T.R. YARGITAY 12th Law Office Principle: 2010/ 33360 Decision: 2011 / 15607 Decision Date: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: Küçükçekmece 1st Civil Court of Execution
DATE: 24/09/2010
NUMBER: 2010/1150-2010/1039
Upon the request of the debtor for the examination of the court decision, whose date and number is written above, upon the request of the debtor, the file regarding this matter was read from the place and sent to the office, and the need was discussed and considered:
Enforcement proceedings were initiated by the creditor against the debtor company through general attachment, and the payment order sent by the authorized K.Çekmece 4th Enforcement Directorate was notified to the signature of the permanent employee on 20.08.2010, as the debtor company’s attorney.
Pursuant to Article 67/1 of the HUMK, the attorney who does not provide the original or a copy of the power of attorney cannot file a lawsuit and cannot perform any duties related to the trial. In so far, in cases where damage is expected in delay, the court may allow the attorney to file a lawsuit or take procedural actions, provided that he/she brings the power of attorney “within a definite time to give”. If a power of attorney is not given within this period, or if the principal does not notify the court with a petition that he accepts the actions taken within the same period, the lawsuit is deemed not to have been filed and the actions taken will be null and void.
In the concrete case, in the power of attorney dated 23.05.2008 and numbered 23244, which is in the follow-up file and issued by the Bakırköy 32nd Notary Public, only Atty. It is seen that Yalçın Şengül was appointed as a proxy, but
There is no document in the file indicating that a power of attorney has been given or authorized. Although, in the petition of objection submitted to the unauthorized Beyoğlu Enforcement Directorate, Atty. Although Özlem Şengül’s name is also written; This petition of appeal, Atty. It is understood that it was signed and given by Yalçın Şengül. In this case, no notification can be made to the attorney who does not have a power of attorney. In that case, the court’s decision to reject the complaint with a written reason instead of annulment of the notification of the payment order is inaccurate.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 07/07/2011 that the debtor’s appeals were accepted and the court decision was OVERFINED for the reasons written above, pursuant to Articles 366 of the EBL and 428 of the HUMK.
