NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

256 NEWSLETTER 2020 Court dated 10.02.2016 and numbered 2015/96 E. and 2016/9 K., it has been stipulated in the law that the event that the decision of non- jurisdiction and rejection of venue is final, the start of the two-week period foreseen for the notification of the decision to the parties, and for the submission of the request to be sent to the competent court, shall start from the notification. Among the circumstances where hearings are held in secret, as stipulated in the Article 28 of the CPC, the circumstance of “having a superior interest worthy of protection for the people concerned with the proceedings” has been added, and an exception to the rule for holding the hearings publicly was introduced. The first criticism that comes to the forefront is that this arrangement is open to interpretation and abuse. With the Proposal, among reasons for the refusal of a judge, the reason of judge having previously served as mediator or conciliator in the same dispute has been added. It is foreseen that an appeal may be filed against the decisions of the authority examining the request for the refusal of the judge. Although there is no hesitation in this matter, in practice, with the regulation introduced to Article 94 of the CPC, how the explanation and the warnings to be made by the judge should be made in cases where a peremptory term is granted by the court is stipulated in the law. Paragraph 3 of Article 107 (which regulates uncertain receivable lawsuits) which allows filling a partial declaratory action in cases where an action for performance may be filled is repealed. Having said that, a comprehensive amendment to paragraph 2 is made, and when it is possible to determine the amount or value of the receivable fully and precisely, it is envisaged that the request will be determined fully and precisely by the judge giving a two-week peremptory term before the investigation ends. The preamble of this regulation, which is thought to cause contradiction due to the judge’s commitment to demand, and the lack of such a regulation in the partial case, leaves the determination of when the receivable is to be determined to the judge. With the Proposal, the objection of competency, between the civil courts of first instance and the commercial courts, in Article 116 of