Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
12. Department of Law
Basis: 2010/ 33337
Decision: 2011 / 15608
Decision Date: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: Bakırköy 1st Enforcement Court
DATE: 13/10/2010
NUMBER: 2010/1019-2010/1365
Upon the request of the creditor for the examination of the court decision on appeal within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number written above, the file regarding this matter was read from the place and sent to the office, and the need was discussed and considered:
In the follow-up made by the creditor against the debtor company by means of foreclosure specific to the bills of exchange, the sample number 10 payment order was issued to the debtor’s attorney, the debtor’s attorney refrained from taking the said document due to his resignation, thereupon the notification document was returned on 02.03.2010, this time the other It is seen that the payment order sent to the attorney was notified to the signature of the permanent employee on 17.06.2010, and this attorney resigned from the attorneyship with the petition dated 22.06.2010 that he submitted to the enforcement office.
In accordance with Articles 11 of the Notification Law No. 7201 and Articles 62 and 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory to notify the attorney in the works followed by the attorney. The debtor company is represented by the power of attorney dated 15.05.2009 and numbered 15251 of the 12th notary public of Bakırköy. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Attorneyship Law No. 1136, the duty of attorney of a lawyer who voluntarily withdraws from pursuing or defending a particular job, continues for fifteen days from the notification of the situation to his client. In this case, the resignation of the debtor’s attorney after receiving the notification of the payment order has no effect on the finalization of the proceedings. In that case, it is inaccurate for the court to make a decision to reject the complaint with written reasons instead of accepting it.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 07/07/2011 that the creditor’s appeal objections were accepted and the court decision was overturned, pursuant to Articles 366 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law and 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reasons stated above.
