Abstract: the case is related to the complaint of termination of the tender, and the court decision to reject the complaint was tefhim to the complainant’s attorney at the Hearing dated 30.11.2017, the complainant filed a petition against the relevant decision on 06.12.2017, but; it is seen that a reasoned petition was not submitted within the legal 10-day period. Although a petition was filed by the District Court for the duration of the appeal (duration), HMK 352 without an assessment of the violation of public order in the decision of the court of first instance under review. according to the article, the decision to reject the petition for appeal was not accurate and required to overturn it.
T.C. Supreme Court 12. Legal Department E: 2018/11290 K: 2018/12485 K.T.: 29.11.2018
Court: … District Court 22. law office
Regional justice above date and number writing in this examination the plaintiff in the term requested by a decision by the court temyizen work-related files have been sent to the apartment and rested for the audit report to file a claim held by a judge, and all the documents in the file is read and analysed, after it was thought that the nature of the business discussed :
26.9.2004 date and 5235 judicial courts of First Instance and District Courts of Justice in parallel with the law on the establishment, duties and powers, 18.3.2005 date and 5311 law added to the executive bankruptcy law, amending the provisions of the enforcement and Bankruptcy Law 2004 on appeal and decision correction. according to the article, the provisions of law 5311 apply to decisions made after 20.07.2016, when the District Court Courts took office.
The termination of the auction of the debtor and the enforcement court complaint refers to … 1. Enforcement Law Court dated 30.11.2017 and 2017/883 E. – 2017/114 K. District Court 22. Legal department 23.3.2018 date and 2018/393 E.- 2018/686 K. by decree of HMK 342/2-e, 352 and 346. it is understood that the decision was made to reject the appeal.
342/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. article;” the petition for appeal, the identity and signature of the applicant, if it carries records that will sufficiently determine the decision referred to, even if there are no other considerations, the necessary examination is carried out within the framework of Article 355 ” regulation; 355 of the same law. in the article, ” the review is carried out limited to the reasons specified in the appeal. However, if the district court deems it contrary to public order, it will observe it.”provision 352/1 of the same law. in the article, it is stated that the necessary decision will be made if the application conditions are not met or the reasons or justification for the application are not shown at all.
The case is related to the complaint of termination of the tender, and the court decision to reject the complaint was tefhim at the hearing of 30.11.2017 to the complainant’s attorney, during the period of the complainant against the relevant decision, 06.12.2017 by giving a petition for attitude, but; despite the notification of the reasoned decision on 18.5.2018, the reasoned appeal was not submitted within the legal 10-day period.
In this case, the work to be done by the District Court Court is HMK 342/2/e 342/3. as stated in Article 352 and 355 of HMK, without denying the petition for appeal. in accordance with the article, it consists of examining and deciding according to the result of the request for appeal, which is limited to public order. 353/1-b-1 of HMK, since the court’s decision, which was examined by appeal, will also be examined on the merits of the work in terms of supervision of contravention of public order. according to the article, it will be necessary to decide on the fundamental rejection of the request for appeal.
In that case, although a petition was filed by the District Court for the duration of the appeal (duration), HMK 352 without an assessment of the violation of public order in the decision of the court of first instance under review. according to the article, the decision to reject the petition for appeal was not accurate, and the decision had to be overturned for the specified reason.
Conclusion: … District Court 22. Legal department dated 23.3.2018 and 2018/393 E.- 2018/686 K. for reasons written above, the Decision No. 5311 is amended by Law No. 364/2. 373/2 of HMK No. 6100, which must be implemented by sending article. it was unanimously decided on 29/11/2018 that the case should be corrupted and sent to the District Court.
