Uninterrupted crimes are divided into two as compulsory uninterrupted crime and possible uninterrupted crime in the doctrine.
Mandatory uninterrupted crime naturally occurs for a certain period of time with the realization of the act in the legal definition.
It is called continuous crime. The crime of deprivation of personal liberty (Article 109 of the TCK), housing
The crime of violating the immunity (Article 116 of the TCK) is a compulsory uninterrupted crime. A possible uninterrupted crime is normally not a continuous crime, but
In some cases, crimes that are committed without interruption are called probable uninterrupted crimes. E.g
TCK m. Although the crime of gratuitous use in 163/1 is not a continuous crime, art. gratuitous in 163/3
The crime of exploiting is carried out as an uninterrupted crime. Electricity available on subscription basis
energy, water or natural gas without the consent of the owner and determining the amount of consumption
If it is consumed in a way that prevents it, since the gratuitous benefit continues during the usage period, m.
163/3 takes place in the form of uninterrupted crime.

Salary Seizure is regulated in Article 83 of the EBL. Here, in order to send a salary lien to the workplace of the debtor, the follow-up must be finalized. After the proceeding is finalized, the creditor from the enforcement office decides to place a lien on the debtor’s salary. However, no more than ¼ of his salary can be deducted without his consent.

With Article 90 and its continuation of Law No. 5510, it has been regulated that retirement pensions can only be seized due to alimony and SGK premium debts, and cannot be blocked or seized due to other receivables. In this case, the lien cannot exceed ¼ of the pension.

In addition, the consent of the debtor is required to be able to place a lien on the pension. After the Supreme Court follow-up is finalized, the consent given during the foreclosure is accepted as a valid consent. On the other hand, it may be possible for the bank to deduct the entire salary deposited in the bank account due to salary lien. The person under the threat of foreclosure should also notify the bank that the account in the bank is a salary account.

As a rule, employers are prohibited from employing uninsured workers. Since the insurance is the social security of the worker, the legislator has foreseen an obligation in this direction in case of abuse of this situation by the employer and stipulated a certain sanction if the employer does not comply with the rule. However, in practice, workers are unfortunately employed for various reasons without insurance or with under-reporting of insurance. It is possible for workers who cannot object to this situation while working, to file a lawsuit to ensure that their retroactive insurance is deposited after leaving the job, with a service determination case. Service determination lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by the worker who is employed without an insurance notification and without paying the premiums, in order to compensate for this period of time he worked without insurance, as if he had worked as an insured.

Worker Who Wants to File a Case for Detection of Service,

The defendant must make sure that the workplace is one of the workplaces that meet the conditions in accordance with the provisions of Social Insurance and General Health Insurance No. 5510.
The service must have been seen as uninsured by the claimant worker and in this case it must not have been detected before by SSI.
The subject of the lawsuit regarding the service determination case should be long-term insurances.
The worker must file the case within 5 years. (There are exceptional cases.)
The plaintiff worker, who has filed a service determination lawsuit, is obliged to prove the dates and work he claims to have worked. Witness statements are of great importance in the determination and proof of this issue. Proof in the service determination lawsuit may be possible with the testimony of the plaintiff worker, his colleague with whom he works, or the testimony of the worker or workers working in the neighboring workplace. In practice, the Courts select 4-5 (the number of witnesses may increase or decrease depending on the length of service) payroll witness and invite them to the hearings to be heard in the case.

The worker who filed a service determination case (if the worker has passed away, his legal heirs – mother, father, spouse, brother, etc.) opens the case against the employer, and if the employer has more than one, against each of them.

Status of the usufruct owner

Article 700 – In case a shareholder establishes usufruct right on his/her own share, if one of the other stakeholders requests to share within three months starting from the notification of the establishment of the usufruct right; The usufruct right in sharing through sale continues on the price to be deducted for the relevant share.

End Time of the Goods Regime
In order to file a lawsuit for the liquidation of the property regime; The existing property regime between the parties must come to an end. The end of the property regime is not the same as the end of the marriage union. Sometimes
The existing property regime between spouses ends before the marriage union ends.
Although the marriage union continues, the existing property regime
may end.
In which cases the current property regime between spouses will end
It is shown in Article 225 of TMK. Accordingly, the situations that terminate the goods regime;
a) In case of death of one of the spouses: On the date of death, both the marriage union and the property regime end as of the date of death.
b) The current property regime between the spouses and the property regime agreement
if they choose one of the other regimes set forth in the law, except:
On the date this new regime was elected, the old property regime among them also came to an end.
it melts. For example, if the spouses got married on 01.01.2004 and the property regime
Let’s say they don’t have a contract. According to the law, they will be subject to the regime of participation in compulsorily acquired property from the date of their marriage. Spouses shown in the law on 01.01.2012
choose one of the other property regimes, for example property separation regime
in case of; Although the marriage union continues, the date of marriage is 01.
The regime of joining the acquired goods, which started on 01.2004, began on 01.01.2012 when the property separation regime was selected with the property regime agreement.
will have ended.
c) In case of divorce and annulment of marriage:
The existing property regime between the spouses at the date of the annulment action is also
will end. If the marriage union is; It will end on the date of finalization of the decision regarding the annulment of divorce or marriage, not on the date when the divorce or annulment of marriage lawsuits are filed.
d) Decision of the judge to switch to “separation of property”
In case of: When the spouses want together, the existing property regime can be applied between them.
they can change or remove them by adhering to legal limits. For example before
Although they have chosen the property separation regime, they may choose one of the property partnership or other regimes specified in the Law later on. However, in the law
In some exceptional cases (TMK m. 206 et al.), one of the spouses
388
current property regime with the decision of the family court judge
It can be converted into a “separation of property regime”. In this case, the marriage union
Although the existing property regime between the parties continues (for example, participation in acquired properties, property partnership regime or shared property)
separation regime) on the date when the case for transition to the extraordinary property regime was filed
will end.

Types of Property Regime Litigation

Cases regarding the property regime, which are still being heard in family courts and which are under appeal at the Court of Cassation; “transition case to extraordinary property regime” (TMK art. 206 vd), “value increase share receivables case”
(TMK m. 227), “litigation for participation in residual value” (TMK m. 231-236),
and the “contribution receivable lawsuit”. One of these cases, “the case of transition to the extraordinary property regime is not a debt case, but the existing one between the spouses.
changing the property regime, changing the existing property regime with the decision of the judge
It is a case that aims to transform the “separation” regime. Three other cases
if; These are lawsuits aimed at the collection of a receivable based on personal rights.
Information about these cases that will be useful in practice is briefly summarized.

Commodity Regime Start Date
In lawsuits regarding the liquidation of the property regime, such as the contribution fee claim, the value increase share lawsuit, the surplus value participation claim lawsuit.
First of all, the following issues should be determined: According to which property regime rules will these cases be resolved? Rules will be applied in the case
What date does the property regime begin and end between the parties?
has it reached?
If there is a property regime selected by contract between the parties, that property
the rules regarding the goods regime, a property determined by the goods regime contract.
property to which they are obligated by law
regime rules will apply. The request was made by the previous Civil Code (743
to an asset acquired during the period in force (TMK No.
is intended for and no other goods regime has been accepted by the parties; “Separation of goods”, which was accepted as a rule regime in our previous Law
According to the regime of the new Civil Code (TMK No. 4721), if the request
It is accepted as a legal property regime if it is for a property acquired after its entry into force and no other property regime has been chosen by the parties.
litigation in accordance with the rules of the “joining in acquired property” regime
will be resolved. .
What date did the property regime subject to liquidation start between the parties? If the parties have not made a separate contract; Those who got married before the date of 01. 01. 2002, when the Civil Law No. 4721 came into force
between the spouses from the date of their marriage with the previous Marital No. 743
They will be subject to the property separation regime, which is accepted as the legal property regime in our law, and this regime will be subject to the new Civil Code No. 4321.
entered into force on 01.02.2002 and ended on the same date with a new
acquired property stipulated by our Civil Code as a legal property regime.
regime of participation in goods will begin. Spouses at a later date
also in case they choose another regime specified in the law; on the date of the current goods regime goods regime contract between them
will end and the new regime they have chosen will begin. Property regime agreement between spouses who got married after 01. 01. 2002
if not done; regime of participation in property acquired at the time of marriage
will start.

Case for Transition to the Extraordinary Property Regime
Spouses can legally sign a property regime agreement “together” whenever they wish.
the right to change the existing property regime between them within the borders
they have. However, in some cases, the existing goods regime between them
It may be necessary to change, change without the spouses acting “together”. If the spouses have chosen one of the regimes of participation in the acquired property, shared property separation, property partnership or because they did not make a property regime contract, they are subject to the regime of participation in the acquired properties in accordance with the law.
if they have been; on changing the existing goods regime between them
even if they do not have a common demand, in some cases the existing
The transformation of the property regime into the “separation of property” regime is regulated in our law as an extraordinary property regime. For example, among
In the event of the bankruptcy of one of the spouses with the “company of property” regime, the property partnership regime will automatically turn into a property separation regime with the bankruptcy decision (TMK art. 209). From spouses who accept the property partnership
389
creditor, who is in enforcement proceedings against someone, in the implementation of the lien
if he suffers a loss, he will be able to ask the judge to decide on “separation of property” (TMK Article 210). If one of the spouses is constantly deprived of the power of discrimination; legal representative is TMK
According to article 206, he will be able to file a lawsuit for the separation of property. TMC 206.
If there is a justifiable reason indicated in the article or similar, by the family court at the request of one of the spouses.
It may be decided to transform the existing property regime between spouses into “property separation”. The importance of this case is as follows: In the event that this case is accepted and the decision is finalized, although the marriage union continues between the spouses, other cases for the liquidation of the property regime will be opened,
basis may be examined.
Officer in the case of transition to the extraordinary property regime (separation of property)
The court is a family court and is subject to fixed court fees and fixed attorney’s fees. The competent court is if any of the spouses
settlement court (TMK art. 207).

Residual Value Participation Claim
The legal basis of this case is the articles of the Turkish Civil Code numbered 4721 regulating the regime of participation in acquired goods (art.
218-241), especially 231-236. articles and Supreme Court decisions. The regime of participation in the goods acquired with the goods regime contract.
in accordance with the law because they have chosen or did not make a property regime contract.
(TMK m. 202) is a case for the spouses or their legal heirs, who are considered to have chosen this regime, to receive money based on personal rights that they can demand from each other when the property regime ends.
The most important feature that distinguishes this lawsuit from the lawsuit for “contribution” receivables and “value increase share” claims; one of the parties to the other
the burden of proving that he contributed to a property or property belonging to
not below. The legislator has spouses in this property regime.
They have given the right to claim mutual money based on personal rights regarding some of the goods they own (TMK Article 219). For this concrete
a contribution does not need to be proven. When the goods regime ends; As a rule, half of the “residual value” (TMK m. 231) belonging to the defendant, one of the other spouses or his heirs, of each of the spouses or their heirs.
They may request it as “receivables to participate in residual value”. Article 231 of the TMK
The acquired goods for which the residual value will be found are explained in article 219. Social security or social assistance institutions and organizations or
chests and the like, which were established for the purpose of helping the personnel,
loss of working power through payments (such as pensions)
compensation paid for; Although it is counted among the “acquired goods” in our law (TMK Article 219), all of them are acquired property.
is not, some of it is personal property, how is this separation process?
It is explained in article 228.

T.R. JUDICIARY

15. Criminal Chamber

Basis: 2016/ 3044

Decision: 2018 / 7677

Decision Date: 06.11.2018

COURT: Assize Court

CRIME: qualified fraud

PROVISION: Conviction pursuant to articles 158/1-e-son, 43, 62, 52 and 53 of the TCK

The judgment regarding the conviction of the accused for the crime of qualified fraud was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer and the attorney who participated, and the file was examined and the necessary consideration was taken,

Despite Nazife’s death in October 1993, the defendant received a power of attorney from the notary public on 21/12/1992 in order to withdraw the salary of his mother-in-law, Nazife, who lived with him and received a pension from the participating institution. the pension continued to be deposited into the bank account due to the failure to notify, the defendant did not report this death until the date of the crime, he took a total of 75,911.57 TL of his pension, the defendant obtained unfair advantage by fraudulent actions in this way, the defense of the defendant containing a confession, the statements of the witnesses, the conquest of the grave. As it is understood from the report of the Forensic Medicine Institute and the scope of the entire file, there was no misconduct in the conviction of the accused for the crime of qualified fraud.

According to the trial held, the evidence gathered and shown at the place of decision, the opinion and discretion of the court in accordance with the results of the prosecution, and the scope of the examined file; the rejection of the other appeals of the defendant’s counsel and the participating attorney, but;

In cases listed in sub-paragraphs (e), (f) (i) and (k) of paragraph 1 of Article 158 of the TCK No. 5237, the basic day to be determined for the determination of the judicial fine is minimum, not less than twice the unfair advantage obtained from the crime, and In accordance with the 52nd article of the same law, after the increase and reductions are made over the number of days to be determined by increasing the amount, the resultant number of days is multiplied by the amount to be appreciated between 20-100 TL, regardless of whether the resulting judicial fine should be determined. penalty determination,

Since the objections of the defendant’s defense counsel and the participating attorney were deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict was therefore VOID pursuant to Article 321 of the Criminal Code No. 1412, which is still in effect pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. Since it is possible to rectify in accordance with the article, the terms “5,000 Days”, “7.500 Days”, “6.250 Days” and “125.000 TL” related to the judicial fine, respectively, were completely removed from the sentence clause and replaced with “7.591 Days”, “11.386 Days”, “9.488 Days”, respectively. It was unanimously decided on 06/11/2018 to CORRECT and APPROVE the provision, whose other aspects were found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, by adding the phrases “Day” and “189.760 TL”.