T.C. THE SUPREME COURT
Law Office
Based on: 2016/2068
The Verdict: 2016/10869
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
STATUS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – COURT AUTHORITY THE APPEAL TO THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION IS NOT DANGEROUS – THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION TO APPEAL TO THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION DURING THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION – THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION HAS THE RIGHT TO REJECT THE APPEAL
SUMMARY: It has been decided by the court to reject the appeal on the grounds that it cannot be seen (HMK. m. 19/f.II). Since there was no objection to the authority duly made to the case during the trial phase, the objection to the authority should have been rejected, while the court’s decision on the lack of duty required that the provision be overturned.
(2004 SK Md. 67) (6100 SQ Md. 19)
Trial and Decision: Cancellation of the appeal between the parties At the end of the trial of the case, upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney, the file was examined and decided by discussing the need within the period of Decrying the inadequacy of the court for the reasons stated in the decision.
Dec paying the iron price in advance, but the iron was not delivered by the defendant, the defendant objected to the pursuit without a warrant for the collection of the iron prices given in advance, the objection was canceled and the pursuit was stopped, the plaintiff’s lawyer claimed and filed a lawsuit for the continuation of the trial and 20% executive denial compensation, arguing that a sales contract was concluded between his client and the defendant, the iron price was paid in advance, but the defendant did not deliver the iron, the defendant objected to the pursuit without a warrant for the collection of the iron prices given in advance, the appeal was canceled and the prosecution was stopped.
The defendant’s lawyer requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s allegations did not reflect the truth.
The court decided to dismiss the case due to lack of duty, stating that the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court within the time limit, the competent court was the Fethiye Courts, the place of performance of the contract in the concrete case and the defendant’s residential court were the Fethiye Civil Court of First Instance, the competent court was the Fethiye Civil Court of First Instance as the commercial court, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
petition for the case was notified to the defendant on October 16, 2014, the defendant’s attorney requested an extension of the response period by two weeks with a letter dated December 30, 2014 (entitled Our first objections), filed an objection to the authority because additional documents were not notified to the petition, but filed an objection to the competent court. he didn’t show it.
The request was rejected by the court on the grounds that it was not requested to extend the response period due to an inaccuracy in the commentary contained in the notification document regarding the notification of the lawsuit petition. In the petition of appeal filed against this interim Decrees, an objection to the authority was filed but the competent court was not shown. With the interim Decrees dated 22.12.2012, the Court decided to extend the response period by two weeks from the notification. The defendant’s attorney requested authority again with his petition dated 12.01.2015 and showed Fethiye Courts as the competent court this time.
In cases where the authority has not been finalized, in order for the objection to the authority to be heard by the court, the defendant must, in his opinion, show the competent court, if there are more than one competent court, one of them. Otherwise, the court rejects the objection on the grounds that the objection cannot be heard (HMK. m. 19/f.II). At the above-mentioned stage, in the concrete case, it should be decided to reject the authority objection, since there is no objection to the authority duly and within the time period, but it is contrary to the procedure and the law to decide in writing on the inadmissibility of the court.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above, it was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 to overturn the court’s decision and refund the cash fee upon request.