T.C SUPREME COURT 15.Legal Department Date of Issue: 2019/ 2160 Decision: 2020 / 679 Decision Date: 19.02.2020
ABSTRACT: As for the concrete case, as explained above, it was decided to reject the petition for correction of the decision of the plaintiff-merged file defendants, as it became clear that a second time a request for correction of the decision was made against the request for correction of the decision made on the appeal of the local court decision and confirmation of the decision was made against the correction request, and this was not possible.
(1086 P. K. m. 427, 457)
Plaintiffs 1-… 2-… and defendant …, due to the case between plaintiff … and defendants 1-… 2-… in the dec 2011/443 Main case that was merged … 17. Issued by the Court of First Instance on 05.12.2013 day and 2011/234 E.-2013/624 K. 23, which violates provision no. The day of 07.11.2018 of the Legal Department and the day of 2016/3569 E.-2018/5172 K. it was understood that the decision was requested to be corrected by the plaintiff-united file defendants’ attorney against the numbered decree and the decision was granted within the time limit of the correction petition, but the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
Although, as a rule, the request for correction of the decision must be examined by the Legal Department of the Supreme Court, which conducts the appeal review; With the decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Supreme Court on Dec. 09.02.2018 on the division of labor No. 2018/1, the land share provision construction construction
the duty of examining the appeals or decision correction requests in the files originating from the contract and coming to the Supreme Court with a request for appeal or decision correction after 01.07.2016 is the Supreme Court 15. Since the decision was submitted to the Legal Department, the request for correction was examined by our Department.
Plaintiff-deputy of the defendants in the unified case Supreme Court 23. They have requested correction of the decision against the decision of the Law Department dated 07.11.2018, based on 2016/3569, Decision No. 2018/5172 to overturn Decision No. 2018. After examining the petition and case file, accepting the original case as a result of the trial conducted in the original and merged case, rejecting the merged case, the decision was made on the appeal of the defendant-plaintiff of the merged file and the deputy of the FER of the Supreme Court 23. 09.12.2015 day, 2014/8458 Basis, 2015/7972 Decision No. 07.11.2018 day, 2016/3569 Basis, 07.11.2018 day, upon the request of the defendant-merged file plaintiff to correct the decision, decision No. 2018/5172 Decision No. 2014 day, it was decided to remove the approval decision and overturn the decision by accepting the request for correction of the decision. It is stated in the decision that the way to correct the decision is open within 15 days from the notification. As of 05.12.2013, when the local court issued an appeal decision, the District Court Courts were not operational, so the temporary 3 of HMK No. 6100. according to Article 427 and 457 of the HUMK No. 1086. it has been accepted that the provisions related to the routes of the law regulated in the articles will be applied. In the Law No. 1086 on Property, 440 against the decision of the Supreme Court. it has been accepted that a decision correction path can be taken except for the exceptions provided for in the article, and there is no regulation in the law that more than one decision correction path can be taken and a decision correction path can also be taken against a decision made upon a decision correction request. If there is no regulation on this path in the law, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to grant the parties the right to correct the decision anew and a second time by stating that the way to correct the decision is open in the decision it made on the request to correct the decision.
As for the concrete incident after these statements, as explained above, a decision was made to correct the decision against the decision made on the appeal of the local court decision, as it became clear that the decision was made against the correction request for a second time, and this was not possible, the plaintiff-merged file defendants REJECTED the decision correction petition, the decision correction fee paid by the plaintiff-merged file defendants were returned to the plaintiff-merged file defendants who wanted to correct the decision on request, for sure on 19.02.2020
