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

Melek Yuce, Etem Saba Özmen
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在实践中,在不动产诉讼中,由于只有一个,所以在“诉讼注释”的名称下向土地注册处进行注释。这一制度是由最高法院制定的,与民法典的制度不相容。在有关撤销契约的案件中也存在同样的问题。法院使用的表述在土耳其民法典或学说中都不存在。本研究旨在说明在司法判决书中将功能不同的两种注释作为单一注释提及的错误。在这些案件中,如果司法判决不区分两种注释,就无法对注释做出区分。当在诉讼中给出TCC 1010/ 1注释时,它保护了原告的人身权。另一方面,TCC 1011/ 1中规定的注释阻止了原告的物权被善意第三人依法取得。在本研究中,给出了基于这两种区别的结果。此外,还确定了这些注释与根据《民事诉讼法》作出的临时禁令的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信