Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
11. Legal Department
Basis: 2019/ 543 Decision: 2019 / 7499
Decision Date: 25.11.2019
JUDICIARY DECISION
COURT: ANKARA REGIONAL COURT OF COURT 21st LAW DEPARTMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
In the case between the parties, the decision of the Konya 1st Civil Court of First Instance, dated 15/03/2018 and numbered 2016/698 E-2018/410 K., was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney, and the 21st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice was rejected on the merits. The Supreme Court of Appeals requested the review of the decision dated 05/12/2018 and numbered 2018/2057 E- 2018/1327 K. given by the Supreme Court and it was understood that the appeal petition was submitted in due time, after hearing the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file and Again, after the petition, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, the necessity of the job was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that with the decision given in the file 4 O 287/07 of the Federal Republic of Germany Wuppertal Civil Court of First Instance, it was decided that his client was a creditor from the defendants, that the defendants were notified of the lawsuit petition and the decision given by the German court, that the notification documents were certified and the original of the decision was submitted to the file. recognition and
demanded and sued for enforcement.
Defendant … has transferred the shares of the company of which he is a shareholder within the scope of the file on 25/06/2001,
Declaring that he did not know him and that there was no exchange of shares between them and that he had nothing to do with the subject of the case, he demanded that the case be dismissed.
The defendant company did not respond to the lawsuit.
In the hearing dated 21/09/2017 of the plaintiff’s attorney, one of the defendants, Hamatek Holding A.Ş. On the grounds that the defendant declared that they left their cases at the disposal of the applicant and that no renewal petition was filed from the date of the declaration until the date of the decision, the case was deemed not filed in accordance with Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the grounds that there was no provision in the foreign court decision regarding the collection of the price from the defendant … The case against him was dismissed.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
As it was understood that the decision of the first instance court was not contrary to public order, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice decided to reject the appellant’s attorney’s appeal on the merits.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision. Considering the legal rules that must be applied in terms of the trial and the concrete dispute determined, it was understood that there was no inaccuracy in the decision given by the Court of First Instance, and since it was concluded that the decision regarding the rejection of the appeal by the District Court on the merits, pursuant to Article 353/b-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was in accordance with the procedure and the law. The decision of the Court of Appeal had to be affirmed.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the decision of the District Court of Justice with the rejection of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal is in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure 370/1. It was decided unanimously on 25/11/2019 that it be APPROVED pursuant to Article 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the case file be sent to the Regional Court of Justice for action pursuant to Article 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that there is no room for further charges as the appeal fee is paid in advance.
