IIK.nun 89/4. in its article; “If a third party objects to a foreclosure notice within the time limit, the creditor shall prove in the executive court that the third party’s answer is otherwise than the 338th of the third party. Article 1. he may request to be punished in accordance with the provision of the paragraph, and also to be sentenced to compensation.
Punishment of those who make statements opposing the truth:
Article 338 – (Amended: 31/5/2005 – 5358/9 art.) According to this Law, anyone who makes the requested statement contrary to the truth, upon the complaint of the creditor, shall be punished with a prison sentence of three months to one year….
12.Legal Department 2016/12789 E. , 2016/17553 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Executive Civil Court
Defendant-3 for the examination of the appellant within the time limit of the court decision, the date and number of which are written above.upon request by the person, the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment and the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined after the job was discussed and considered as necessary :
Although other appeals are not in place;
IIK.nun 89/4. in its article; “If a third party objects to a foreclosure notice within the time limit, the creditor shall prove in the enforcement court that the third party’s answer is contrary to the 338 of the third party. Article 1. he may ask to be punished in accordance with the provision of the paragraph, and also to be sentenced to compensation. The executive court handles the case on compensation in accordance with the general provisions”regulation is included. The subject of the compensation provided for by the law is the damage suffered by the follow-up creditor due to the fact that a third party has made a statement contrary to the truth against the foreclosure notice. The plaintiff and his creditor must prove that the third party in this case has made a statement contrary to the truth. Contrary to the declaration of the third person, IIK.nun 68. it can be proved by any evidence, regardless of the documents listed in the article. In accordance with the express provision of the said article, the conclusion should be reached by conducting a trial by the executive court in accordance with the general provisions.
The creditor’s application to the executive court is the FIRST.nun 89/4. it is a compensation case based on the article. IIK.nun 89/4. in accordance with the article, the executive court examines the case on compensation in accordance with the general provisions. Accordingly, the amount of compensation requested in the lawsuit petition and the value of the lawsuit should be shown, and accordingly, the claimant’s relative fee should be deposited.
In the concrete case, the amount of compensation requested in the lawsuit petition and the value of the lawsuit were not shown, and it was understood that the victim’s fees were deposited.
In this case, first of all, HMK.nun 31. article 1 While the amount of compensation requested by the court from the plaintiff creditor should be disclosed and the trial should be continued within the framework of the general provisions after the missing fees have been completed, it is incorrect to rule in writing with incomplete examination by ignoring these considerations.
CONCLUSION : The defendant-3.for the reasons written in paragraph (2) above of the court decision on the partial acceptance of the person’s appeals, IIK.No. 366 and No. 428. in accordance with the articles (TO the DETERIORATION), according to the reasons for the deterioration, there is no place for examining other appeals at this stage, the refund of the fee received in advance on request was decided unanimously on 22/06/2016, with the path of correction of the decision open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.
12.Legal Department 2014/25694 E. , 2015/1137 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Executive Civil Court
After the appellant’s examination was requested by the creditor within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number written above, the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment, and the Examining Judge for the case file ….. after the report edited by him was listened to and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the need for the job was discussed and considered :
IIK.nun 89/4.in the article “If a third party objects to the notice of foreclosure within the time limit, the creditor proves the opposite of the answer given by the third party in the enforcement court by proving the third party’s 338.Article 1.he may ask to be punished in accordance with the provision of the paragraph, and also to be sentenced to compensation. The executive court handles the case on compensation in accordance with the general provisions”regulation is included. Accordingly, the follow-up creditor requesting compensation does NOT do otherwise than the statement of the third party.nun 68. he can prove it with all kinds of evidence without depending on the documents listed in the article.
In the concrete case, the third party was notified of the 89/1 lien notice, and the third party was challenged by the company during the legal period against the lien notice. The creditor’s FIRST.nun 89/4. upon the application made by him before the executive court in the conditions of Article 3, the debtor and the 3. since the person did not bring the company’s business books, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that an expert examination could not be conducted.
IIK.nun 89/4.according to the explicit provision of the article, the court should collect the evidence shown by the parties and, if necessary, conduct an expert examination of the records of the third-party company, determine whether the debtor’s receivables exist in the third party, and then decide on the outcome that will occur after determining whether the debtor exists.
Although the court decided to dismiss the compensation lawsuit filed by the creditor on the grounds that the debtor and the third party did not bring their commercial books despite the legitimate invitation notification, the provision to dismiss the case in such a way as to reverse the burden of proof in the event of the authenticity of such a situation is not correct, as there is no such cautionary invitation in the file.
However, the case is based on Article 89/4 of the IIK. it is related to the claim for compensation based on the article, and since it will be decided according to the general provisions, a relative fee must be deposited on the value of the case.
In this case, the court primarily tamamlatild missing mortar, after the merits of the case by passing on to third parties, commercial books and records the exact time for the submission of duly given in case of submission of books and records, examination by 89/1 notice of lien as of the date of notification of the debtor, whether or not there is the fact that it takes a third person has been determined, a decision should be made according to the result that will occur after missing when an application to review and reverse the denial of the claim in writing with the burden of proof in the direction of the facility is the provision isabetsiz.
CONCLUSION: The decision of the court on the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals is based on the above-mentioned reasons.No. 366 and No. 428. in accordance with the articles (ON DETERIORATION), the refund of the fee received in advance upon request was decided unanimously on 20.01.2015, with the path of decision correction open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.
12department of Law 2014/24769 E. , 2014/23120 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT : Istanbul 5. Executive Criminal Court
DATE : 13/10/2009
NUMBER : 2008/1979-2009/905
The file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment upon request by the creditor for the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the court decision written above, the report prepared by the Examining Judge … for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined after the job was discussed and considered as necessary :
IIK.nun 89/4.in its article; “If a third party objects to a foreclosure notice within the time limit, the creditor shall prove in the enforcement court that the third party’s answer is contrary to the 338 of the third party.Article 1.he may ask to be punished in accordance with the provision of the paragraph, and also to be sentenced to compensation. The executive court handles the case on compensation in accordance with the general provisions”regulation is included. Accordingly, the follow-up creditor requesting compensation must indicate the contrary of the statement of the third party.nun 68.he can prove it with all kinds of evidence without depending on the documents listed in the article.
In the concrete case, the third party was notified of the 89/1 lien notice, and the third party was challenged by the company’s deputy during the legal period against the lien notice with the petition stating “… the debtors do not have any rights and receivables from our company …”. The creditor’s FIRST.nun 89/4.if the application is made before the executive court in accordance with Article 3, the debtor is required by the executive court. 3. the amount of the receivable from the person depends on the foreign exchange note. it was decided to reject the request on the grounds that the company cannot be held liable for compensation due to the declaration of the person’s deputy company.
IIK.nun 89/4.according to the explicit provision of the article, after collecting the documents and evidence shown by the parties by the court, an expert examination is conducted on the commercial books and records of the third-party company, if necessary, the debtor and 3. whether it is a written agreement between the person’s current account current account current account balance ends the agreement and payable, whether it is in the bill and the TCC TCC No. 6102 90 88/3/C according to the provisions of the current account recorded, and the borrower was not determined 3. Bakırköy 2, where he is a creditor of the person. 2007/4246 of the Executive Directorate and Bakırköy 4. The execution follow-up files of the Enforcement Directorate numbered 2007/4217 are also examined by examining 1.as of 25.05.2007, the date of notification of the notice of foreclosure, the debtor has an existing and outstanding receivable with a third party and, accordingly, 3.after determining whether the person’s objection is true or not, it should be decided according to the result that will occur. Although an expert report has been received by the court to take action on this issue, 3. only the relevant pages of the commercial books belonging to the person have been examined and the conclusion has been reached. Therefore, if necessary, the provision is invalid on the basis of a written justification that does not correspond to a concrete dispute based on incomplete examination, without giving the third party a certain period of time and providing all commercial books and records, if necessary, does not comply with the concrete dispute.
HMK’s 297, on the other hand. article (1). in accordance with paragraph (e) of paragraph (e), it is mandatory to include the “date of writing of the reasoned decision” in the provision, and it was also not found correct to act contrary to this mandatory provision of the law.
CONCLUSION: The decision of the court on the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals is based on the above-mentioned reasons.No. 366 and No. 428. in accordance with the articles (ON DETERIORATION), the refund of the fee received in advance upon request was decided unanimously on 02/10/2014, with the path of decision correction open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.