March 2021

T.C. SUPREME 6.Criminal DivisionBasis: 2013/32150Decision: 2016/5596Decision Date: 29.06.2016 CRIME OF LOOTING – BY THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, THE PHRASE WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE OF THE TCK WAS CANCELED FOR THE USE OF ELECTION AND OTHER POLITICAL RIGHTS-CORRECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION Summary: the Constitutional Court’s decision on 08.10.2015 day, 2014/140-2015/85, written in […]

Status of usufruct holder Article 700-if a stakeholder establishes a usufruct right on their share, if one of the other stakeholders requests to share it within three months, starting from the notification to him that the usufruct right has been established; the usufruct right to share through sale continues at the price that will fall […]

Sharing is carried out in the form of dividing the goods in the same way or dividing the price by selling them by negotiation or increase. If match cannot be achieved in the form of sharing, at the request of one of the stakeholders, the judge decides to divide the goods by dividing them in […]

A case for the elimination of the suit of partition or partnership is a type of case that ends the stakeholder between partners in movable or immovable property subject to shared or joint ownership, resulting in similar results for all parties to the case, which leads to the transition to personal ownership. -If there is […]

… TO THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT PLAINTIFF : TC IDENTIFICATION NUMBER : ADDRESS : Deputy : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) ADDRESS : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) Defendants: 1- 2- Address : Subject : from the request for elimination of stakeholders in real estate references INSTRUCTIONS : 1-Our client has built […]

… MAGISTRATE’S COURT JUDGE PLAINTIFF : TC IDENTIFICATION NUMBER : ADDRESS : Deputy : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) ADDRESS : (Legal representatives of the parties, if any) DEFENDANT : Address : Subject: Heritage consists of our desire to eliminate the partnership. INSTRUCTIONS : 1 -) Muris … … died on the date […]

T.C. SUPREME 1.Legal DepartmentMainly: 2015/3581Decision: 2016/7039Decision Date: 09.06.2016 ECRIMISIL CASE – THE REALIZATION OF THE USUFRUCT BAN CONDITION IN TERMS OF REAL ESTATE WILL BE SOUGHT – WHETHER THE ACTUAL USE THAT BINDS ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE CONTENTIOUS REAL ESTATE WHERE THE 3-STOREY BUILDING IS LOCATED IS NOT DETERMINED – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN Abstract: […]

T.C. SUPREME 3.Legal DepartmentMainly: 2016/8735Verdict: 2016/10148Decision Date: 27.06.2016 CREDIT CASE – FAILURE TO DISCUSS WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF, WHO DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE VALUATION REPORT, CAN CLAIM THIS PRICE IN THIS CASE – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN Abstract: whether the irrigation well costs that were not taken into account during the valuation made in the […]

T.C. SUPREME 20.Legal DepartmentBasis: 2016/4846Decision: 2016/6835Decision Date: 13.06.2016 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – THE NEED FOR THE CASES TO BE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE DISPUTE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, WHICH IS A SPECIAL COURT IN TERMS OF ALL CLAIMS – DETERMINATION OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE AS […]