What is Timeshare?

Timeshare is defined as a vacation system established with a contract that includes the transfer of one or more immovables in return for the price of usage, for a period of at least three years and for a certain or to be determined period of the year and not less than one week during this period.

The timeshare contract grants the consumer a right of receivable on the immovable that is the subject of the holiday, for the use of time-divided. This right is a personal right. The consumer is not the owner of any real right, such as the right of ownership, on the real estate subject to the contract.

Responsibility of the Head of the Family-Supreme Court Decision

T.R.
SUPREME COURT

  1. HD
    2011/3430 E. 2011/6636 K. 18.4.2011 T.

In the petition, it was requested to collect the compensation of 2500 liras, together with interest and expenses, from the defendant. The court dismissed the case, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

After it was understood that the appeal request was within the deadline, all the papers in the file were read and the necessary considerations were taken.

The case concerns the claim for compensation due to the defendants’ child starting a fire. From the explanations in the petition, it is understood that the responsibility of the defendants as the head of the family is requested.

The legal basis for the responsibility of the head of the family is found in Article 369 of the MK. In Article 4 of the Law No. 4787 on the Establishment of Family Courts, it is stated that the cases and affairs arising from the 2nd book of the MK will be resolved in the Family Court. In the concrete case, since compensation is requested based on Article 369 of the MK, such a case should be examined and concluded in the Family Court. The fact that the merits of the work was examined by the court, regardless of the direction of duty, is the reason for reversal.

In this respect, it was unanimously decided on 18.04.2011 that the written verdict was inaccurate, and the appeal objections were valid for these reasons, regardless of the principles explained above, and that the judgment be OVERFINED pursuant to Article 428 of the HUMK and that the appeal fee in advance be returned to the appellant upon request.

Termination of Floor Easement

Termination of floor servitude:

Article 49 – The owner or co-owners of the land that is the subject of the construction servitude can always end this easement by deleting the registration record of the construction servitude with a written statement to the land registry officer.

The construction servitude ends automatically when the land subject to this is completely destroyed or it becomes impossible to build on it or it is expropriated.

About Paperwork and Deregistration

III- Reporting assignment and deletion of the record:

Article 48 – In the event that all or a part of the main real estate or main structure is destroyed, the situation is directed by the manager to the title deed administration of the place where that real estate is located and all floor owners; if there is no manager, it is immediately reported to the land registry administration by the floor owner whose independent section is in ruins; The flat owner, whose independent part is devastated, is responsible for one-fifth of the damage, and the Treasury is not responsible for the damages that may arise due to failure to notify this.

When the condominium is terminated, the pages in the condominium register are closed and the registration of the real estate is registered in the general register in accordance with the principles of common ownership in proportion to the land shares, by showing the parts remaining intact from the main structure and by linking with the general register before the establishment of the condominium register. In this case, the provisions of common ownership also apply to the insurance costs and the wreckage.

If the owner or co-owners want to build a new building on the basis of condominium ownership on the land of the main building, which has all been destroyed, the provisions regarding the establishment of floor servitude and floor ownership are applied.

What is the Alimony Increase Case?

Nafaka artırımı davası, nafakanın değişen ekonomik şartlar ve ihtiyaçlar sebebiyle nafaka alacaklısı bakımından artık gerekli masrafları karşılayamaması halinde lehine nafaka alacaklısı tarafından nafaka borçlusuna açılan davayı ifade etmektedir.

            Mahkemece hükmedilen nafaka kararları kesin hüküm niteliğinde değildir. Bu sebeple nafaka miktarı, koşullar uygun olup talep edildiğinde yine mahkeme tarafından artırılabilmektedir. Zaman içinde değişen ekonomik şartlar ve enflasyon kaybı gibi sebeplerle nafaka miktarının yetersiz kalması olağandır. Mahkemeye haklı sebeple artırım talebinde bulunan taraf, nafaka artırım davası açarak nafaka artırabilecektir.

What Cases Does A Criminal Lawyer Heal ?

The cases handled by criminal lawyers are the cases filed as a result of committing acts that are regulated as crimes in the Turkish Penal Code and special laws. In criminal cases, there is the attorney who participates in the victim – the complainant – the injured party, and the lawyer who protects the legal interests of the accused. In criminal cases, unlike civil cases, there is a Public Prosecutor at the prosecution office. In civil cases, with exceptions, the Public Prosecutor does not work.

Criminal courts; criminal court of first instance, criminal court of peace, heavy penal court, juvenile court, juvenile heavy penal court and intellectual and industrial property rights criminal courts. The court in which the case will be heard is determined by the law, according to the nature of the crime, the way it was committed, and the age or source of the perpetrator.

What Are The Cases Where Law Officers Can Make Direct Appeal?

The situations in which a direct arrest can be made without an arrest warrant by the law enforcement are listed in article 90/2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in article 5 of the Regulation on Arrest, Detention and Statement Taking. Accordingly, law enforcement officers

In cases where an arrest warrant or arrest warrant is issued and delays are harmful, they have the power to arrest if they cannot immediately apply to the Public Prosecutor or their superiors. (CMK art. 90/2)
In order for an arrest to be made without an arrest warrant by the law enforcement, the two conditions listed must be present together. In other words, in cases where an arrest warrant is issued or an arrest warrant is issued, law enforcement officers will be able to make arrests without an arrest warrant, if there is a problem in delay. Apart from this, the situations listed in the regulation are as follows;

Those who disobey the orders of the law enforcement and those who do not comply with the measures taken,
Persons who forcibly oppose the law enforcement authorities while on duty or to deprive them of their duties and are likely to continue their activities if they are not caught,
Those who buy, sell, possess or use drugs and stimulants,
Those who are drunk enough to disturb the public’s comfort or cause a disgrace, or who attack others while intoxicated,
Those who disturb the peace and tranquility of the people, those who continue their actions despite the warnings, those who attempt to attack others and fight,
Persons who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs and stimulants or alcohol, vagrants or who may transmit disease, who pose a danger to the society, in order to fulfill the measures taken in accordance with the principles specified by the laws for treatment, education and rehabilitation in an institution,
Children against whom the court has decided to place them in child care and orphanages or similar official or private institutions, or to be brought before the competent authority,
They can arrest people who want to enter or enter the country illegally, or for whom a deportation or extradition decision has been taken.

Breach of the presumption of innocence because of the fact that a sentenced crime is based on the judgment of conviction for another crime committed later

Events

the applicant; He was sentenced to prison for being a member of a terrorist organization before the date of the incident, which is the subject of the application.

The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor determined that the applicant participated in the meeting and demonstration march organized to commemorate the members of the terrorist organization on the anniversary of their death and upon the call of the terrorist organization, and distributed some of the pennants with the picture of the leader of the terrorist organization to the attendees; started an investigation against the applicant on the grounds that his behavior in question constituted the crime of committing a crime on behalf of the terrorist organization, even though he was not a member of the terrorist organization. The applicant was referred to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace with the request of being arrested for the same crime, but the Criminal Judgeship of Peace rejected the arrest request and ordered a judicial control measure against the applicant. Upon the public prosecutor’s objection to this decision, the same criminal judgeship of peace decided on 23/1/2015 to annul its previous decision and to issue an arrest warrant for the applicant’s detention.

In the public case opened, the high criminal court sentenced the applicant to 1 year and 8 months for making propaganda for a terrorist organization, and to 5 years for committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization without being a member of a terrorist organization. Upon the applicant’s appeal against this decision, the Court of Cassation quashed the convictions due to the restriction of the applicant’s right to defense.

In the trial held after the reversal, the applicant was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months in prison for the crime of being a member of a terrorist organization and the continuation of his detention was ruled. Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation corrected the penalty amount for the applicant as 5 years and upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The Court of Cassation stated that it is possible for the applicant to be sentenced for the crime of making propaganda for a terrorist organization within the statute of limitations, but the applicant did not submit any information or documents to the Constitutional Court regarding the crime of making propaganda for the terrorist organization – after this stage.

allegations

The applicant alleges that the presumption of innocence was violated because a crime committed in the previous date and the sentence of which was executed was taken as a basis for the evaluation of a conviction for another crime committed later.

Court’s Evaluation

In the concrete case, the court of first instance evaluated that the actions of the applicant in the meeting attended before the Supreme Court decision of reversal constituted the crime of committing a crime on behalf of the terrorist organization although he was not a member of it, and did not mention his previous conviction in its decision. On the other hand, both in the judgment of reversal of the Court of Cassation and in the decision of the first-instance court after the judgment of reversal, it was seen that the applicant had committed the act subject to the application after he was conditionally released from the penitentiary institution where he was previously convicted for the crime of being a member of a terrorist organization.

As a matter of fact, after the Supreme Court’s decision of reversal, which emphasized that the applicant had contacted with the armed terrorist organization again after his conditional release, the first instance court decided that the applicant was a member of a terrorist organization, this time on the grounds of the Supreme Court’s annulment decision. Thus, the court of first instance considered as evidence not only that the applicant attended a meeting that was deemed to have turned into illegality, but also that the applicant had previously been convicted of being a member of a terrorist organization. In short, the courts of instance reached the conclusion that the necessary elements were formed for the applicant to be punished for being a member of a terrorist organization, based on the previous conviction.

With the said practice of the court of first instance, the burden of proof did not remain with the prosecution; transferred to the applicant. The approach of the court will result in the conviction of people who have been sentenced for the crime of being a member of a terrorist organization before, regardless of whether it constitutes a crime or not, and that any new action will be evaluated together with their previous actions and will be punished again and automatically for the crime of being a member of a terrorist organization.

It is incompatible with the presumption of innocence that the action subject to the application was committed by the court of instance after the applicant was sentenced to be a member of a terrorist organization after his conditional release from the penitentiary institution, and that the applicant had re-established contact with the terrorist organization and was punished for being a member of a terrorist organization for this reason.

The Constitutional Court decided that the presumption of innocence had been violated for the reasons explained.

DISCHARGE OF THE LEASED PROPERTY DUE TO NEED

As I explained above, one of the reasons for the termination of the lease agreement in residential and roofed workplace rentals is the need of the lessor for the leased property. In the case of the demand for the evacuation of the lessee due to need, the lessor can provide the evacuation of the immovable with this type of lawsuit, if the conditions sought by the law are met.

WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF THE LEASOR?
The person who has leased his immovable may need this immovable during the continuation of the lease agreement. As a matter of fact, in case the lessor has such a need, the lessor can acquire the immovable thanks to the rights recognized by the law.

These requirements are regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations:

A) If the rented immovable is needed as a residence or workplace by the lessor’s spouse, descendants, descendants or other dependents, an eviction request may be made due to the lessor’s requirement. In order to realize this situation, which is limited to the persons who are numbered here, the need is sought to be “sincere and real”. As a matter of fact, the importance of this issue is emphasized in the decisions of the Supreme Court:

“As for our case; In the warning and lawsuit petition dated 01.07.2014, the attorney of the plaintiff declared that he wanted to use the shop that was the subject of the lawsuit, which he had just acquired, on the claim that his client did not have a job, but did not explain what work would be done by the needy in the leased property, and did not make any statement regarding this issue during the trial, and the plaintiff’s witness was heard. He also stated that the plaintiff was planning to do business, but he did not know what business he would do. In this case, since it is understood that the plaintiff who has acquired the leased property has not yet decided for what purpose he wants to use the leased property, which is the subject of the lawsuit he has acquired with the claim of workplace need, and since this issue has been confirmed by the statement of witnesses, it cannot be said that the need for the workplace is real, sincere and compulsory, while the court should decide to reject the lawsuit, It is not correct to accept the case with a written justification.”

B) If it is necessary to repair, expand or change the leased immovable for the purpose of reconstruction or zoning, and if the use of the leased property will become impossible during the construction of these works, it is possible to evacuate the leased property by the lessor.

C) Evacuation of the immovable is made possible if the new owner of the immovable needs it. In the event that the owner of the leased property changes after the establishment of the lease agreement, the new owner of the immovable becomes the new party of the lease agreement. In the event that the new owner and other persons (spouse, descendants, descendants, dependents) need the real estate, it is possible to evacuate the real estate. In the proceedings, it is sought that the needs of the new owner and few other persons are “real and sincere”.

HOW TO OPEN A CASE FOR EVACUATION DUE TO THE NEED OF THE LEASOR?
If the lessor, his spouse, descendants, descendants or other dependents need the leased property; The lessor must file an eviction lawsuit within 1 month, starting from the specified date, provided that the termination notice periods are respected.
In cases where the leased property needs to be repaired, expanded or changed for the purpose of rebuilding or zoning, the lessor must file an eviction lawsuit within 1 month, starting from the specified date, provided that the notice period of termination is complied with.
In the event that the owner of the leased immovable changes and the need of the new owner comes to the fore, our law has given us two different possibilities:
-The new owner must notify the tenant in writing of his/her request to be evicted within 1 month from the date of acquisition of the immovable. If this condition is met, the new owner can evacuate the leased property with an eviction lawsuit to be filed after 6 months. The Supreme Court Decisions are also in this direction in the evacuation of the rented immovable due to necessity.

In the decisions of the Court of Cassation, “The person who acquires an immovable property in the form of a residence or a roofed workplace, if he wishes, within one month at the end of the contract based on the agreement made between the former owner and the tenant, or within one month starting from the date of acquisition, including the day of acquisition, pursuant to Article 351 of the TCO, if he wishes. can file an eviction lawsuit due to need six months after the acquisition date, provided that the tenant is informed in writing. The lawsuit does not have to be opened immediately at the end of six months, but it is possible to open it until the end of the contract. However, notification of the notification within one month following the acquisition is obligatory and it is not possible to rectify it later. This point is explained in the form.

-The new owner can evacuate the lessee by filing an eviction lawsuit within 1 month from the end of the lease contract.

It is possible to evacuate the leased property by the new owner by choosing one of the two possibilities provided by the law.