T.C SUPREME COURT 11.Legal Department Base: 2019/ 543 Decision: 2019 / 7499 Decision Date: 25.11.2019




Konya 1 in the case between the parties. dec. E- 2018/410 K dated 15/03/2018 and issued by the Court of First Instance dated 2016/698. upon appeal of the numbered decision by the deputy plaintiff, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice 21 on the substantive rejection of the request for appeal. E- 2018/1327 K- 2018 dated 05/12/2018 and issued by the Law Department 2018/2057. as the Supreme Court Decision No. examination by the plaintiff’s attorney filed and the petition of Appeal is given within the period of being understood, with the audit report to file a claim held by a judge rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:

The plaintiff’s representative of the Federal Republic of Germany with the decision of the court Wuppertal 287/07 a creditor of the defendant to file his client he was 4, it was decided that if the defendant filed the motion and the papers communicated that she was notified of the decision of the German court of a decision by certified and offered to the original file, and therefore the ref’s foreign recognition and

he requested that the enforcement be decided and sued.

Defendant …, within the scope of the filing, transferred the shares of the company in which he is a shareholder on 25/06/2001, plaintiff

stating that he did not know him and that there was no exchange of shares between them, that he had nothing to do with the subject of the case, he asked that the case be decried.

The defendant has not responded to the company’s lawsuit.

At the hearing of the deputy plaintiff dated 21/09/2017, the court heard that one of the defendants was Hamatek Holding A.Sh. on the grounds that the defendant has declared that they have left their case to atiye, no renewal petition has been filed from the date of declaration to the date of decision … In terms of the case, HMK’s 150. and in accordance with the articles of continuation, it was decided to dismiss the case against him on the grounds that the provision on the collection of the price from the defendant … was not established in the foreign court decision.

The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.

Since it was understood that the decision of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice was not contrary to public order, it was decided to reject the application of the plaintiff’s deputy for the remedy of the law of appeal on the basis of the decision of the court of first instance.

The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff. Concrete trial conducted in respect of a dispute are identified and compliance with the rules of law that should be applied when a decision by the court of First Instance of Appeal is not made under the understanding that misses the appeal of HMK 353/B-1 in accordance with the decision of denial of the tribunal Regional Justice is a substantive procedure and in accordance with the law, because we conclude that the District Court had to decide approved the ruling of the courthouse.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, the decision of the District Court of Justice on the refusal of the plaintiff’s deputy’s appeal is based on Article 370/1 of the HMK. in accordance with Article 372 of the HMK. it was decided unanimously on 25/11/2019 that the case file should be sent to the District Court of Justice for processing in accordance with the article, there is no need to receive fees other than the appeal fee was received in advance.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir