Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
15/10/2022

Competent And Competent Court in Eviction Cases

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

THE COURT IN CHARGE OF EVICTION CASES

The duties of the courts are determined by law. The task is related to public order. For this reason, it is taken into account at every stage of the trial. The court in charge of eviction cases is specified in Article 4/1-a of the Civil Code (HUMK 8 / II-1

According to the EB dated 9.6.1932 and numbered 2004, the provisions regarding the eviction of leased immovables through execution without notice are separate, and the cases regarding all disputes, including the receivables arising from the lease relationship, and the cases filed against these cases are assigned to the Civil Courts of Peace.

AUTHORITY HMK 5 (HUMK 9.) Md

Authority : Refers to which place court a case will be tried in regardless of its value.

Article 6 of the Civil Code (HUMK 9), which defines the general rule of jurisdiction. The general authorized court is the settlement court of the defendant real and legal person on the date of opening the case.

The place of settlement is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Turkish civil code dated 22.11.2001 and numbered 4721

The competent court in eviction cases is determined according to the rules in Articles HMK 6 and 7 (HUMK 9) and HMK 10 (HUMK 10), since the dispute is not related to the same immovable property.

According to Article 10 of the Civil Code, authority in cases arising from a contract may be filed in the court of the place where the contract will be executed.

Accordingly, since the authorized court is the defendant’s settlement court or the place where the contract will be executed is also the place where the immovable property is located, in general, eviction cases are handled in the court where the immovable property is located
In Article 17 of the Civil Code of Decency“ “Merchants or public legal entities of the authorization agreement may authorize one or more courts with a contract about a dispute that has arisen or may arise between them.” Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the case can only be opened in these courts determined by the contract.

Therefore, according to this provision, personal persons will not be able to arrange an authorization agreement for the Decommissioning agreement they have concluded between themselves.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Lease Agreements And The Problem Of Proof Parties to The Lease Agreement And Their Debts

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

Anayasa Mahkemesi 4 sözleşmeli personel alacak

Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında istihdam edilmek üzere, yapılacak sözlü sınav esas alınmak suretiyle, Destek Personeli (Temizlik Görevlisi) pozisyonu için toplam 4 (dört) sözleşmeli personel alınacak. Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığından: 4 (DÖRT) SÖZLEŞMELİ PERSONEL ALIMI HAKKINDA DUYURU Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında 657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu’nun 4 üncü maddesinin (B) fıkrasına göre istihdam […]

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us