T.C.
SUPREME
3. law office
E. 2011/12926
K. 2011/18158
T. 21.11.2011
* AUDIT COMPENSATION PAID INCORRECTLY (Collection from the Defendant Side Along with Interest and Expenses – The Amount That the Plaintiff Is Entitled to Receive Due to Overpayment Paid to the Defendant Through an Expert Expert Will Be Decided Based on the Result of the Report to be Received by Investigating)
* REQUEST FOR COLLECTION OF OVERPAYMENT (Incorrectly Paid Audit Compensation – The Amount That the Plaintiff Is Entitled to Receive Due to Overpayment Paid to the Defendant Through an Expert Expert Will Be Decided Based on the Result of the Report to be Paid)
* ERRONEOUS PAYMENT NOT BASED ON CONDITIONAL SAVINGS (Deciding to Dismiss the Case Without Discussing Whether It Can be Requested under the Unfair Acquisition Rules of the Law of Obligations Requires a Violation – Collecting Audit Compensation for Incorrectly Paid Payable)
* EXPERT EXAMINATION (Collection of Audit Compensation for Incorrectly Paid – The Amount That the Plaintiff Is Entitled to Receive Due to Overpayment Paid to the Defendant through an Expert Expert Should Be Decided According to the Result of the Report to be Received by Investigating)
818/m.61,62
SUMMARY: In the petition of the lawsuit, it was requested to collect the wrongly paid audit compensation from the defendant along with interest and expenses. B. By the administration of purely erroneous payments that are not based on any circumstances savings.K.it is explained that it can be requested back according to the rules of unjustified enrichment. In this case, the court should investigate the amount that the plaintiff is entitled to receive due to the overpayment paid to the defendant through an expert expert and decide according to the result of the report to be received. The decision to dismiss the case without discussing whether the purely erroneous payment, which is not based on saving any conditions, can be requested within the framework of the unfair acquisition rules of the Law of Payables, required a reversal.
LAWSUIT: In the petition of the lawsuit, 3.435,18 TL wrongly paid audit compensation was requested to be collected from the defendant side along with interest and expenses. The court rejected the case and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
After it was understood that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
PAY paid paid 3.435, 18 TL audit compensation to the defendant according to the Decision of the Council of Ministers between 20.1.2006-15.2.2009, although it is not possible to pay audit compensation to the defendant who works under contract by showing the expert and assistant expert staff in the Turkish Statistical Institute in response, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that the Decisionto be decided to collect from the defendant, together with the legal interest to be carried out from the payment dates.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the payments were made to his client without his request, that the lawsuit filed after the 60-day litigation period had been passed was unwarranted, and that the decision to dismiss the case should be made.
By the court; Since the lawsuit was filed after the 60-day filing period, it was decided to dismiss the case with a bet, and the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
As a rule, B.K.pursuant to Article 62 of the nun, a person who pays a non-debt with his consent may claim back what he has paid if he proves that he has made a mistake. The error mentioned in this article is related to the eda and is a mistake that shows that there is no will and desire for forgiveness in the person who is in the eda. In other words, it means that if the plaintiff’s administration had not made a mistake, it would not have said goodbye to the defendant.
5.12.1984 date of HGK. 1982/13-387 E – 1984/997 K. B. By the administration of purely erroneous payments that are not based on saving any conditions by the numbered decision.K.it is explained that it can be requested back according to the rules of unjustified enrichment. In this case, the court should investigate the amount that the plaintiff is entitled to receive due to the overpayment paid to the defendant through an expert expert and decide according to the result of the report to be received.
The decision to dismiss the case on written grounds without discussing whether the purely erroneous payment, which is not based on saving any conditions, can be requested within the framework of the unfair acquisition rules of the Law of Payables, required a reversal.
CONCLUSION: In this respect, without taking into account the principles described above, the provision in writing is incorrect, since the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the decision is accepted by H.U.M.K.it was unanimously decided on 21.11.2011 that the nun should be overturned in accordance with Article 428 and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the appellant if requested.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.