T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
E. 2011/9929
K. 2011/12617
T. 12.12.2011
• A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE CHILD UNDER CUSTODY TO DERSIM (In Which the Plaintiff Claims That His Daughter Is Known by This Name – The Request Will be Accepted, Since It is Based on the Just Cause )
• REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME (Where the Plaintiff States that the Child Under Custody is Known by the Name of Dersim – The Request is Based on a Justifiable Reason, As Required by Acceptance)
4721/m.27
ABSTRACT: The plaintiffs in the lawsuit petition requested that the name “Dilan” written in the population register be changed to “Dersim”, claiming that their daughter under their custody is known by the name “Dersim”. A person may ask a judge to change his name for justifiable reasons. Since it is clear from the contents of the file that the plaintiffs’ daughters are known by the name “Dersim”, the request must be accepted because there is a justified reason for changing the name.
LAWSUIT: The plaintiffs have requested that the name of their daughter’s wish be corrected as Dersim in the lawsuit petition. The court decided to dismiss the case, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiffs.
After it became clear that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
DECISION: The plaintiffs requested that the name “Dilan” written in the population register be changed to “Dersim” in their lawsuit petition, claiming that their daughter under their custody is known by the name “Dersim”.
In accordance with the provision of Article 27 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a person may request a judge to change his name for justified reasons, use the name by which he is known around a person, provided that it does not contradict the mandatory provisions of the Law in the practice of the Supreme Court, and request registration of the population with this name. According to the content of the file, in which the plaintiffs’ daughters were known by the name “Dersim” in the concrete case, the request had to be accepted because there was a justified reason for changing the name, while it was not considered correct to decide to dismiss the case on out-of-place grounds.
CONCLUSION: In this respect, the provision in writing is invalid without regard to the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, H.U.M.K.nun 428. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 12.12.2011 that it would be OVERTURNED and returned to the appellant if the advance fee for the appeal was requested.
