Legal Department 2009/5037 E. , 2010/8390 K
“Case Law TextLegal Department 2009/5037 E. , 2010/8390 Legal Department 2009/5037 E. , 2010/8390 K
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Bursa 2nd Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 25.12.2008
NUMBER : Main no: 2007/250 Decision no:2008/571
Although the judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties and the date number shown above was appealed by the plaintiff with the request that the examination be held at trial; 438/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Decrees.Although the judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties and the date number shown above was appealed by the plaintiff with the request that the examination be held at trial; 438/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Decrees.since it is not one of the pending cases mentioned in the article, it was decided to reject the request for a hearing and to conduct an examination on the documents. The document was examined. The need was discussed and thought about.
The photo of the person whose photo is attached to the “Identity Document with Photo” issued to the plaintiff by the Turkish Embassy in Riyadh on 14.05.2008 is our citizen S.TThe photo of the person whose photo is attached to the “Identity Document with Photo” issued to the plaintiff by the Turkish Embassy in Riyadh on 14.05.2008 is our citizen S..It has been reported thThhehe photo of the person whose photo is attached to the “Identity Document with Photo” issued to the plaintiff by the Turkish Embassy in Riyadh on 14.05.2008 is our citizen S..It has been reported that he is working and is alive and residing in Riyadh at the address shown in this document, and has long been known to the Embassy staff as well. The plaintiff’s witness is A..H.. T.., stated that he has known the plaintiff since 1990 and has been working in Arabia, following his affairs in Turkey as a proxy; This statement of the witness was also confirmed by the power of attorney issued by the Riyadh Embassy to this person, which was given by the plaintiff on 02.05.2007.his statement of the witness was also confirmed by the power of attorney issued by the Riyadh Embassy to this person, which was given by the plaintiff on 02.05.2007. The identity information contained in the identity card that the plaintiff received from the Riyadh Embassyhis statement of the witness was also confirmed by the power of attorney issued by the Riyadh Embassy to this person, which was given by the plaintiff on 02.05.2007. The identity information contained in the identity card that the plaintiff received from the Riyadh Embassy on 02.05.2007 based on the reason of “renewal” and the identity information in the population registration sample dated 05.10.2005 in the file also coincide exactly. With these collected evidences, the fact that the person about whom the decision of absence was made on 14.11.2006 is a plaintiff has been proved in such a way as to leave no room for doubt. In this case, although it should have been decided to cancel the decision of absenteeism, the rejection of the request was not found correct.In this case, although it should have been decided to cancel the decision of absenteeism, the rejection of the request was not found correct.
RESULT: The appealed verdict is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, the advance appeal fee is to be refunded to the depositor, and the decision is to bee, although it should have been decided to cancel the decision of absenteeism, the rejection of the request was not found correct.
RESULT: The appealed verdict is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, the advance appeal fee is to be refunded to the depositor, and the decision is to be corrected within 15 days from the date of notification, with unanimity in the reversal and majority in the reason, in accordance with the law.27.04.2010 (Tuesday)
OPPOSING OPINION WRITTEN
The evidence collected is not sufficient to prove, in a way that leaves no room for doubt, that the person for whom the declaration of absence has been made is the plaintiff. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the courthe evidence collected is not sufficient to prove, in a way that leaves no room for doubt, that the person for whom the declaration of absence has been made is the plaintiff. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the court to summon the plaintiff. However, taking into account the reasons stated in the reply letter on this issue, I disagree with the decision of the dear majority with tThe evidence collected is not sufficient to prove, in a way that leaves no room for doubt, that the person for whom the declaration of absence has been made is the plaintiff. Therefore, it would be beneficial for the court to summon the plaintiff. However, taking into account the reasons stated in the reply letter on this issue, I disagree with the decision of the dear majority with the opinion that it is inappropriate to establish a rejection clause in writing without evaluating this issue, while a reasonable period of time should be given for the plaintiff to be present, and a decision should be made according to its result.
ARTICLE OF THE VOTE AGAINST
The plaintiff S., who claims that he is not absent and wants the absenteeism decision to be canceledTheThe plaintiff S., who claims that he is not absent and wants the absenteeism decision to be canceled.. I..in order to understand that he is alive and to determine his identity in a way that leaves no room for doubt, the local court required the defendant to be heard in person; it decided to dismiss the case due to thhe plaintiff S., who claims that he is not absent and wants the absenteeism decision to be canceled.. I..in order to understand that he is alive and to determine his identity in a way that leaves no room for doubt, the local court required the defendant to be heard in person; it decided to dismiss the case due to the defendant’s failure to attend the hearing during the given time and thus not complying with the request. The plaintiff argued that he was present and living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that he could not come to Turkey at the requested time due to this restriction of the law of a foreign country, and therefore did not comply with the request. In that case, the plaintiff and his attorney should be asked for a reasonable period of time during which they can remove the obstacle and enable the plaintiff to attend the hearing in person in Turkey; an appropriate period should be given for interrogation again and the result should be evaluated and a decision should be made. However, it was not correct to make a decision based on incomplete examinationn that case, the plaintiff and his attorney should be asked for a reasonable period of time during which they can remove the obstacle and enable the plainti that case, the plaintiff and his attorney should be asked for a reasonable pInIIn that case, the plaintiff and his attorney should be asked forDecision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32Decision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32
Related Concepts: TO WHOM THE ENMITY WILL BE DIDeecision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32
Related Concepts: TO WHOM THE ENMITY WILL BE DIRcision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32
Recision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32
Related Concepts: TO WHOM THE ENMITY WILL BE DIRECTED IN CASES OF Decision Date: 22.03.2012
Related Articles: MK.32
Related Concepts: TO WHOM THE ENMITY WILL BE DIRECTED IN CASES OF LIFTING THE DECISION OF ABSENTEEISM
T.C. Y A R G I T A Y 2.LEGAL DEPARTMENT MAIN NO: DECISION NO: 2011/363 2012/6883 Y A R G I T A Y I L A M I
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW : THE COURT :Küçükçekmece 3. Civil Court of First Instance DATE: 05.10.2010 NUMBER: Case number: 2008/343 Decision number: 2010/586
PLAINTIFF :……..
THE DEFENDANTS ARE :1-…… 2-………
TYPE OF CASE : Removal of the Decision of Non-Disclosure
APPELLANT ;Defendants At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the local court, the date and number shown above, was appealed, the document was read and discussed and considered as necessary: the case relates to the request for “Decertification of the decision of absence”.PPELLANT ;Defendants At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the local court, the date and number shown above, was appealed, the document was read and discussed and consiPPELLANT ;Defendants At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the local court, the date and number shown above, was appealed, the document was read and discussed and considered as necessary: the case relates to the request for “Decertification of the decision of absence”. The decision of disappearance, which has been taken, gives the opportunity to exercise these rights to those whose rights depend on death, just as if the death of the deceased had been proven, except for marriage. For this reason, in the case concerning the annulment of the decision of absence, the hostility should be directed against all those whose rights depend on death, as well as those who have taken the decision of absence.
The establishment of the party composition is related to public order and is considered ex officio by the judge. According to the population register in the file, the person for whom the interdiction decision is requested to be lifted was born on 29.10.1993, BThe establishment of the party composition is related to public order and is considered ex officio by the judge. According to the population register in the file, the person for whom the interdiction decision is requested to be lifted was born on 29.10.1993, B….It is seen that he has an illegitimate child named , and that the paternity between this child and the absent person was established by “recognition” before the annulment decision. Therefore, it was not correct to direct hostility to this person as a “defendant”, to collect his evidence if he shows it, and to judge according to the result by evaluating all the evidence together, while it was necessary to establish a verdict with incomplete opponent and incomplete examination.Therefore, it was not correct to direct hostility to this person as a “defendant”, to collect his evidence if he shows it, and to judge according to the result by evaluating all the evidence together, while it was necessary to establish a verdict with incomplete opponent and incomplete examination.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided that the appealed judgment sho
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.