{"title":"注释(TCC Art.1010/b.1在契约发生变更的情况下以及注释的结果中给出了TCC第1011/b.1条","authors":"Melek Yuce, Etem Saba Özmen","doi":"10.30915/abd.1153100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In practice, during the lawsuits against immovables, an annotation is given to the land registry under the name of “annotation of the lawsuit” as there is only one. This, which is not compatible with the systematic of the Civil Code, was formed by the Supreme Court. The same problem exists in the cases related to cancellation of a deed. The expressions used by the courts don’t exist in Turkish Civil Code (TCC) or in doctrine. The study aims to show the mistake regarding the mentioning of two annotations, which have different functions, as a single annotation in judicial decisions. Judicial decisions that don’t discriminate the two annotations which are given in these cases, cannot make the distinction regarding the annotations. When in a lawsuit annotation TCC 1010/ 1 is given, it protects the personal right of the plaintiff has. On the other hand, the annotation regulated in TCC 1011/ 1 prevents the plaintiff’s real rights from being acquired by law by bona fide third parties. In this study, results based on these two distinctions are presented. In addition, the difference between these annotations and the interim injunction given in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure is determined.","PeriodicalId":231622,"journal":{"name":"Ankara Barosu Dergisi","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANNOTATIONS (TCC Art.1010/b.1 AND TCC Art.1011/b.1) GIVEN IN THE CASES CREATING A CHANGE IN THE DEED AND THE RESULTS OF THE ANNOTATIONS\",\"authors\":\"Melek Yuce, Etem Saba Özmen\",\"doi\":\"10.30915/abd.1153100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In practice, during the lawsuits against immovables, an annotation is given to the land registry under the name of “annotation of the lawsuit” as there is only one. This, which is not compatible with the systematic of the Civil Code, was formed by the Supreme Court. The same problem exists in the cases related to cancellation of a deed. The expressions used by the courts don’t exist in Turkish Civil Code (TCC) or in doctrine. The study aims to show the mistake regarding the mentioning of two annotations, which have different functions, as a single annotation in judicial decisions. Judicial decisions that don’t discriminate the two annotations which are given in these cases, cannot make the distinction regarding the annotations. When in a lawsuit annotation TCC 1010/ 1 is given, it protects the personal right of the plaintiff has. On the other hand, the annotation regulated in TCC 1011/ 1 prevents the plaintiff’s real rights from being acquired by law by bona fide third parties. In this study, results based on these two distinctions are presented. In addition, the difference between these annotations and the interim injunction given in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure is determined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ankara Barosu Dergisi\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ankara Barosu Dergisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.1153100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ankara Barosu Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.1153100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
ANNOTATIONS (TCC Art.1010/b.1 AND TCC Art.1011/b.1) GIVEN IN THE CASES CREATING A CHANGE IN THE DEED AND THE RESULTS OF THE ANNOTATIONS
In practice, during the lawsuits against immovables, an annotation is given to the land registry under the name of “annotation of the lawsuit” as there is only one. This, which is not compatible with the systematic of the Civil Code, was formed by the Supreme Court. The same problem exists in the cases related to cancellation of a deed. The expressions used by the courts don’t exist in Turkish Civil Code (TCC) or in doctrine. The study aims to show the mistake regarding the mentioning of two annotations, which have different functions, as a single annotation in judicial decisions. Judicial decisions that don’t discriminate the two annotations which are given in these cases, cannot make the distinction regarding the annotations. When in a lawsuit annotation TCC 1010/ 1 is given, it protects the personal right of the plaintiff has. On the other hand, the annotation regulated in TCC 1011/ 1 prevents the plaintiff’s real rights from being acquired by law by bona fide third parties. In this study, results based on these two distinctions are presented. In addition, the difference between these annotations and the interim injunction given in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure is determined.