237 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW Chamber. According to this opinion, in the event that the notification issued to the last known address of the addressee is returned, and that the domicile of the addressee registered at the address registry system is different than this address, it shall be sufficient to directly issue a notification pursuant to Article 21/2 of the NL to the domicile of the addressee registered at the address registry system with the “CPAS address” annotation. It is not required to initially issue a normal notification to this address. The 2nd Civil Chamber and the 4th Civil Chamber stated that their opinion is similar and the judgments shall be unified in line with their opinion. According to this opinion, the notification shall first be made to the known address of the addressee. If notification cannot be made to the known address, the domicile of the addressee as listed in the address registration system shall be identified and a normal notification shall be made to this address without the CPAS annotation. If it is determined that the addressee is not domiciled at that address and the notification is returned, then a new notification shall be issued with the CPAS annotation stating that the last known address of the addressee is the address found in the address registry system pursuant to Article 21/2 of the NL. Debrief of the Decision The Decision states that a two-phased notification process is adopted by the Notification Law. Hence, in the first step, notification shall be made to the last known address of the addressee. If the notification is returned without reaching the addressee, in the second step, the post officer shall directly make notification to the CPAS address of the addressee pursuant to Article 21/2 of the NL with the “CPAS address” annotation on the notification envelope, together with the annotation that the notification is being made pursuant to Article 21/2 of the NL.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=