T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Law Office
Basis: 2016/2068
Decision: 2016/10869
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
CASE FOR CANCELLATION OF THE OBJECTION – THE COURT JURISDICTION TO THE AUTHORITY OBJECTION IS NOT HAZARDABLE – THE JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED OBJECTION WITH THE JURISDICTION PROPERLY DURING THE JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION JURISDICTION TO REJECT THE AUTHORITY OBJECTION
SUMMARY: The court rejects the objection on the grounds that it cannot be heard (HMK. art. 19/f.II). While it was necessary to reject the objection of authority, since there was no objection to authority duly filed in due time in the case at the stage, the decision of the court’s lack of jurisdiction necessitated the annulment of the judgment.
(2004 S. K. Art. 67) (6100 S. K. Art. 19)
Litigation and Decision: At the end of the proceedings of the action for the annulment of the objection between the parties, the file was examined upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit of the decision regarding the incompetence of the court due to the reasons stated in the verdict, and the need was discussed and considered.
The attorney of the plaintiff claimed that a sales contract was made between his client company and the defendant regarding the purchase and sale of iron, the price of the iron was paid in advance, but the iron was not delivered by the defendant party, and the defendant objected to the proceeding without a verdict for the collection of the iron prices given as advance, and the objection was cancelled, and the follow-up was terminated. He demanded and sued for the continuation of the court and a 20% execution denial indemnity.
The defendant’s attorney demanded the dismissal of the case, arguing that the claims of the plaintiff were not true.
The court dismissed the lawsuit due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court within its time limit, stated that the competent court was Fethiye courts, that the place of performance of the contract in the present case and the court of residence of the defendant was the Fethiye Court of First Instance, the competent court was the Fethiye Civil Court of First Instance as a commercial court and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The lawsuit petition was notified to the defendant on 16.09.2014, the defendant’s attorney requested that the response time be extended for two weeks with the referral dated 30.09.2014 (titled our first objections) and that the additional documents were not served on the lawsuit petition, so he made an objection to authority, but filed an objection with the competent court. did not show. The request was rejected by the court on the grounds that it was not requested to extend the response time in due time due to mistake in the annotation on the notification document regarding the notification of the lawsuit petition. In the appeal petition against this interim decision, an objection to authority was made, but the competent court was not shown. With the interim decision dated 22.12.2012, the court decided to extend the response period for two weeks from the notification. The defendant’s attorney again appealed for authorization with his petition dated 12.01.2015, and this time he showed the Fethiye Courts as the competent court.
In cases where the jurisdiction is not final, in order for the jurisdiction objection to be heard by the court, the defendant must show the competent court according to his own opinion, or if there is more than one competent court, one of them. Otherwise, the court rejects the objection on the grounds that it cannot be heard (HMK. m. 19/f.II). In the above-mentioned stage, in the concrete case, it should be decided to reject the authorization objection since there was no objection to the jurisdiction filed duly and in due time, but it is against the procedure and the law to decide on the lack of jurisdiction of the court in written form.
Conclusion: Due to the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 16.06.2016 that the court’s decision be overturned and the cash fee be refunded upon request.
