SUPREME COURT 12. DEPARTMENT OF LAW E.2015/19497, 2015/29941
The process of making copies from the file is unacceptable, as is the notification.
In a concrete case, the notification of the sample 10 payment orders sent to the borrower was returned on 12.06.2014 without notification, the borrower received a copy from the tracking file on 12.06.2014, the decision of the enforcement directorate dated 24.06.2014 and the borrower learned about the tracking, the tracking about the borrower was finalized, the creditor’s request dated 24.06.2014 was appraised, 100 on the sale of real estate with a request dated 28.10.2014. it has been seen that it has been decided to collect article benefit information.
Transactions made before the debtor is notified of the payment order and the follow-up is finalized are not correct. Because IIK has 61. according to the article, with the notification of the payment order, the debtor can exercise his right of appeal and complaint. This issue is related to public order and is subject to an indefinite complaint. Since there is no notification of a previously executed payment order to the debtor, albeit irregularly, in the case of Law No. 7201, Article 32. there is also no possibility of applying the substance.
CONCLUSION: In that case, the court’s decision in writing is incorrect when the merits of the complaint should be examined by accepting it during the complaint period.CONCLUSION : The decision of the court on the acceptance of the debtor’s appeals is based on Article 366 of the IIK for the reasons written above. and HUMK’s 428. in accordance with the articles (ON ITS DETERIORATION) it was decided unanimously.
