T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION
Date of Decision: 27.06.2016
TEMPORARY SUBSCRIPTION FACILITY CASE – DUE TO THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND AN APPROPRIATE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH EXPERT EXPERTS ON WHETHER THE FENNI REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET AND AN APPROPRIATE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AS A RESULT – INCOMPLETE REVIEW – THE PROVISION HAS BEEN OVERTURNED
ABSTRACT: Provisional Article 11 of the law No. 3194 has been approved by the court.in accordance to the subject of litigation, building roads, water, telephone, sewer, infrastructure services such as natural gas, were taken there in case it is determined that one or more of the first in the construction of the immovable in accordance with the relevant regulations of the technical requirements has been fulfilled through discovery and expert witnesses on whether or not the expert report to be prepared by a proper decision should be made; otherwise, the provision is against the law and procedures of the facility based on the review missing, and requires you to break it.
(3194 P. K. m. 30, 31)
Case and Decision: As a result of the trial of the temporary subscription facility case between the parties, the decision to dismiss the case was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy within the time limit; after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary dec:
The deputy plaintiff requested and sued that a temporary subscription be decided by claiming that the plaintiff had applied to the defendant institution to provide an electricity subscription to his residence, that the institution had not accepted the application, and that electricity was the basic need.
The defendant’s deputy requested the dismissal of the case with a petition for an answer.
The court decided to dismiss the case, and the verdict was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.
The subject of the lawsuit is fixed by the contents of the file that the building’s residence permit has not been obtained. 30 and 31 of the Zoning Code No. 3194. according to the provisions of the articles, subscription is not possible in places where there is no building use permit. However,; 25 of the Law No. 5784 on the Electricity Market, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 26.07.2008 before the case and entered into force, as well as the Law on Amending Some Laws.article 11 of the October Temporary Annex to the Zoning Code No. 3194.the article states that “Until the date of entry into force of this article, a building (construction) license has been obtained and, accordingly, it has been made for structures that have not been granted permission to use and have not been received; roads, electricity, water, telephone, sewer, natural gas infrastructure services such as one or more of the documentation that was taken in accordance with the relevant regulations and the technical requirements have been met to be applied from the date of publication of this article on received permission to use a user group that is defined in the relevant legislation belongs to temporarily until consideration of water and/or electricity can be connected. In this context, the connection of water and/or electricity does not constitute any acquired right, as the subscription will be canceled if there is a request to disconnect electricity from the relevant municipality to the distribution companies. However, the requirement that the building (construction) permit has been obtained and made accordingly does not apply to buildings that were built before 12/10/2004.” the provision has been implemented.
October May 2007, the building permit is dated, the residence has a natural gas subscription, and the Temporary Annex added to the Zoning Code No. 3194 is 11. it is necessary to conduct research in accordance with the article.
By the Court; provisional article 11 of the law No. 3194.in accordance to the subject of litigation, building roads, water, telephone, sewer, infrastructure services such as natural gas, were taken there in case it is determined that one or more of the first in the construction of the immovable in accordance with the relevant regulations of the technical requirements has been fulfilled through discovery and expert witnesses on whether or not the expert report to be prepared by a proper decision should be made when based on the review procedures and the provision of the facility in writing Missing is against the law, and requires you to break it.
Conclusion: Without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is invalid, the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the decision is made by acceptance.nun 428.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 27.06.2016 that it would be OVERTURNED and that the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the appellant upon request. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program