial damages caused by false documents, loss of work and power, as well as some expenses, reserving his rights to excess, along with interest on the damage.
The defendant argued that there were no elements of material and moral compensation in the incident, that the signature under the eviction commitment belonged to the plaintiff, and that the case was dismissed.
The court panel decided to dismiss the case because it was determined that the signature belonged to the plaintiff in the expert report on the case.
Decision has been appealed by the plaintiff.
Upon the objection of the plaintiff, the Special Chamber upheld the court’s decision; this time, upon the plaintiff’s request to correct the decision, the material and legal fact that the signature does not belong to the plaintiff in the scope of the release undertaking, which was determined and finalized in the eviction case in the magistrate’s civil court, the subject matter and parties are the same, constitutes the final judgment In terms of the case at hand, there is no need to discuss whether the signature belongs to the plaintiff in this case and to obtain an expert report, as well as the defendant must be held responsible for the material and moral compensation that must be paid as compensation. it was detected and the decision of the local court was overturned.
The Local Court resisted its previous decision and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
The dispute is whether the signature contained in the release commitment dated 31.5.2006, which is the subject of the case heard in the Civil Court of Peace, belongs to the plaintiff; whether the material and legal facts in that case constitute a final judgment in terms of the current case; and whether the expert report received by the local court can be evaluated.
Ankara 1. The Court of Peace’s Civil Court dated 2.10.2007 and dated 2007/658 E. 1966 K. in the numbered case file: Defendant company, plaintiff C.D. in the case of appeal filed against him and cancellation of the eviction case; C of the signature on the eviction commitment letter dated 31.5.2006, which is the subject of enforcement proceedings.D.it was understood that it was determined by the expert report that it did not belong to the and therefore the court’s rejection decision was finalized. without appeal.
The material and legal fact that the signature within the scope of the release undertaking determined and finalized in the eviction case filed with the same parties at the criminal court of peace does not belong to the plaintiff constitutes the final provision for this case.
For this reason, it is indisputable that there is no longer any need to discuss whether the signature belongs to the plaintiff in the current case and to obtain an expert report on this issue again. The receipt of the report does not eliminate the consequences of the final decision.
In this case, it is contrary to procedure and law for the Court to ignore this issue, to obtain an expert report in the current case and to reject the current compensation case by accepting the signature on the release Decrees dated 31.5.2015. According to this report, which expresses the opposite opinion.2006 is the work of the plaintiff.
If so, the decision to resist must be taken back.
CONCLUSION:
With the acceptance of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal objections, it was unanimously decided to overturn the decision to resist the overturning decision of the Special Chamber for the reasons stated above on 18.05.2011.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.