- 06:00:04labour law rulings scanned · Yargıtay 9th, 22nd Civil, GA
- 06:12:38candidate conflicts in refutation check
- 06:41:07caught · consent vs. pension garnishment: 3rd Civil says sufficient, 11th and 19th say not
- 09:12:388 possible conflicts · eliminated in the rebuttal check
- 13:41:07monitoring continues · İBK register 21 rulings · 3rd ↔ 11th Civil conflict settled by the 21.03.2025 İBK
Is anyone disputing your authority?
We read the Court of Cassation and the Council of State every day for you. The chamber that rules against your precedent lands on your desk in the morning, with quote and date.
14 days free, no credit card needed. Labour law, enforcement and bankruptcy, administrative law, tax.
THIS WEEK'S RECORD
ISSUE
Is the consent in a loan agreement enough on its own for the bank to place a direct hold on a retirement pension?
3rd Civil Chamber
The consent is valid; the rule, which gives weight to the will of the parties, allows a hold to be placed without recourse to other security.
“sözleşme hukukuna göre bu yasağın kesin olmadığı, yasanın tarafların iradesine ağırlık vererek muvafakat yoluyla emekli aylıklarına bloke konulmasına, borcun başka teminatlara başvurulmadan ödenmesine imkan sağladığı”3. HD · 01.07.2025 · Bedesten 1159015300
11th Civil Chamber · 19th Civil Chamber
Consent alone is not enough; the enforcement proceeding must have become final, and a deduction made without a proceeding is unlawful.
“takibin kesinleşmiş olması şartıyla 28.02.2009 tarihi ve sonrasında artık borçlunun 5510 sayılı Yasanın 93. maddesi kapsamındaki gelir, aylık ve ödeneklere ilişkin hacze muvafakati geçerli”19. HD · 13.02.2019 · Bedesten 523040600 · aynı yönde 11. HD 18.12.2024 (1107882400)
Score 85/100 · 8 terms matched · quotes verified verbatim in the body of the rulings
NIGHT LOG
Scanned every night, on your desk in the morning.
Candidate conflicts pass a refutation check first. A quote that is not found verbatim in the ruling never reaches your agenda; no invented citations.
- 06:00:04labour law rulings scannedYargıtay · 9th, 22nd Civil, GA
- 06:12:38candidate conflicts in refutation checkengine
- 06:41:07consent vs. pension garnishment: opposite rulings3rd Civil ↔ 11th Civil
- 13:41:07unification of judgments record trackedYargıtay · GA
MEASURED RECORD
Four measurements from one real scan.
The four numbers below come from a single real scan. Each one is read from the product's measurement record.
- 597
- rulings scanned
- 1
- verified case of conflicting judgments
- 8
- terms matched verbatim in the ruling text
- 85
- refutation score, out of one hundred
FIVE CHECKS
Every finding passes five checks before it reaches you.
The five checks are rules enforced inside the software. If one is closed, the finding stops.
The record beside this text belongs to a real candidate finding. The candidate was refuted at the second check, never entered the remaining three, and did not go to the client.
A finding that is not verified is not sent to you. On a day with no finding, there is no report either.
THE CANDIDATE'S CLAIM
Two chambers calculate the idle-period wage claim in a reinstatement case differently.
- PASSED
Is the quote actually in the ruling?
Both quotes were found verbatim in the body of the ruling. A statement whose source cannot be shown does not proceed.
- REFUTED
Can the finding be refuted?
Two of three independent checks refuted it: side A concerns a worker who was not reinstated, side B a worker who was reinstated. The facts differ, the question is not the same.
- NOT REACHED
Is this really a case of conflicting judgments?
The candidate stopped here. A refuted finding does not enter the next check.
- NOT REACHED
Who can send this?
An unverified finding is not shown to any user.
- NOT REACHED
What can change in the letter?
The finding sentence and the rulings relied on do not change. For this candidate, no letter was written.
PRECEDENT CHECK
See whether the ruling you rely on still stands, before you file the brief.
Paste the text of your brief. The pre-check shows, on one screen, which of the rulings you rely on has been closed by a unification of judgments decision and which is still contested.
A citation that cannot be checked does not count as clean. A ruling not found in the monitored sources is not passed as “no issue”; it is flagged separately. The third mark beside this text is exactly that.
The brief text is read in your browser and sent nowhere.
Müvekkilin emekli aylığına konulan blokenin kaldırılmasını talep ederiz. Kredi sözleşmesindeki muvafakatin tek başına yeterli olmadığı, Yargıtay 19. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 13.02.2019 tarihli kararı ile sabittir. Aksi yöndeki Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 01.07.2025 tarihli kararı somut olaya uygulanamaz. Yerel uygulama bakımından bölge adliye mahkemesi kararı da bu yöndedir.
CLOSEDthe Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 3rd Civil Chamber, ruling of 1 July 2025
The conflicting judgments behind this decision were resolved by the unification of judgments decision (İBK) of 21 March 2025. The decision was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) on 17 July 2025. Reread the precedent relied on before you cite it.
BOTH VERIFIEDYargıtay 19th Civil Chamber, ruling of 13 February 2019
The opposing side was the subject of the same unification of judgments decision. Both quotes were verified verbatim in the body of the ruling; you see both.
COULD NOT BE CHECKEDregional court of justice ruling
This ruling was not found in the monitored sources and could not be checked. It is not treated as clean; it is flagged.
Record no ibk-2022-2-2025-1 · quotes verified verbatim in the body of the ruling
CHROME EXTENSION
Check the precedent you rely on in your browser while you write the brief.
When you cite a ruling on a page open in your browser, the extension recognises the citation and writes its status in the corner of the page: closed by a unification of judgments decision, conflicting judgments against it, or could not be checked.
It reads the service date in UYAP, calculates the two-week deadline for reply, appeal and cassation appeal under the HMK, counts the judicial recess, and adds the last day to your calendar.
The page text does not leave your browser. Only the ruling citation goes to the server: chamber, case number and decision number. Party names, ID numbers and addresses are never read.
The label in Lexpera and Kazancı result lists is off by default; because of the “must not alter the data” clause in their terms of use, it is not drawn until you turn it on.
The installation guide is on the Connections screen of the dashboard. The extension is not yet published on the Chrome Web Store; it is loaded manually.
✕ CLOSED BY İBKYargıtay 3rd Civil Chamber, decision dated 1 July 2025
The conflicting judgments behind this decision were resolved by the unification of judgments decision dated 21 March 2025; that decision was published in the Official Gazette on 17 July 2025.
✕ CLOSED BY İBKYargıtay 19th Civil Chamber, decision dated 13 February 2019
The opposing side of the same unification of judgments decision. Both sides are closed.
? COULD NOT BE CHECKEDregional court of justice decision
This citation was not found in the monitored sources; it could not be checked. That does not mean there is no problem.
UYAP MATTER FIELDS
- Matter number
- 2026/412
- Court
- Ankara 9. İş Mahkemesi
- Date of service
- 3 August 2026
Time to answer (HMK m.127): last day 7 September 2026. Reason, from the deadline engine (Turkish): HMK m.127: 2 hafta. HMK m.104: bitiş adli tatile düştü, tatil sonundan itibaren bir hafta uzadı
These fields are not sent to the server; they are used only on this screen and in the deadline calculation. Added to the calendar as .ics.
Page text never leaves the browser; only the ruling citation is sent to the server. Record no. ibk-2022-2-2025-1. The Lexpera and Kazancı result list selectors were not verified on a live page; on an unrecognised page the extension says so on screen.
DEADLINE CALENDAR
Enter the service date, add the last day to your calendar.
Calculate the last day of the reply, appeal and cassation-appeal deadlines under the HMK and İYUK. A deadline that falls in the judicial recess is extended automatically under HMK art. 104; the three rows beside this text show it.
Last days go to Google Calendar and Outlook through a webcal link. An approaching last day is flagged seven days ahead.
Extensions of time are not part of this calculation, because only the matter knows whether one was granted. The basis and source of every deadline are written in the catalogue.
Time to answer
HMK m.127 · 2 weeks · service of the complaint on the defendant
last day 7 September 2026
35 days left
Appeal (istinaf)
HMK m.345 · 2 weeks · due service of the judgment
last day 7 September 2026
35 days left
Cassation appeal (temyiz)
HMK m.361 · 2 weeks · service of the regional court of justice decision
last day 7 September 2026
35 days left
Reason, from the deadline engine (Turkish): HMK m.127: 2 hafta. HMK m.104: bitiş adli tatile düştü, tatil sonundan itibaren bir hafta uzadı
WHAT THE RADAR DOES
We do not send lists of similar rulings. We only report the moment two chambers conflict.
When two chambers give opposite answers to the same question, the outcome of your matter depends on which chamber it lands in. At that moment case-law databases pour hundreds of similar rulings on you. The radar does the opposite.
| WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT | CASE LAW DATABASE | GÖZETÇİ |
|---|---|---|
| Hundreds of similar rulings issued in the same direction | lists them all | does not send |
| Two chambers gave opposite answers to the same question | does not tell them apart | notifies you |
| A chamber changed its own position | does not tell them apart | notifies you |
| A unification of judgments decision (İBK) was published | publishes the text | links it to your matter |
| A regional court of justice ruled against settled case law | does not tell them apart | opens a separate alert |
| A candidate finding failed the refutation check | no such check exists | shows you, does not send |
The filled mark in the first row is not an advantage: listing hundreds of similar rulings is easy.
A ruling by a regional appellate or first-instance court that goes against settled Yargıtay case law does not count as conflicting rulings. If your matter is before that court, the ruling it gives may be overturned on cassation appeal and you want to know that before the hearing. That is why it opens as a separate alert.
The chambers monitored are chosen by your practice area, and pricing is set per practice area. If you connect your own archive, when a conflict appears you see your own brief that relies on that ruling.
SECURITY AND CONTROL
Your brief text does not leave your browser; sending it to the model depends on your approval.
In every row below, next to the promise is the thing that tests it. You see separately which promise a gate measures at every build and which is only a commitment.
- MEASUREDBy default, your text does not leave your firm
- The petition pre-check and adding a document to the archive are tested on every build. A unique marker text is placed in the product, every network call and console output is captured, and where that text ends up is measured. The measured result: zero outgoing requests.
- MEASUREDSending to the model requires explicit consent
- Sending is gathered in a single place and is off by default. The same gate scans this path as well.
- COMMITMENTYour document does not train an AI model
- The documents you upload are not sold to third parties, not used in advertising and not used to train models. There is no gate that measures this.
- COMMITMENTWhat goes where is written line by line
- In document analysis the full text goes to the model, and this is stated explicitly. How much data leaves in which operation is on the Security page.
- COMMITMENTDocument content does not enter the job queue
- Background jobs carry only a record ID.
- COMMITMENTSub-processors are an open list
- Every provider that touches your data is published with its name and purpose. If the list changes, the page changes.
- COMMITMENTYour card data does not reach us
- Payment is taken through the registered merchant. The card number is neither seen nor stored on our side.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Is this a legal advice service?
No. Gözetçi is a monitoring and notification tool: it scans high-court rulings and notifies you when chambers in your practice area issue conflicting judgments. It does not interpret the outcome of any ruling or assess its effect on your matter; the final assessment always belongs to the lawyer.
Which sources does Gözetçi scan?
Yargıtay rulings (Bedesten), Constitutional Court norm-review and individual-application decisions, regional appellate and first-instance court rulings, and the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete). Unification of judgments decisions are tracked through the Official Gazette. Which source is connected and which is not is stated plainly inside the product; a source that is not connected is never shown as if it were monitored.
Does a finding come out every day?
No. Every candidate finding goes through a rebuttal check, and one that fails is not sent to you. In the last real scan, one of the candidates had already been closed by an intervening unification of judgments decision; the others dealt with different legal questions or different facts. On a day with no finding, there is no report either.
Who is it for?
Boutique law firms (2-15 lawyers) that have gone deep in one or two practice areas. Pricing is set per practice area, not per seat.
Is there a free trial?
Yes. The 14-day free trial needs no credit card.
Start today, get the first report tomorrow morning.
14 days free, no credit card needed.
Gözetçi does not provide legal advice. The final assessment belongs to the lawyer.