Summary:
164/4 of the Law on both Advocacy on the amount awarded to the client by the plaintiff’s magistrate’s agreement. it is necessary to recognize that it has the right to charge the contractual power of attorney fees contained in its article, as well as the “counterparty power of attorney fees”, which are from the costs of litigation contained in Article 164 / last of the same Law. As such, the subject of the power of attorney fee by the court is Fethiye 1. Case file No. 2006/519 of the Court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. The Executive Directorate of the executive following a peace agreement between the parties with numbered 2009/8277 main file 5,500 TL considering that the amount of plaintiff’s delivered to the client over this amount in both files separately Attorney, to be calculated according to the fee schedule relative Minimum wage is not to be below Article 164 of the attorneyship law.according to the article, the calculation of the legal power of attorney for an amount between 10% and 20% as an contractual power of attorney and according to the calculation to be made according to the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer, the calculation of the other Fethiye Executive Dec Court No. 2010/2011 in his file, on the other hand, the fact that the contractual and counter-legal power of attorney fee should be calculated as the victim according to the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer, while it was decided in writing with contrary thoughts, is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires a violation.
T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Base No:2013/28635
Decision No:2014/4819
K. Date:24.2.2014
COURT : Fethiye 2. The Court Of First Instance
DATE : 16/07/2013
NUMBER : 2012/193-2013/488
At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the case was partially accepted for the reasons written in the decision and partially rejected by the defendant’s lawyer within the period of the decision to appeal the file was examined dec discussed and considered as necessary.
decision
The plaintiff has taken on the role of Ulker Korkan’s attorney outside the case against the defendant Fethiye 1. Case file No. 2006/519 of the Court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. The Enforcement Directorate’s enforcement follow-up file No. 2009/8277 and the Fethiye Executive Law Court’s Enforcement follow-up file No. 2010/2011, but the defendant and his client are magistrates because of the 165 of the Law of Advocacy. according to the article, the defendant is also responsible for contractual and legal power of attorney fees, he conducted enforcement proceedings against the defendant for the purpose of collecting contractual and legal power of attorney fees, the prosecution stopped after the defendant objected to enforcement proceedings, and he requested that the cancellation of the actual appeal against enforcement proceedings and the decision to collect executive denial compensation from the defendant be made.
The defendant is a non-litigant who is a party to the power of attorney agreement concluded with the plaintiff..K..he argued that he was not interested in filing a lawsuit against them for the cancellation of this appeal, even though there was no objection to enforcement proceedings by the plaintiff, that the amount agreed with the plaintiff’s client was 5,500 TL and that they could only be held responsible for the legal proxy fee.
The court decided to partially accept the case,the verdict was appealed by the defendant.
The plaintiff, Fethiye 1. Case file No. 2006/519 of the Court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. The Enforcement Directorate has an enforcement follow-up file No. 2009/8277 and the Fethiye Executive Law Court has an out-of-court client in its 2010/2011 file..K..fethiye 1, where he represents as a proxy, while the trial is ongoing, the parties who are the client of the defendant and the plaintiff out of the case have entered into a settlement agreement by agreement based on this settlement agreement. It is understood that the main file of the Court of First Instance No. 2006/519 was decided that it would not be followed up even after approval as a result of the appeal, the enforcement tracking file was waived, the ongoing file in the enforcement legal court was decided that there was no room for a decision on the grounds that it remained without a topic due to this agreement, but the plaintiff was not paid a power of attorney fee due to these tracking and lawsuits, and there was no written fee agreement.
164 of the Law on Advocacy.in the article “in the absence of a written fee agreement between the parties, the value can be measured by money wage minimum wage jobs with the tariffs under which conditions to avoid trial and to examine their objections earned for the portion of the case by the competent authority according to the labor lawyer, the ref’s muddeabih becomes final at the date of the value of 10% to 20%, which would be legal fees in an amount between” the law of 165.articles, “both parties are decisively liable to the lawyer for the payment of the attorney’s fee in cases that result in an agreement between the parties and are left unattended, regardless of the magistrate or in any way.” The provisions are available and when the case is concluded with a magistrate, the lawyer may decisively ask his client for the amount agreed in the remuneration agreement between them, as well as the power of attorney charged to the other party according to the amount agreed in the case. (See Fig. GCM.on 16.2.1994 t. 1993/13-810 E., 1994/60 K. decision No. 1) In accordance with the fiduciary responsibility, the same responsibility applies to the counterparty who is a magistrate with the client. If there is no remuneration agreement between the lawyer and his client (or the contract is invalid), the client and the adversary who has entered into a settlement agreement with the client must pay the amount of the settlement amount dec from the attorney’s fee regulated in Article 164/last of the Lawyer’s Code (the adversary’s estimate must be made) and 164/4 of the Lawyer’s Code. it is necessary to accept that they are severally responsible for the power of attorney fee regulated in the article (which the client must pay to the lawyer).
As of the concrete dispute, the cases pursued by the plaintiff as a proxy and the enforcement proceedings have been concluded in accordance with the magistrate’s protocol entitled “Peace agreement mutual ibraname” dated 30.12.2010 dec between the plaintiff’s client Ülker Korkan and the defendant, and it is understood that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement over the receivable of 5,500 TL. 164/4 of the Law on both Advocacy on the amount awarded to the client by the plaintiff’s magistrate’s agreement. it is necessary to recognize that it has the right to charge the contractual power of attorney fees contained in its article, as well as the “counterparty power of attorney fees”, which are from the costs of litigation contained in Article 164 / last of the same Law. As such, the subject of the power of attorney fee by the court is Fethiye 1. Case file No. 2006/519 of the Court of First Instance, Fethiye 2. The Executive Directorate of the executive following a peace agreement between the parties with numbered 2009/8277 main file 5,500 TL considering that the amount of plaintiff’s delivered to the client over this amount in both files separately Attorney, to be calculated according to the fee schedule relative Minimum wage is not to be below Article 164 of the attorneyship law.according to the article, the calculation of the legal power of attorney for an amount between 10% and 20% as an contractual power of attorney and according to the calculation to be made according to the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer, the calculation of the other Fethiye Executive Dec Court No. 2010/2011 in his file, on the other hand, the fact that the contractual and counter-legal power of attorney fee should be calculated as the victim according to the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer, while it was decided in writing with contrary thoughts, is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires a violation.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 24.02.2014 that the appealed provision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the appellant defendant, and the fee received in advance should be returned upon request.
