T.R. SUPREME COURT
11. Legal Department
Basis: 2015/11329
Decision: 2016/6923
Decision Date: 22.06.2016
ACTION FOR DAMAGES – THERE IS NO MISCONCEPTION AT THE WARRANTIES OF THE EVIDENCE – ALL APPEAL OBJECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY’S ATTORNEY FERI INTERVENTION ARE FULLY – APPROVAL OF THE JURISDICTION
SUMMARY: According to the articles in the file, the verdict was given in accordance with the annulment decision followed by the court and there was no inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, the verdict had to be upheld, since all the appeals of the attorney of the defendant, including the subordinate, were not valid.
Case and Decision: In the case heard between the parties, … .. The Supreme Court’s review of the decision, dated 02/06/2015 and numbered 2015/315-2015/399, which was given by the Commercial Court of First Instance, was requested by the attorney of the defendant, the deputy, and the petition of appeal was filed. The provisional 3/2 of the Law No. 6100, due to the fact that it was understood that it was given in due time, and that the necessary notification expense for the hearing was not paid in the examination of the file. Article 438/1 of the HUMK, amended by Law No. After hearing the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file and reading and examining all the documents in the file, the petition, the petitions, the hearing minutes and all the documents were discussed and considered:
The plaintiffs’ attorney, their clients … … and … … and their clients’ legacy … … that they opened a DM denominated deposit account at the … Branch of … A.Ş. S. The management was seized by the BRSA and its management was transferred to …, the aforementioned bank was later merged with … AŞ, … was sold to the defendant … off Shore Ltd. that the money collected in this way was transferred to the account of a front bank named . They claimed that the defendant bank, which defrauded the depositors and their clients in cooperation with the coastal bank, was responsible for the losses suffered by their clients, claiming that it was determined by the management of the company that it was consumed by giving illegal loans to the group companies and fictitious companies, that the deposits of their clients were not paid on the grounds that the offshore deposits were out of the insurance coverage, and 109,937 DM deposit receivable deposited by … … and 28,560 DM deposit receivable deposited by … … with contractual interest from the defendant bank until the end of the maturity date, and default interest that will accrue not less than the contractual interest from the maturity date to the payment date, and the clients … … and demanded and sued that his clients, who are the heirs of … … and the inheritor …, be paid in proportion to their inheritance shares.
Defendant and his attorney, who was notified, demanded the dismissal of the case, arguing that hostility could not be brought against his client, that the statute of limitations and statute of limitations had expired, and that the case was not in place in terms of its merits.
According to the contention of the claim, defense, expert report and the entire file, in accordance with the annulment order of our Chamber by the court, 14,602,50 EURO (28,560,00 DEM), together with the interest to be charged in accordance with Article 4/a of the Law No. 3095 as of 10/12/1999. taken from the defendant, belonging to the testator … taking into account the inheritance shares; It was decided to give the 4/12 share to the plaintiff … …, the 4/12 share to the plaintiff … …, the 1/12 share to the plaintiff … … … (…), and the 3/12 share to the plaintiff … ….
The decision was appealed by the counsel of the defendant, the deputy of the subsidiary intervening.
According to the articles in the file, the verdict was given in accordance with the annulment decision followed by the court and there was no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, all the appeal objections of the attorney of the defendant, the auxiliary intervening attorney, are not valid.
Conclusion: Due to the reasons explained above, the defendant’s attorney rejects all appeals of his attorney and the verdict which is found to be in compliance with the procedure and law is APPROVED, there is no need to charge fees from the secondary intervening party, the appeal fee paid is returned to the appellant upon request, It was decided unanimously on 22.06.2016.
