Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
15. Law Office
Basis: 2019/2160
Decision: 2020 / 679
Decision Date: 19.02.2020
ABSTRACT: As for the concrete case, as explained above, it was decided to reject the petition of the plaintiff-defendants of the consolidation file, as it was understood that a second time request for correction of the decision was made against the decision made upon the request for correction of the decision made upon the appeal of the local court decision, and it was understood that this was not possible. given.
The plaintiffs 1-… 2-… and the defendant …, due to the lawsuit between the plaintiff … and the defendants 1-… 2-… in the case numbered 2011/443 merged … 05.12.2013 day and 2011/234 E.-2013, given by the 17th Civil Judgeship of First Instance 0624 K., the decision of the 23rd Civil Chamber, dated 07.11.2018 and numbered 2016/3569 E.-2018/5172 K., has been requested by the attorney of the plaintiff and the defendants of the consolidation case, and it has been understood that the petition for the correction of the decision has been given in due time. The papers in the file were read and discussed and considered:
As a rule, the request for correction of the decision should be examined by the Court of Cassation Law Department, which makes the appeal; With the division of labor decision numbered 2018/1 of the Grand General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals, dated 09.02.2018, construction construction in return for land share
Since the task of examining the appeal or decision rectification requests in the files brought to the Court of Cassation with appeal or decision rectification request arising from the contract of law and after 01.07.2016 was given to the 15th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the request for rectification was examined by our Department.
The plaintiff-defendant of the conjoined case has requested a correction of the decision against the annulment of the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 07.11.2018, numbered 2016/3569 Basis, 2018/5172 Decision. After the examination of the petition and the case file, the decision on the acceptance of the main case, the rejection of the combined case as a result of the trial held in the main and the combined case, upon the appeal of the defendant-the plaintiff of the combined file and the deputy intervening, the 23rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, 09.12.2015 day, 2014/ With the decision numbered 8458, Basis, 2015/7972, it was decided to correct and approve the verdict. was decided to be destroyed. In the decision, it is stated that the way of rectification is open within 15 days from the notification. As of 05.12.2013, when the local court made the appealed decision, since the Regional Courts of Justice did not operate, it was accepted that the provisions regarding the legal remedies regulated in Articles 427 and 457 of the HUMK no. In the HUMK Law No. 1086, it has been accepted that, with the exception of the exceptions stipulated in Article 440 of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it is accepted that the decision can be rectified, and there is no regulation in the law that more than one decision can be made and there is no regulation in the law that can be applied to the decision made upon a request for rectification. In the absence of such a regulation in the law, it is not possible for the parties to have the right to rectify the decision again and for a second time, since the Court of Cassation has stated that the way of rectification is open in its decision upon the request for rectification.
As for the concrete event after these explanations, as explained above, as it was understood that a second time request for rectification was made against the decision made upon the request for rectification of the decision made upon the appeal of the local court’s decision, and it was understood that this was not possible, the petition of the plaintiff-defendants of the consolidation file was REJECTED. On 19.02.2020, it was unanimously decided to return the decision correction advance fee paid to the plaintiff-defendant of the merged case, who requested correction of the decision upon request.
