THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF REFUSAL

T.C SUPREME COURT 23.Legal Department Base: 2015/ 3694 Decision: 2019 / 5532 Decision Date: 25.12.2019

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance

DECISION
1-The principal and the associate who appealed the decision 2004/432-433-434-435 In the main numbered cases, the defendants … and … are united by 2010/150-151-152 The appeal petition filed by the deputy of the plaintiff in the main numbered cases was filed under Article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 03.04.2012. although it has been recorded in the appeal book in accordance with the article, the appeal application fee and the appeal decision fee should be taken separately from each case aspect, since there is no information and documents that the fees received are deposited for each case, sending documents related to it, if deposited, the appeal application fee and the appeal decision fee for which case have not been deposited from the party in question, and after receiving written statements, the appeal application fee and the appeal decision fee have not been deposited in respect of cases that have not been deposited 434/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code. issuing memoranda in accordance with the article, in case of non-deposit of fees in respect of cases where fees have not been deposited, the court will make a decision in accordance with the provision of the same article with documents related to the specified transactions,

2-Original and combined 2004/432-433-434-435 the plaintiffs in the cases numbered Main-combined 2010/150-151-152 the main defendants in the cases enumerated the secretary of State at the time of the notification of the notification of the reasoned decision before it is determined that the documents are not addressed directly to the officer where contrary to the provisions of the laws and regulations of this declaration, a notice of the receipt of the petition also mentioned that the appellate deputy prohibition is located between the document file that is not understood.

In this case, the decision of the court documents duly deputy notification with notification of the documents and, if applicable, of the mandate of the receipt of the appeal petition, mazbata, not after the completion of the documents duly expeditious notification of the appeal petition of the file back to the Local Court for appellate review cerilm needed to be.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided to RETURN the file to the local court on 25.12.2019.