257 / 391
PROCEDURAL LAW
243
which is not the claimant, such a circumstance hinders the rights of the
individuals to claim their rights.
Thus, the Constitutional Court concluded in deciding to cancel the rule
for its contradiction of Articles 2 and 36 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
Upon its respective review, by virtue of its Constitutional Court
Decree No.2009/27 E., 2010/9 K., dated January 14
th
, 2010 (published
in the Official Gazette Issue No.27524, dated March 17
th
, 2010), the
Constitutional Court has decided on the deletion of the second sentence of
Article 28.1(a) of the Law of Fees No.492, dated July 2
nd
, 1964, due to its
contradiction of Articles 2 and 36 of the Constitution saying, “Unless the
decree and writ fee is paid, the addressee is not served with the respective
writ.”, In accordance with this decision, claimants will be able to receive
writs for the lawsuits they win in order to promptly commence their
execution proceedings by sending the writs to the bailiffs’ offices and
acquiring their receivables without any need to pay the respective balance
proportional decree and writ fees and without waiting for the collection
of the fees from the defendant in accordance with the Rules of the Law
No.6183.