T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
EESAS NO: 2017/6302
DECISION NO: 2018/747
DATE OF DECISION: 5.2.2018
REQUEST TO REMOVE THE LIEN PLACED ON THE PENSION–IRREGULAR NOTIFICATION
7201/m.12
SUMMARY : The case concerns the request to abolish the lien placed on the pension.
Although the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff had not filed the case within the legal period from the date of learning the injunction, it is incorrect to decide to dismiss the case on the basis of the date of learning without taking into account that the payment order was not duly notified.
LAWSUIT: The plaintiff has requested that the decision be made to remove the lien placed on the pension.
The court, observing the violation, decided to reject the request, as indicated in its decision.
After it became clear that the appeal request was pending upon the appeal of the decision by the deputy plaintiff, the papers in the file were read with the report prepared, the need for the work was considered, and the following decision was made:
Litigation, non-litigation… Ltd. It is related to the fact that Şti wants to cancel the foreclosure placed on the plaintiff’s pension due to the premium debt owed to the institution and refund the deductions made as of 16.08.2013 with interest.
The court decided to dismiss the case. Our apartment, dated 06/10/2015 and dated 2015/8563-17782 E.K. upon the numbered decision to violate it, this conclusion is not in accordance with the procedure and the law.
From the records and documents in the file, …Ltd. STI drying 1997/5-11 and 1998/1-12 months of premium debt by the plaintiff by reason of the aforementioned naming 1/3 of the partner of the company Old-Age Pension ‘U liens or foreclosures on 25/02/2012 from the date of your pension decision is made by applying the process of deduction salary where salary deductions on the nature of the plaintiff’s asked by email on 05/12/2012, whereupon the nature of the debt to the plaintiff by the institution, the amount and debt-related documents, it was understood that was reported by the mail.
A concrete case, the court, on the court against the plaintiff by way of damages injunctive 20/08/2013 comms learned in 2012 opened the case at hand; which is not the case on grounds for dismissal from within the statutory period before the decision is made; regardless of the payment order has not been duly notified of the time of learning is against the law and procedures and on the basis of history of destruction is the cause of the denial decision.
The work to be done consists of entering the essence of the work and making a decision according to the result.
In this case, the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects must be accepted, and the judgment must be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 05.02.2018 that the judgment would be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above, and that the appeal fee would be returned to the appellant if requested.
