Expropriation Without Expropriation Court Of Cassation Decision Sample
T.C Judiciary 5th Civil Chamber Esas: 2019/ 8207 Decision: 2020 / 1728 Decision Date: 06.02.2020
JUDICIARY DECISION
COURT : … Regional Court of Appeals 1st Civil Chamber
At the end of the trial held due to the lawsuit between the parties for the prevention of expropriation without expropriation: Upon the appeal of the defendant administration’s attorney against the decision of the first instance court regarding the acceptance of the case … Upon the appeal of the defendant administration’s attorney, upon the appeal of the defendant administration’s attorney against the decision of the first instance court regarding the acceptance of the case … Upon the appeal of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice regarding the rejection of the appeal request on the merits, the Supreme Court of Appeals has been requested by the petition submitted by the defendant administration’s attorney, and after the documents in the file were read and the dispute was understood, the necessity was discussed and considered:
– DECISION –
The lawsuit is related to the request for the prevention of expropriation without expropriation.
Against the decision given by the first instance court regarding the acceptance of the case, the judgment given by the 1st Civil Chamber of the … Regional Court of Justice regarding the rejection of the appeal application made by the defendant administration’s attorney on the merits was appealed by the defendant administration’s attorney, but it was understood that the appeal request was rejected on the grounds that the postage and notification costs were not paid within the given deadline.
In the examination made; with the memorandum notified to the defendant administration attorney on 3.11.2017, it was warned that the appeal postage and notification expenses must be deposited within the one-week definite period from the date of notification of the memorandum, otherwise it will be deemed to have abandoned the appeal request, the authority where the costs are requested to be deposited is not clearly stated in the notified memorandum, for this reason, the defendant administration attorney deposited the costs within the definite period specified in the memorandum on 13.11.2017, but inadvertently to the cashier of the … 1st Civil Court of First Instance, which is the court of first instance. Civil Court of First Instance, which is the court of first instance, and due to not being aware of this situation, the costs were not transferred to the file numbered 2017/680 of the … Regional Court of Appeal, therefore, it was understood that the 1st Civil Chamber of the … Regional Court of Appeal decided to reject the appeal request with an additional decision dated 17.11.2017, and it was understood that it was not correct to decide to reject the appeal request of the defendant administration’s attorney since the costs that should be deposited within the time limit were deposited, and it was decided to remove the additional decision dated 17.11.2017;
According to the evidence and documents in the file and the grounds on which the decision is based; there is no inconsistency in the decision to reject the appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the prevention of seizure since the immovables subject to the lawsuit were actually seized, in accordance with Article 353/1-b-1 of the CCP No. 6100.
Since the appellate objections of the defendant administration’s attorney were not appropriate, it was unanimously decided on 06/02/2020 to APPROVE the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, in accordance with Article 370 of the CCP, to charge the remaining fee written below and to register the prepaid appeal fee to the Treasury.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.