NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

243 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAWAND EXECUTION AND BANKRUPTCY LAW and conscience defense to continue a clear mistake related completely to material facts, beyond the scope of legal evaluation and supervision that was, somehow, overlooked during the appellate review, and which seriously affects and usually reverses the outcome of the result of the judgment, which clearly must be corrected. The concept of “procedural acquired right” that is accepted by the precedents of the Court of Cassation has exceptions that are formed, again, by the Court of Cassation, as it is the case in various rules of law. In the event another decision of unification of the verdicts is given after the decision of compliance with the reversal decision of the court, the procedurally acquired right gained by the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation shall not carry any weight. After the court of first instance complies with the reversal decision, the procedurally acquired right gained through complying with the reversing decision shall also carry no weight in light of the new law regarding the issue that has entered into force. In the event that the Constitutional Court annuls a provision of law prior to the finalization of a judgment, the verdict shall be given according to the new situation created by the annulment decision, not according to the procedurally acquired right. The issue of competence is also an exemption to a procedurally ac- quired right. Apart from these, acquired procedurally rights shall not be in question in issues relating to public order, such as lapse of time, objection of definite verdict and fees. Also, a procedurally acquired right shall not originate by having complied with reversal decisions with respect to factual errors. A material mistake (legal mistake) is a mistake in whether an event has occurred, or in the conditions or qualities of the event. Here, the concept of material mistake means that clear errors regard- ing the facts, and which fall outside the scope of legal evaluation and supervision, which appear as an apparent mistake at first instance, and somehow was overlooked and that seriously affects the outcome of the judgment, and usually reverses the judgment, must be corrected as it is not possible to continue to defend such a mistake in the scope of public order and conscience. The Court of Cassation has intervened in