T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
19. law office
E. 2015/16385
K. 2016/287
T. 19.1.2016
• NOTIFICATION IF IT IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ADDRESSEE (Notification of Arbitrariness is Possible to the Person to Be Notified, If One of the Neighbors Is Notified, the Manager or Doorman Should be Notified of Arbitrariness – That the Notification Made Without Being Investigated to Whom It was Given is Irregular)
•IRREGULAR NOTIFICATION (In Case the Notification Made is Not Available at the Address of the Addressee, The Need to Notify the Neighbor Administrator or Doorman of the Notification to Notify Him – The Notification Made As If It were at the Mernis Address Is Not Available at the Address of the Addressee, To Whom the Notification Made Before the Investigation is Incorrect)
7201/m. 21
ABSTRACT: In case of absence at the address, the person to be notified should be informed of the arbitrariness, one of his closest neighbors, if possible, should also be notified to the manager or doorman, if any, because it is necessary to accept that the notification made without concretization of who was notified is not done in accordance with the procedure.
CASE: At the end of the trial of the decriminalization case between the parties, the file was examined, the file was discussed and considered as necessary after the defendant appealed to the deputy during the period of the decision made to accept the case for reasons written in the decision:
DECISION : the plaintiff, the nobles, the plaintiffs …’ s an external tool from the defendant, but on the transfer of this tool without the notary sold separately, this tool … to the defendant for the plaintiff’ s the borrower, the other plaintiff …’ s is the guarantor, dated 20.08.2010 4.000 TL stock with a price that has been given to maturity, the debt has been paid yet …the deed and the plaintiff’s case … brand received externally from another tool, the defendant …’promissory note as payment for a debt which the defendant is in agreement with the traffic on the record, he transferred to the defendant from the notary through this vehicle … , at this time, they stated that the defendant did not give the deed despite the fact that the promissory note was requested, and then the Promissory Note Enforcement Directorate followed it up in the execution file 2011/566, and they requested and sued the cancellation of the proceedings, the decision on compensation for malice against the defendant, and the determination that they were not owed money due to the promissory note.
The principal defendant, the plaintiffs sold brand Van 1998 model…, and in return 4.000-10,000 TL-TL bonds bought with the price, the lack of payment of bills, such as by selling the vehicle also learned that the plaintiffs were sold in a gallery, the plaintiff will take upon you to say that another vehicle, they will give a corresponding 10,000-brand TL … he is transferred to the vehicle itself, but he himself initially the plaintiff of the van 14.000 TL is worth to correspond to the age of the vehicle, brand-10,000 – £ Bono had returned because the value of this tool is this, since the receivable of the 4,000-TL bond subject to the lawsuit has not been paid, he declared that he had put the bond on hold, and requested that the case be dismissed and compensation be decided against the plaintiffs.
As a result of the trial made by the court, in the case of the borrower requesting a determination as to whether the bill is due, and are required to by the prosecutor suggests that the burden of proof of payment of the debt fell due to the plaintiff’s side and, in this context, the pursuit of the plaintiff’s underlying 4.000 TL worth, edited in the year 2010 dated November 3, corresponding to the notary, the seller from the case, the Official Receiver car sales agreement, when you submit … the defendant, the oath is also based on the evidence, is reminded of the right to propose the oath, the oath of the defendant offered in the period of the text of the notification on behalf of the principal in spite of, it was decided that the plaintiffs were not owed money due to the 4.000-TL bond dated 25/08/2010, which was the subject of the 2011/566 follow-up file of the Enforcement Directorate upon acceptance of the case, that the defendant had not sworn and had confessed to the cases under oath, that 20% compensation over the original receivable was taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
21 of the Law on Notification of an invitation to swear an oath issued to the defendant. it is understood from the content of the notification document that it was not duly notified in accordance with the article. Because, according to the scope of the file, the court found that the defendant’s mernis address was determined and the mernis address was not included in the notification, but the defendant’s mernis address was notified as if it were, and it was also possible to notify the person to be notified if the address was not available to one of the nearest neighbors, if any, the manager or doorman will also be notified without the provision that the notification was made, regardless of who was notified. For the reasons described, the court required that the defendant be duly issued an invitation to swear an oath and a decision be made according to the result, while the decision in writing with incomplete review required a reversal.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 19.01.2016 that there is no place for the review of other appeals for the defendant’s benefit for the reasons mentioned above, according to the reason for the violation, the refund of the advance fee on request is not available for now.
