TO THE PRESIDENCY OF ANTALYA COMMERCIAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PRECAUTIONARY CAUTION IS DEMANDED

Plaintiff:

ATTORNEY:

DEFENDANT: Undefeated

SUBJECT : Our petition contains our request for the cancellation of the check dated …/…./…… due to loss.

DESCRIPTIONS

1. The client company sells technology products. For this purpose, the checks listed below, which were received from the customers and endorsed by the representative of the client company, were stolen by breaking the glass of the vehicle of the client company personnel. The report taken by the Levent police station due to the theft in the vehicle of our client’s personnel and the photos of the crime scene are also attached to our petition.

List of Stolen Checks

X Bank X Branch, X Date, XXXX Amount, XX Check with XXX, Check with Serial Number XXX
X Bank X Branch, X Date, XXXX Amount, XX Check with XXX, Check with Serial Number XXX
X Bank X Branch, X Date, XXXX Amount, XX Check with XXX, Check with Serial Number XXX
X Bank X Branch, X Date, XXXX Amount, XX Check with XXX, Check with Serial Number XXX
X Bank X Branch, X Date, XXXX Amount, XX Check with XXX, Check with Serial Number XXX

2. Since these stolen checks were issued by companies with a high commercial reputation in the market, since the client firm also has a turnover and the checks are not yet due, the checks are collected from the bank when the checks are due.
3. In order to prevent the collection of checks from the bank and to prevent our client and the customers of our client who draws the check from being harmed, this lawsuit has been filed for the cancellation of the check, including the prohibition of payment as a precaution.

EVIDENCE: Bank records, photocopies of checks, witnesses, police reports, and other legal evidence.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: With the acceptance of our case, for the reasons we briefly explained above and to be taken into account ex officio by your court, first of all, in order to prevent the payment of the checks belonging to our client, the photographs of which we have submitted in our petition, and the cancellation of the said check at the end of the case, in order to prevent the payment of the checks, we would like to express your opinion. we offer.

Plaintiff’s Attorney

8. Law Office

Base Number: 2016/1136

Decision Number: 2016/1136

“Justice Text”

COURT: Enforcement Civil Court
TYPE OF CASE: Ration

Upon the request of the appellant, the file regarding this matter was sent to the Chamber within the time limit of the Court decision with the date and number of which is written above.

DECISION

On 04/06/2013, the attorney of the plaintiff 3rd party stated that the movables belonging to the client company were confiscated, the debtor was the partner of the company, and the company’s property could not be seized due to the personal debt of the company partner, and demanded the abolition of the seizure upon the acceptance of the remuneration claims and filed a lawsuit.
The defendant claimed that they initiated enforcement proceedings for the collection of the alimony determined for his attorney, his client and their joint children, that after the attachment, the plaintiff company deliberately claimed remuneration and that it intended to prolong the case, therefore, the case was requested to be dismissed.
At the end of the trial by the court, the decision to reject the remuneration lawsuit was appealed by the plaintiff’s third party attorney.
Pursuant to Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, it is up to the parties to claim material events, and to the judge to make legal qualifications and to determine the applicable laws. According to the way the claim is put forward, the case is based on the third party’s 96th vd. It is in the nature of a “remuneration” lawsuit filed pursuant to the articles of art.
The proceedings, which are the subject of the lawsuit, have been initiated due to the alimony debt, and it is in the nature of the personal debt of the company partner debtor. Pursuant to Article 133 of the TCC No. 6102, the personal creditor of one of the partners has his right from the dividends falling to that partner in accordance with the balance sheet of the company and the liquidation share if the company has been dissolved, if the balance sheet has not been drawn up yet, the profit and liquidation share that will fall to the debtor as a result of the arrangement of the balance sheet, It has the authority to take the undocumented shares in accordance with the provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 on movables or to take from the other receivables of the partner from the company and to make a lien for this purpose. Apart from this, since the seizure of the assets of the company due to the personal debt of the partner-borrower is against the procedure and the law, it is not correct to reject the case in writing while it should be accepted.
CONCLUSION: For the reason explained above, with the acceptance of the objections of the plaintiff’s 3rd party attorney, the judgment was OVERFINED pursuant to Article 428 of the HUMK no. . It was unanimously decided on 25.01.2016 that a request for rectification of the decision can be made against the decision within 10 days following the notification of the Supreme Court Chamber’s decision, and the cash fee of 24.30 TL will be returned to the appellant.

12th Law Office

Principal Number: 2019/7271

Decision Number: 2019/9780

“Justice Text”
COURT: Enforcement Civil Court

Upon the request of the creditor on appeal, the file regarding this matter was sent to the office within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number of which is written above.
In the application of the debtor to the enforcement court; It has been understood that the vehicle with license plate number 01 KB 476 belonging to the Municipality, on which the lien was placed, was allocated to the public with the decision of the municipality council, therefore it requested the removal of the lien on the vehicle, the court decided to accept the case, and the creditor appealed the decision.
In the 15/last article of the Municipality Law No. 5393; The regulation “The property of the municipality that is actually used in the public service and the tax, duty and fee revenues collected by the municipality cannot be seized”. According to this article, in order for the municipality’s complaint of non-attachment to be accepted, it is obligatory to actually use the seizures in the public service.
According to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the principles of the law of enforcement, the main thing is to ensure that the creditor gets his debt, as a rule, it is possible to seize all the properties of the debtors. In order for a property not to be seized, there must be a legal regulation. Since non-attachment is an exceptional situation, the regulations in this direction should also be interpreted narrowly.
Accordingly, in order for a movable or immovable property belonging to the debtor municipality to be non-seizure, it is undisputed that that property should be used in public service. However, in order to accept that a good is actually used in public service, that good must be found suitable for the purpose of carrying out the public service.
In the concrete case, it is understood that the vehicle belonging to the debtor municipality, which is the subject of the complaint of non-seizure, is the mayor’s office vehicle. In the light of the principles explained above, it should be emphasized whether the mayor’s vehicle is required for the municipality to carry out the public service and whether a vehicle allocated as an official vehicle is actually used in the public service.
Article 4 of the Vehicle Law No. 237 regulates who will be given an office vehicle, and the mayor is not one of those who will be assigned an office vehicle in accordance with the aforementioned law.
On the other hand, the use of the vehicle as an official vehicle does not mean that it is actually used in public service, and the mayor does not have to have an official vehicle in order to carry out public service. Because the duties of the municipalities are explained in Article 14 of the Law No. 5393, it is not obligatory for the mayors to have an official vehicle in order to fulfill these duties.
In that case, the court’s decision to accept the complaint with a written reason instead of rejecting it is inaccurate.
CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the creditor’s objections to the appeal, the court’s decision to be overturned pursuant to Articles 366 of the EBL and 428 of the HUMK for the reasons written above, the refund of the fee paid in advance upon request, with the possibility of rectification within 10 days from the notification of the verdict, 10/06. It was decided unanimously on /2019.

26 TEM WORKER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SIGNATURE EVEN IF HE CANNOT READ AND WRITE
Posted at 20:47h in Judicial Decisions by Yağız Canseven 0 Comments
0Likes
Share
Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber

Base Number: 2012/3328

Decision Number: 2012/8399

“Justice Text”

COURT: İzmir 9th Labor Court
DATE: 13/02/2012
NUMBER: 2011/556-2012/76

The plaintiff claimed that he worked at the defendant’s workplace between 06.05.2005 and 13.05.2011 and that the employment contract was unfairly terminated by the employer on the grounds of absenteeism, and demanded the collection of severance and notice indemnities and some labor receivables.
The defendant requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff left the workplace on 08.06.2011 by arguing with other workers working at the workplace, that he did not continue to work without a valid excuse in the following days, and that the employment contract was terminated based on the justified reason for absenteeism.
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the defendant was wrong to terminate the employment contract.
The defendant appealed the decision.
1-According to the articles in the file, the collected evidence and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the paragraph below are not appropriate.
2- There is a disagreement between the parties as to whether the plaintiff worker has worked overtime.
The worker who claims to have worked overtime is obliged to prove this claim. The rules regarding payrolls also apply here. The payroll bearing the signature of the worker is in the nature of definitive evidence until its falsity is proven. In other words, unless the fraudulent payroll is claimed and proven, it is assumed that the overtime receivable appearing on the signed payroll has been paid.
The workplace records, especially the documents showing the entrance and exit of the workplace, and internal correspondence of the workplace are in the nature of evidence for the proof of overtime work. However, if the overtime work cannot be proven with written documents, the parties must come to a conclusion with the statements of witnesses. Apart from this, some general facts that are known to everyone can also be taken into account at this point. It should be investigated whether there is overtime work according to the nature and intensity of the work actually done by the worker.
If it is understood that overtime wages are paid on the signed payrolls, it is not possible to argue that the worker actually worked more. However, if there is a reservation that the worker has more overtime receivables, the proof of working more than what appears on the payroll can be made with any kind of evidence. In case the payrolls are signed and unregistered with reservations, the worker must prove with a written document that he has worked more than stated in the payroll. In case the wages of different amounts, including overtime wage accruals, are made through the bank every month, although the payroll is not signed by the worker, the reservation has not been put forward, it is more than the paid amount. This leads to the conclusion that overtime work must be proven with written evidence.
In the concrete case, it is seen that overtime wages were accrued in the signed payrolls submitted by the defendant for the 11-12 months of 2010 and 1-2-4 and 5 months of 2011, and the amounts accrued in the payrolls were deposited into the bank account of the plaintiff and paid without reservation. Although it is stated in the explanation section of the expert report on which the judgment is based that these accrued months should be excluded from the calculation, it is seen that the aforementioned period is not excluded when calculating. The establishment of a judgment based on an erroneous expert report necessitated reversal.
3- The other dispute between the parties is whether the worker is entitled to the wages of the unused leave periods.
In Article 59 of the Law No. 4857, it is stipulated that if the employment contract is terminated for any reason, the wages of the annual leave periods not given to the employee will be paid over the last wage. The termination of the employment contract is necessary for the annual leave right to be turned into a wage. At this point, the way the contract is terminated and whether it is based on a just cause does not matter.
The burden of proof at the point where the annual leave is used rests with the employer. The employer must prove that the annual leaves are used with a signed leave book or an equivalent document. The employer, who bears the burden of proof in this regard, may offer an oath to the worker.
In the concrete case, there are signatures in the annual leave book submitted by the defendant, stating that the plaintiff has used the forty-two-day annual leave to which he is entitled according to his working period. The content of the minutes of the warning penalties given to the plaintiff by the employer, who is illiterate, is also fixed before the termination. Since the conditions stipulated in Article 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100 were not met, the court accepted that the signatures of the plaintiff in the annual leave book could not be considered valid, and the annual leave fee was awarded over a period of forty-two days.

is work.
Witness Oruç Budanır, wife of the plaintiff, declared that the plaintiff took fifteen days of annual leave during his working period. Although the plaintiff stated in his statement regarding the evidence submitted by the defendant employer that the signatures on the payrolls do not belong to him, he did not claim that the signatures in the annual leave book did not belong to him and did not bring a defense that they were taken from him by fraud.
The rule stipulated by Article 206 of Law No. 6100 regarding the arrangement and conditions of sealed, fingerprinted and marked documents is not a form of validity, but is related to the form of proof. In this respect, this form of regulation stipulated in the aforementioned article is only valid if the fingerprint or special mark of the seal is denied; In this respect, if the fingerprint is acknowledged, the fingerprinted document is considered valid even if it is not approved in accordance with Article 206 of the Procedure. If a document is signed or marked without being read, it should be accepted as a valid document in terms of trust principle. Because, even if he has no knowledge of its content, the person who signed or fingerprinted a document knowing this situation cannot claim that the document is invalid afterwards. In the face of this situation and considering the material and legal facts explained above, it would be wrong to accept the case while it should be rejected in terms of annual leave fee.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 02.05.2012 that the appealed decision be OVERFINED for the reason stated above, and that the appeal fee paid in advance would be returned to the relevant person upon request.

T.R. SUPREME COURT
2nd Civil Chamber Act No:2015/19054
Decision No: 2016/11164 Decision Date: 06.06.2016

Supreme Court Decision
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Divorce

At the end of the proceedings of mutual divorce cases between the parties, the local court
the judgment given above, the date and number of which is indicated, the determination of fault by the defendant man,
By appealing in terms of compensations and alimony, the documents were read and the need was discussed and considered:
1- The articles in the file, the evidences on which the decision is based, the legal reasons and especially the evidences.
provided that there is no mistake in the discretion of the defendant man, which is outside the scope of the following subparagraph
appeals are unfounded.
2-As per the article 166/1 of the Turkish Civil Code, the marital union of the parties is shaken.
It was decided to divorce on legal grounds. The defendant’s husband physically abused his wife
Although it was decided to indemnify the plaintiff on the grounds of non-pecuniary damage; the investigation and
After the physical violence incident from the collected evidence, the parties came together and continued the marriage union.
so that the plaintiff woman forgave the defendant, at least tolerated this incident.
understandable. Another material incident, which is an attack on the personal rights of the plaintiff,
has not been proven. In this case, the claimant woman’s request for non-pecuniary compensation (TMK m. 174/2) is rejected.
however, its acceptance was not correct.
CONCLUSION: In terms of non-pecuniary damage for the reason stated in the second paragraph above, the appealed judgment
DETERMINATION, and the parts that are out of the scope of disruption for the reason indicated in the 1st paragraph.
TO APPROVE, to return the appeal fee to the depositor upon request, from the notification of this decision
It was unanimously decided within 15 days from the date of the decision, with the possibility of rectification open.

T.R. SUPREME COURT
6th Penal Chamber Main No:2011/21386
Decision No: 2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014

LOADING THE HOUSING OR ITS ADDITIONS – THE ACTION
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CRIME OF RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY
WRONG IN THE VALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE QUALIFICATION OF CRIMINAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF JURISDICTION – TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION

SUMMARY: Defendant V. ….. has a legal receivable from A. ….
defendant S. …. the act of forcing the participant to sign the deed together with the TCK numbered 765.
looting regulated in article; With the crime of looting regulated in Articles 5237, the same law
At the discretion of the evidence, regardless of whether it constitutes the crime of restricting freedom regulated in Article
and the establishment of a sentence by mistake in the character of a crime necessitated annulment.
(765 S. K. art. 499) (5237 S. K. art. 109, 149)
Case: By appealing the judgment given by the Local Court; nature of the application, type of punishment, duration and crime
File discussed by date:
Decision: According to the occurrence, the content of the file, the statements of the victims and witnesses and the evasive defenses of the accused,
participating A. …., accused V. ….. borrowed 1 billion TL and issued 2.5 billion TL promissory note in return,
Due to the defendant’s usury, he owed 2.5 billion TL with a 7-month maturity of 1 billion.
when the due date, the participant paid 1 billion TL to the accused V.
when it is requested that the payment be written on the back of the bill, the accused S. ….
A.
While sitting in the cafe, the defendants invited them to walk on the road with the excuse of talking.
they suddenly forced the suspect V. into the house of the accused S. by holding a gun to his head at home and
3.5 billion TL and one blank bill were forcibly signed and released after ten days.
When they met the accused S. on the road, when he said that he was saving money, he would pay the price of the bill, his name was
The participant A., who thinks that the previous suspect said that the bill was endorsed, went to the prosecutor’s office.
The deed that he complained about and which was forcibly signed by the participant a week later, was followed by a third party.
accused V. …. in their defense at the first stages, from their spouse before the date of the incident.
17.5 billion TL to the participant A.
the accused S., who did not accept the crime, that he borrowed money and bought a bill worth 20 billion TL.
witness Cemal …. 1 billion to A., who participated in exchange for the defendant V.’s promissory note.
He said that he knew that he gave TL 2.5 and 5 billion dollars to the accused S.’s brother, witness S…..
Witness Kadri …. In exchange for giving mold to the accused V.
In the search conducted in the house of the accused V., in which he stated that he took 20 billion bills and put them into execution,
dated 17.03.2004, that the weapon stated by the participant in his statements was found, that the weapon was a dry-fired pistol.
20 billion debt to the participant in the cover letter of the law enforcement, where the financial situation of the accused V. … is not good
It was determined that he could not give and that the bill taken by force from the participant could have been filled as 20 billion.
in the face of being understood;
Defendant V. ….. has a legal receivable from A. ….
defendant S. …. 499/1 of the TCK No. 765 of the act of forcing the participant to sign the deed together with.
looting regulated in article; Looting regulated in articles 149/1-a-c-d of TCK numbered 5237
with the crime of restricting freedom regulated in article 109/2-3-(a-b) of the same Law.
judgment in written form without consideration of the evidence, by mistaken in the discretion of the evidence and in the character of crime
establishment,
Result: Necessary to quash, the defendants V. …. and S. …..’s defense appeals in this regard.
Since it has been seen on the spot, the provision will be OVERFINED as the request for the explained reason, numbered 5320.
8/1 of the law. by sending the article 326 / last article of the CMUK numbered 1412.
protection of the acquired rights of the accused in terms of the duration, type and amount of the punishment, 08.07.2014
It was unanimously decided on.

Unjust and long periods of detention in criminal proceedings have become a frequently encountered issue, especially in recent years. It has generated a lot of controversy. These discussions; It is about the fact that detention has ceased to be a precautionary measure and has almost become a means of punishment. It should be noted that arrest is a protective measure and not a punishment. Because the arrested person continues to benefit from the presumption of innocence and no legal system accepts to punish the person whose crime is not proven with a final judicial decision. Indeed, detention is a protective measure and a tool used to ensure that the criminal procedure achieves its purpose. First of all, we would like to point out that in order for an arrest warrant to be issued, all the conditions sought by the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK art. 100/1) must be met at the same time. An arrest, which is implemented without seeking all the conditions required by the law, is not a protective measure. Because it is impossible to justify such an arrest for criminal purposes.

This constitutionally guaranteed right clearly states the principles of detention in Article 19 of the Constitution titled “Personal Freedom and Security” and in the last paragraph; It has brought the provision that “The damages suffered by persons who are subjected to a procedure other than these principles shall be paid by the state in accordance with the general principles of compensation law”. The procedures and reasons for granting compensation are Articles 141-144 of the CMK No. 5271. regulated by the articles. This provision, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and clearly stated, provides the opportunity to return the material and moral rights lost to the victim, as compensation, in the event of an unjustly detained and detention process.

In case of deficiencies or violations of the law following the decision of detention or detention, when referring to irregular detention; If a decision to terminate the prosecution or acquittal is given for the accused who has been arrested in accordance with the Constitution and the law and the necessary procedures to be carried out following his arrest have been carried out in full and in accordance with the law, if the period of detention is longer than the period of imprisonment or the accused is sentenced to only a fine, the arrest is unjustified. In both cases, victims can claim all kinds of material and moral damages from the state. This compensation lawsuit to be filed against the state is paid by the Undersecretariat of Treasury. Material damage is the loss of income incurred during the illegal or unjustified detention and therefore the expenses he has to make. These expenses include the attorney’s fee paid to the attorney, if the person has had himself/herself represented by an attorney. The moral damage is the loss of dignity of the person in his family and work environment, experiencing mental problems, and the anguish, grief and sadness he feels because of being away from his children, family and environment. The Supreme Court decision on the subject is presented below.

EXAMPLE COURT DECISION

T.R.

JURISDICTION12. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT. 2017/8800K. 2018/1376T. 12.2.2018

CASE: The decision regarding the partial acceptance of the claimant’s claim for compensation was appealed by the defendant’s attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney, the file was examined and the necessary was considered;

DECISION: Rejection of other appeals of the counsel of the defendant and the counsel of the plaintiff, according to the examination, 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 file examined;

1-) According to the arrest warrant in the file, the plaintiff was arrested for violating the Law No. 6136, and in the criminal case file of the Istanbul 10th High Criminal Court, which is the basis of the claim for compensation, the criminal case file numbered 2008/190 – 2013/221 Decision, the organization established to commit a crime against the plaintiff. Considering that a verdict of acquittal was given for the crime of being a member, the criminal case file, which is the basis of the claim for compensation, was summoned and examined, and the warrant of arrest, the interrogation memorandum and the original or certified copies of the indictment were included in the file. While a decision should be made according to the result by investigating whether a decision has been made regarding the absence of prosecution or whether a lawsuit has been filed, whether a decision has been made about the plaintiff for the aforementioned crime, a written decision should be made with incomplete examination and research,

2-) Failure to observe whether the arrest warrant issued against the plaintiff has been executed, and if it has been executed, the duration of the execution should be determined without leaving any room for hesitation by asking the execution dates from the penitentiary institution,

3-) In the face of the understanding that during the appeal examinations made by our department, it was determined that more than one lawsuit was filed based on the same subject and the reason for unjust arrest; In order to prevent payments for repetitive lawsuits that cause treasury damage and to use public resources effectively, efficiently and lawfully, a lawsuit has been filed based on the same subject and wrongful arrest reason.

Not observing that whether there is a business case should be asked from the relevant units and determined by researching it through the National Judicial Network Information System (UYAP),

According to the acceptance;

1-) The plaintiff, who could not submit any documents that could be credited regarding his income and the amount of loss of earnings for the period he was detained, was calculated over the net minimum wage amounts determined by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security for those over the age of 16 regarding the period of detention and detention, amounting to 4,330,85 TL. While it should be decided to pay the plaintiff as pecuniary compensation, the incomplete determination of the pecuniary compensation by taking the amount determined by the wrongful deductions from the gross minimum wage in the expert report as a basis for the decision,

2-) Although it is not an objective criterion, the monetary value of the moral compensation to be awarded in favor of the plaintiff, together with the social and economic status of the plaintiff, the nature of the crime charged, the course of the event that led to his arrest, the period of his detention and the interest until the compensation case is finalized, should be taken into account. While it is necessary to determine and determine a reasonable amount in accordance with the principles of rights and affiliation, the judgment of less moral compensation in an amount that does not comply with the determined criteria,

3-) In the title of reasoned decision, instead of “Crime” instead of “Crime”, “Compensation in the event of a decision of acquittal or KYO after Arrest or Arrest” instead of “Crime”, “Compensation due to protection measures”, instead of “Date of lawsuit: 13.05.2014”. “Crime date: 23.10.2014” and “Crime place: Istanbul/Bakırköy” and “Plaintiff: KH” including phrases,

CONCLUSION: As it is against the law and the appeal objections of the defendant’s attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney are deemed appropriate in this respect, the judgment is OVERFINED in accordance with the request, pursuant to Article 321 of the Criminal Code No. 1412, which is still in effect pursuant to Article 8 of the Law No. 5320, 12.02.2018 It was unanimously decided on.

Turkey Student Visa

Students who are entitled to study at any higher education institution in Turkey must obtain a “student visa” before coming to Turkey. Student visa is issued by the Foreign Representative of the Republic of Turkey of the country of citizenship of the foreign student or of the country of residence with a residence permit. Foreign nationals who will obtain a student visa must submit the “University Acceptance Letter” from the university in Turkey to the Foreign Representative of Turkey. A student visa is required to be written in the student’s passport, and those who come to Turkey with a visa exemption or other visa type without obtaining a student visa are not registered.

Foreign students who come to Turkey with a student visa and enroll in the university are required to apply for a residence permit for study purposes. The duration of the student visa issued by the Foreign Representation of the Republic of Turkey differs from country to country. Student visas are issued for 30 or 90 days. The foreign student must apply to the Directorate of Migration Management in the province or district where he/she resides before completing this period and obtain a residence permit for educational purposes.

Student Visa Required Documents

Student Visa Application Form;
Passport valid for at least 1 year;
A letter stating that the foreigner has been accepted to the university;
1 passport size photograph;
Visa fee.
The documents required for student visa applications vary according to the country of nationality. Generally, the required documents are as above.

Student visas are single-entry, and after entering the country with a student visa, the foreigner must apply for a residence permit for study purposes. If the foreigner leaves Turkey without applying for a residence permit for educational purposes, his visa will be cancelled. Even if the foreigner whose visa has been revoked re-enters Turkey within the scope of visa exemption, he will not be able to obtain a residence permit for study purposes. In this case, the foreigner will need to return to their country and obtain a student visa. These issues should be taken into account in order to avoid victimization.

Persons for whom a Student Visa is not required

If the foreigner has one of the following conditions, a student visa is not required.

Foreign students who have a Blue Card within the framework of Law No. 5203;
Foreign students who are children of parents residing in Turkey with a work permit or residence permit;
Foreign students who have completed their Secondary and Higher Education in Turkey and have started their undergraduate or (or) graduate education, provided that they do not take a break for more than 1 year;
A student visa is not requested in cases where foreign students who are registered at a higher education institution in Turkey and previously obtained a student visa and are residing with a residence permit for study change their department without interruption.
A new student visa is not required if foreign students have previously enrolled in any university program and subsequently changed their department or university. However, if these people make a change within the same province, they must submit their new student documents to the Provincial or District Directorate of Migration Management, and if they have changed the province, they must apply for a residence permit to the Directorate of Migration Management of the province where they reside.

What is Negotiable Document?

Definition of Negotiable Documents: Negotiable documents are the bills on which the written right is strictly bound to the promissory note, therefore the right can only be demanded and transferred with this document. Valuable documents are in the hands of the creditor or the right holder. It shows the promise of the debtor and the right of the creditor. It has important differences from ordinary promissory notes showing receivables. In order to understand these differences, it is necessary to know the properties of valuable documents.
Properties of Negotiable Documents:
– The right must be transferable to another person.
– The right should be evaluated in cash.
– There is a close connection between the right and the deed. The right without a deed cannot be claimed and transferred.
– The principle of abstraction is in effect. The basic debt relationship that caused the issuance of the bill cannot be understood from the negotiable documents.
– Valuable paper types are specified in a limited number of laws.
– Negotiable documents are subject to strict format requirements.
Transfer Forms of Negotiable Documents:
Registered Promissory Note: It is a deed on which the name of the first creditor is written and does not include its registration in his order (which gives others the right to transfer not only the deed and therefore the receivable written in the deed abstractly, but also the actual receivable that caused the deed to be written). Their transfer and the results of the transfer are subject to the assignment procedures.

Deed with Emre Written: It is the deed that bears the name of the first creditor of the deed, but also carries a record to his order (or in some cases, this record is assumed). In bills, policies and checks, this record is deemed to exist. Therefore, if it is not given any other form (name or bearer), it is legally accepted as a promissory note. Promissory notes can be transferred by endorsement and delivery.

Bearer Bills: It is the deed that the bearer (carrying, possessing, holding) is deemed to be the rightful owner. Therefore, there is no special form for transfer in such bills. It is sufficient for the bearer to deliver the bill in his hand to the person to whom he wishes to transfer the receivable. Bills and policies are not written to the bearer, but can be written to the check bearer.

Negotiable Document Types:
4.1. Bills of Exchange: Bills of exchange are valuable documents containing money receivables. The debtor of the bill of exchange undertakes to pay the bearer the amount written on the bill of exchange. Bills, bills of exchange and checks are accepted as bills of exchange. Bills of exchange have some characteristics.

The features of bills of exchange are as follows:
– Includes a right to claim.
– It has an international character.
– It is in the nature of establishing a debt relationship.
– The principle of independence of signatures and statements applies.
– Submission of the deed is required for payment.
– It must comply with the required form conditions.
– They are promissory notes.
– Even if they signed the bill as a guarantor, they are in the position of several debtors.

Article 165 of the Turkish Civil Code regulates divorce proceedings due to mental illness. “If one of the spouses is mentally ill and therefore the joint life becomes unbearable for the other spouse, this spouse can file a divorce case, provided that it is determined by the official health board report that this disease cannot be cured.”

If the mental illness that is the reason for the divorce is a mental illness that prevents marriage, it must have emerged after the marriage. Mental illness before marriage is one of the definite barriers to marriage. Despite this, if the marriage has taken place, this marriage is void with absolute nullity.

In order for one of the spouses to file for divorce based on mental illness, the other spouse must be mentally ill. The Civil Code has counted only mental illness as the reason for divorce, not all kinds of illness, and although there are serious illnesses with no hope of recovery, a divorce case cannot be filed based on diseases such as epilepsy, leprosy, syphilis, plague and AIDS.

In order for a divorce case to be filed on the basis of a mental illness, there must be no possibility of recovery from the mental illness. If there is a possibility of recovery from the disease, the judge will not decide on divorce and will reject the case.

One of the important conditions in a divorce case due to mental illness is to prove that the common life has become unbearable. Although mental illness has been proven with an official medical board report, the judge does not immediately decide to divorce. The issue that needs to be investigated is whether the common life has become unbearable.

JUDICIARY 2nd LAW OFFICE 2004/4941 E. 2004/7899 K. 15.06.2004 T.

“… It is understood that the defendant suffers from “temporal type epilepsy (epilepsy)”. The presence of this disease in one of the spouses is not a reason for divorce in itself. There is no evidence that the defendant abstained from the treatment of his illness, and it was also determined in the report that he had the psychological competence to carry out the marriage. Except for the defendant’s epilepsy, the existence of any other concrete event that would shake the foundation of the marriage union and not allow the continuation of the common life has been revealed. In that case, it was not considered correct to decide to divorce in writing when the case should be rejected. ”’