T.C. SUPREME COURT
19.law office
Base: 2016/2068
Decision: 2016/10869
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
CASE OF CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – THE COURT’S OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORITY IS NOT HEARABLE – THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORITY DULY MADE IN THE CASE DURING THE COURSE OF THE CASE – THE NEED TO DECIDE ON THE REJECTION OF THE OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORITY – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: The court decides to reject the objection of authority due to the fact that it cannot be heard (HMK. m. 19/f.II). Due to the fact that there was no objection to the authority duly made in the case during the phase, the rejection of the objection to the authority had to be decided, while the decision on the lack of authority of the court required the provision to be overturned.
(2004 P. K. m. 67) (6100 p. K. m. 19)
Case and Decision: At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary when the plaintiff appealed to the deputy during the period of the decision made on the court’s decisiveness for reasons written in the decision.
The plaintiff’s Attorney, his client with the company the purchase and sale of Iron between the defendant on the contract of sale that was made of iron of the price that was paid as an advance, however, respondent has not been delivered by the party of the iron, iron for the collection of costs given in advance, on the grounds that the withdrawal of the appeal launched ilamsiz also monitored the defendant objected to the continuation of the monitoring and 20% has prosecuted and demand that it be given to the decision to deny executive compensation.
The defendant’s deputy asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were not true.
The court decided that the defendant challenged the authority of the court within the period of time, the competent court stated that there were Fethiye courts, the place of performance of the contract in the current case and the court of residence of the defendant were Fethiye courts, the rejection of the case petition due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court, the competent court was Fethiye First Instance Law Court as a commercial court, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The petition for the lawsuit was notified to the defendant on October 16, 2014, the defendant’s deputy requested that the response period be extended for two weeks with the petition dated April 30, 2014 (titled Our first objections) and that the additional documents to the petition for the lawsuit be notified by bet, since they had not been notified, he appealed for authority, but did not show the competent court. The request was rejected on the grounds that the court was mistaken in the comment on the notification document on the notification of the petition of claim and that it was not requested to extend the response time within the time limit. An appeal for authority was also filed in the appeal petition for this interim decision, but the competent court was not shown dec By decisional decision dated 22.12.2012, the Court decided to extend the response period for two weeks from the date of notification. The defendant’s deputy again appealed for authority with his petition dated 12.01.2015 and this time cited the Fethiye Courts as the authorized court.
In cases where the authority is not certain, in order for the objection of authority to be heard by the court, in this appeal, the defendant must have shown the competent court in accordance with his opinion, if there are more than one competent court, one of them, in order to be heard by the court. Otherwise, the court decides to reject the objection of authority due to the fact that it cannot be heard (HMK. m. 19/f.II). Phases in the case described above, duly, reject the authority of an objection is not made in the period should be given to the objection that, while the court in writing yetkisizlig it is against the law and procedures.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 that the court decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above, and the advance fee should be returned on request.
