LAW NO: 5464
BANK CARDS AND CREDIT CARDS LAW
Unfair Use and Insurance of the Card
ARTICLE 12- In case of loss or theft of the card or the information specified in Article 16, the cardholder is responsible for damages arising from illegal use that occurred within twenty-four hours before the notification, limited to one hundred and fifty New Turkish liras. This limit does not apply if the illegal use is based on the gross negligence or intent of the owner or if the notification is not made.
The organization issuing the card is obliged to insure the liability of the cardholder in the amount of one hundred and fifty New Turkish liras specified in the first paragraph, provided that the claim will be made and the corresponding insurance premium is paid. The procedures and principles regarding the insurance of cards and the sharing of responsibility are determined by the regulation to be issued by the Institution.
Notification Requirement
Article 16 – the deposit of an instrument to be used, the card holder the card and the card code number, a password or ID requires use of another method of determining this information securely protect and to take measures to prevent the use by others of the card loss, theft or of the will of the learning process that occurred outside any case, you must notify your card issuer immediately.
The cardholder is obliged to notify the issuing organization of the card of the changes that have occurred at the address within fifteen days from the date of the change.
T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
BASE NO: 2016/15753
DECISION NO: 2018/813
DATE OF DECISION: 21.2.2018
IF THE ATM, CREDIT CARD IS STOLEN OR FORCIBLY TAKEN BY THREAT OR THE CARDHOLDER COMMUNICATES THIS SITUATION TO THE BANK WITHIN 24 HOURS, THE CARDHOLDER WILL ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 150 TL OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN UNFAIRLY.
THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE ACCOUNT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE CARDHOLDER BY THE BANK, EVEN IF THE CONTRACT SAYS OTHERWISE. A DEFECT DISCOUNT CANNOT BE MADE AGAINST THE CARDHOLDER.
At the end of the trial of the claim between the parties, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary after the defendant appealed to the deputy during the period of the decision made to accept the case for the reasons written in the dec.
decision
The plaintiff’s attorney defendant that the plaintiff from the case of credit cards from the bank were forced by the parties, if the password of the card having been threatened with a weapon, learned from the plaintiff, the defendant bank from the ATM cash withdrawal is made on the same day, the defendant notified to the bank, although the amount withdrawn from the cash that is due the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not responsible for the cost of received by asserting that, with interest from the date of payment of the price they paid to process his education has prosecuted and demand from the defendant.
The defendant’s deputy asked for the rejection of the case, arguing that the plaintiff was responsible for protecting the credit card and password, the defendant’s bank was not notified, the defendant could not be charged with a defect.
12 of Law No. 5464, according to which the court finds that the plaintiff has been extorted, notifies the bank within 24 hours after the wrongful act. according to the article, acceptance of the case, collection of payments with interest from the defendant was decided on the grounds that the amount collected from the plaintiff due to the illegal use of the card is contrary to the law, the refund of payments made by the plaintiff is required, and the provision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
CONCLUSION: According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons required, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the decision was taken unanimously on 21/02/2018 to APPROVE the provision found in accordance with the procedure and law by rejecting all appeals that were not considered on the spot by the defendant’s attorney, to receive the approval fee written below from the defendant who appealed.
T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
BASE NO: 2015/18393
DECISION NO: 8120/2016
DATE OF DECISION: 3.5.2016
At the end of the trial of the decriminalization /istirdat case between the parties, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary after the defendant appealed to the deputy during the period of the decision made for partial acceptance of the case for reasons written in the decision.
decision
The deputy plaintiff received his client’s credit card and salary card on 26.09.2010 at 18.00 – 20.30 hours between car was stolen from the defendant to the bank immediately by phone that has been reported, in spite of this 3.080 salary from the board-and credit card 1.900 TL-TL loaded into the 4.980 a total of TL was taken without the consent of the client the fact that the money in cash, however, the ATM withdrawal limit per day of up to 800 TL is over the daily limit on cash withdrawals, as there isn’t a warning of the bank defendant, my client is unable to provide password security, the defendant due to the threat of the execution of the client you had to pay this money to the bank, the law 5464’ s 12. stating that he is responsible for damages arising from illegal use that occurred within 24 hours before the notification of the cardholder in accordance with the article, limited to 150-TL, he requested and sued to determine that his client was not owed and to charge him with legal interest from the date of payment of 4.980-TL, which was collected unfairly.
Dec 8 of the credit card agreement between the parties, the defendant’s attorney. according to the article, if the card is stolen, the card holder should be notified to the bank immediately when the card is stolen, and the card holder will be responsible for the expenses until it is notified, again 10. according to the article, the plaintiff is responsible for protecting the password and card, the expenses were made before the plaintiff’s notification, his client cannot have any responsibility, hostility should be directed to people who receive unfair profits, stating that the card holder will be responsible if the notification is made late, he asked for the rejection of the case.
As a result of the trial made by the court, plaintiff’s statement as a result of the theft of stolen credit card and debit card on 27.09.2010 26.09.2010 made on, therefore, from the law of debit cards and credit cards transactions within 24 hours of the plaintiff’ s 12.under md 150 TL to be limited to responsibility, the job of operations from the date of notification of the bank is responsible under the contract between the parties for reasons of the defendant, the case of the partial acceptance taken from the plaintiff’s account using the cards loaded into the 4.980-TL from, it was decided that the balance would be paid to the plaintiff with the collection of the legal interest to be operated from the date of the case, together with the collection of the defendant with the deduction of the amount of 150-TL for which he is responsible, and the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
CONCLUSION : According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons for the necessity, there is no error in the discretion of the evidence, the APPROVAL of the decision found in accordance with the procedure and the law was unanimously decided on 03/05/2016 by rejecting all appeals that were not considered on the spot of the defendant’s attorney.
T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
BASE NO. 2013/32840
DECISION NO. 2014/18798
DATE OF DECISION. 12.6.2014
5464/m.12,15,16,19
CASE: At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, the file was examined and considered as necessary after the plaintiff and defendant’s lawyer appealed the decision to dismiss the case for the reasons written in the application within the period of the decision made by dec plaintiff and defendant’s lawyer:
decision
The plaintiff reported that the credit card he received from the defendant bank was stolen while traveling in a minibus on 14.03.2005, reported the situation to the defendant bank by phone at 14.43 and then in writing, the defendant Sh with a credit card.the defendant operated by M…. 4.000-TL purchases were made from nuts belonging to the defendant’s bank, the defendant reported that the bank could not cover this amount because it was made before the notice, the defendant’s bank added only 750-TL liability, although there was no defect in the theft and use of the credit card, the defendant had to pay 3.275-TL to the bank, the other defendant, Sh.claiming that the defendant was tried in a criminal court and sentenced for fraud because of this act, the defendants had joint and several liability, he asked that a total of 3.420, 30-TL and 5.000-TL of non-pecuniary damages, including the warning fee, be decided jointly and severally from the defendants.
The defendant bank stated that the exchange subject to the lawsuit took place at 14:39, 4 minutes before the plaintiff’s notification, according to article 19 of the contract. according to its article, it has requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that it has no responsibility for the expenses before the notification reaches the bank.
Defendant M. they asked for a dismissal of the case, arguing that it was a routine shopping, that they did not have a defect, that the plaintiff was responsible for not carefully storing the credit card.
By the court, the defendant in the case against the bank, the denial, the acceptance of the case against the other defendants partial 1.645,30-TL interest accruals together with interest from the date of the lawsuit the defendants, jointly and severally taken, and given to the plaintiff to be more prompt and non-pecuniary damages, it was decided to refuse the request; judgment was appealed by the plaintiff and the defendants.
1- )Due to the absence of inaccuracies in the entries in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the necessity in accordance with the law, and especially in the discretion of the evidence, all defendants’, plaintiff’s other appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph must be rejected.
2- )of the credit card and the plaintiff, in violation of the law asserts that the expenditure is not responsible for the use by third parties due to the defendant’s due diligence in the protection and storage of passwords, credit card information and has not been shown, stating that the bank is not responsible for stolen incurred prior to the notice, the plaintiff argued that the expenditure must be responsible. Akbank Axess credit card, which is the plaintiff’s holder, was stolen on 14.03.2005, the defendant notified the defendant bank about the theft at 14.43, and the subject of the lawsuit is fixed with the scope of the file where the purchase of 4.000-TL was made at 14.39.
In order to resolve the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to study the provisions of the “Bank Cards and Credit Cards Law” Dec. 5464 related to the issue.
15, entitled ”Obligations of Cardholders”. in the article, “The responsibility arising from the use of the card belongs to the card holder from the moment the contract is signed and the card becomes his possession or the card number that does not have a physical presence is found out.”
Entitled “Notification Obligation”, 16. in the article, “the deposit of an instrument to be used, the card holder the card and the card code number, a password or ID requires use of another method of determining this information securely protect and to take measures to prevent the use by others of the card loss, theft or of the will of the learning process that occurred outside any case, you must notify your card issuer immediately.”
12, entitled ”Unfair Use and Insurance of the Card”. in the article, “If the card or the Information specified in Article 16 is lost or stolen, the cardholder is responsible for damages arising from illegal use that occurred within twenty-four hours before the notification, limited to one hundred and fifty New Turkish Liras. This limit does not apply if the illegal use is based on the gross negligence or intent of the owner or if the notification is not made.” there are provisions.
Again, the credit card agreement between the parties is signed on Dec. 19. in its article, “In case of loss, theft or unusable deterioration of the credit card, the member or october card holder is obliged to immediately notify the bank by phone of the situation and then confirm it in writing. Notice of this credit card, password or credit card number using an additional card members belongs to the holder all liability arising from transactions and the notification of the credit card receipt from the bank to the bank to be deactivated is required for domestic and overseas after a reasonable period of your credit card for use with 3. the member and the additional cardholder october not be held responsible for the transactions to be performed by the persons.” the arrangement is available.
As it can be seen, the credit card holder is obliged to protect and store the credit card deposited with him in accordance with the said law, as well as information related to the use of this card, from the moment he signs a contract with the bank and the card becomes his own possession. However, in accordance with Law No. 5464, if a credit card or this information is lost or stolen, it is november for damages arising from illegal use that occurred within twenty-four hours before the bank’s notification, unless it was found to have gross negligence or intent, limited to one hundred and fifty New Turkish liras. 12 of the Law in this case. its substance must be evaluated according to the characteristics of each concrete event. In the concrete case, it is understood that the plaintiff fulfilled the obligation to notify the defendant Bank, the 4.000-TL purchase made 4 minutes before the notification was made by signing the slip and it was determined by the expert report that the signature on the slip did not belong to the plaintiff.
It cannot be mentioned that this illegal expenditure is based on the gross negligence and intent of the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff had his card stolen while traveling in the van, there is no claim or evidence in the file that he had any negligence that would facilitate the theft of the card. According to the usual course of life, it is not possible for the plaintiff to check his credit card by constantly opening his wallet while traveling on the minibus. Again, making the purchase with the slipped signature is also the plaintiff’s password, etc. it indicates that it also securely protects its information. As such, 12 of the plaintiff’s Law No. 5464. in accordance with the article, it is necessary to accept that it is responsible for damages arising from this unlawful use, which occurred within twenty-four hours before notification to the Bank, limited to one hundred and fifty New Turkish liras. ½ defect deduction cannot be made against the plaintiff from the point of view of other defendants for the reasons described.
The court decided to dismiss the case from the bank’s side in writing on the grounds that the plaintiff’s password was accessed in a short time with incorrect evaluation and otherwise, the password was not selected or stored securely, the plaintiff’s card was not checked in his wallet, the card was stolen by carelessness, therefore it was severely defective, and ½ percent discount from the other defendants is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for the violation.
CONCLUSION : The above 1.all of the defendants for the reasons described in paragraph, reject the plaintiff’s other appeals, 2.it was unanimously decided on 12.06.2014 that the provision should be OVERTURNED for the plaintiff’s benefit for the reasons described in the paragraph, the way to correct the decision was closed in accordance with Article 440 /III-2 of the CMB.
