According to the announcement, for cases and procedures seen by the 4th Tax Court; if it is without a hearing 500, 00 TL; if there is a hearing then 750, 00 shall be paid to the attorney. This announcement has become effective from the day which it was announced in the Official Gazette which was 28 October 2009.
THE DECISION OF THE 18TH CIVIL CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ABOUT COMPENSATION IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PERSON
According to the article 97/15 of the İİK ( İcra ve İflas Kanunu-Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law) in order to decide on giving compensation in favour of a third party, along with the acceptance of the third persons case in the event the claimant or debtor who has objected to the claim of third person if they had bad intentions then this is sufficient the third party does not have to request for compensation to get it in this situation. Here bad intention is when during a seizure even through the claimant knows that the item is in fact the plaintiff’s but still asks the bailiff to continue with the seizure of the item. As a rule it is accepted as normal when a claimant objects to third parties’ claim which is about the procedures made between the third person and debtor because the claimant is foreign to it.
A substantial event the 18th Civil Chamber of the Courts of Appeal has come across with is like this; the fact that the debtor resides at the address in which the seizure is being enforced has been verified by the enquiry made at the same building and this has been written down in the seizure report. Along with this at the place of seizure a marriage licence, receipts etc belonging to the debtor has been found. The fact that the things subjected to seizure actually belonged to a third person was verified after evidence was gathered. In this case the claimant’s right according to the 97th article of İİK to request that the claim of the third person is proven by them and to wait until this is proven is their legal and natural right. Therefore the decision to make the defendant claimant responsible for paying bad intention compensation is against procedure and the law. (Decision no 2004/12450 E., 2005/1146 K.).
