Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
23/07/2022

Duration of Notification of Evidence

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

“The plaintiff must inform the plaintiff with which evidence he will prove the cases he claims with the petition. The plaintiff must attach the available documents to his petition, and for the documents that are not available, he must provide information about where they will be brought from. (H.M.m. 140/5.) If the subsequent presentation of evidence is not intended to delay the trial or the inability to submit it during its term is not due to the fault of the interested party, the court may allow that evidence to be shown later. (YHGK, 20.04.2016, E. 2014/13-856, K. decision No. 2016/523) There is no possibility to grant a new period of time for the plaintiff who has not reported any evidence at the stage of exchanging petitions to report his evidence at the preliminary examination hearing.”

The following is the Supreme Court decision.

2.Department of Law 2015/19509 E. , 2016/12319 K.

“text of jurisprudence”

COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE : Divorce

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the verdict given by the local court, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the defendant woman, the documents were read and discussed and considered as Dec:
The plaintiff must inform the plaintiff with which evidence he will prove the cases he claims with the petition. The plaintiff must attach the available documents to his petition, and for the documents that are not available, he must provide information about where they will be brought from. (H.M.m. 140/5.) If the subsequent presentation of evidence is not intended to delay the trial or if the inability to submit it during its term is not due to the fault of the interested party, the court may allow that evidence to be shown later. (YHGK, 20.04.2016, E. 2014/13-856, K. decision No. 2016/523) There is no possibility to give a new period of time to the plaintiff who has not reported any evidence at the exchange stage of the petitions to report his evidence at the preliminary examination hearing to the plaintiff. The plaintiff male did not rely on witness evidence in the lawsuit petition. at the preliminary examination hearing dated 11.11.2014, the plaintiff man, who reported that he had witnesses, was given a 2-week deadline by the court to give his evidence, and the hearing of his witnesses was not correct and required distortion.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason shown above, that there is no place for examining other appeals for the time being according to the reason of the violation, that the advance fee of the appeal should be returned to the depositor on request, within 15 days from the notification of this decision, the way to correct the decision will be open.27.06.2016

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

To Whom Does the Gold Worn at the Wedding Belong Supreme Court Decision Supreme Court Decision on the Circumstances of the Crime of Non-Compliance with the Alimony Provision

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