T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
E. 2011/3358
K. 2011/6983
T. 9.6.2011
• A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE NAME (A Case for Correcting the Population Registration for the Same Issue Can Only Be Opened Once)
- CORRECTION OF THE POPULATION REGISTRATION ( A Case Can Only Be Opened Once on the Same Issue – A Request to Change the Name )
5490/m. 36/1-b
ABSTRACT: The plaintiffs requested that the name of their children be changed in the lawsuit petition, and the court decided to accept the case. According to the information in the population register of the child whose name was changed, it seems that his name was also changed earlier. 36 of the Population Services Act. it was not considered correct to decide on the adoption of the case in violation of the provision that the case for correction of the population register can only be opened once in relation to the same issue in paragraph ( b) of the first paragraph of the article.
CASE: Bandırma 1 in the case between the plaintiffs Bayram and the Decedent Population Directorate. 21.9.2010 blog and without examination by the civil court and finalized Yargitayca located 2010/150-171 with the assertion that is contrary to applicable law decision of the Supreme Court’s chief prosecutor and law 14.3.2011 day-2011/62965 with this type of degradation by appeals in favor of the law is intended to read the papers and all duly noted in the file:
DECISION: The plaintiffs requested that the name of their child Mehmet be changed to “Mert” in the lawsuit petition, and the court decided to accept the case. According to the information in the population register of the renamed Mert, the 2007/103-128 K of the Gömeç First Instance Law Court. it is understood that the name of the plaintiff, which is “Mehmet Mert”, was changed to “Mehmet” with the numbered ad. 36 of the Population Services Act No. 5490. it was not considered correct to decide on the acceptance of the case in violation of the provision that the case for correction of the population register can only be opened once in relation to the same issue in paragraph ( b) of the first paragraph of the article.
CONCLUSION: As of this moment, for the reasons described above, the Supreme Court has decided to accept the appeals of the Prosecutor General’s Office.427 of the’ in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 09.06.2011 that the result would be DISTORTED in the interests of the law, provided that it was not effective, and the file would be sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court with a sample of the decision to be made as necessary.
