Prompt Removal of the Seizure Placed on the Pension – Irregular Notification Supreme Court Decision

T.C.
SUPREME
21. law office
EESAS NO.: 2017/6302
DECISION NO: 2018/747
DECISION DATE: 5.2.2018

>>PROMPT REMOVAL OF THE SEIZURE PLACED ON THE PENSION-IRREGULAR NOTIFICATION

7201/m.12

SUMMARY: The case is related to the request to remove the lien placed on the pension.

Although the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not open the case in hand within the legal period from the moment of learning about the precautionary seizure; it is inappropriate to decide to dismiss the case based on the date of learning, without taking into account that the pay order was not duly notified.

LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that the seizure placed on the pension be decided to be lifted.

The Court, following the reversal, decided to reject the request as stated in its decision.

Upon the appeal of the judgment by the plaintiff’s attorney, after it was understood that the appeal request was in due time, the papers in the file were read with the report, the necessity of the work was considered and the following decision was made:

Litigation, non-litigation … Ltd. It is related to the request of Şti to lift the seizure placed on the plaintiff’s pension due to the premium debt owed to the institution and to refund the deductions made as of 16.08.2013 with interest.

The court has decided to dismiss the case. Our apartment, 06/10/2015 date and 2015/8563-17782 E.K. this conclusion, which is reached upon the numbered decision of annulment, is not in accordance with the procedure and 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 into the basis of the work and making a decision according to the result.

In that case, the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the verdict overturned.

CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 05.02.2018 to OVERTURN the judgment for the reasons described above and to return the appeal fee to the appellant plaintiff if requested.

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