Easily available organic substrates (e.g., peanut, walnut and almond shells and luffa sponge) were evaluated as potential filter material for permeable biobarrier systems. Higher removal efficiencies and rate constants were observed for lower (20%) substrate (e.g., peanut, walnut and luffa sponge) percentages indicating to the importance of substrate percentage. Rate constants were higher for total inorganic nitrogen removal (≥0.137 mg N/L/d) than for nitrate removal (≥0.127 mg N/L/d) in the batch bioreactors promising the capability of microorganisms in consuming substrate released nitrogen compounds. Continuous flow biobarriers revealed greater removal efficiencies (<1 mg NO3−–N/L) and rate constants (≥2.38 mg NO3−–N/L/d) that were related to better microbial performance with increased substrate contact. Different dissolved oxygen levels observed for peanut shell (≤7.45 mg O2/L) and luffa sponge columns (<3 mg O2/L) were indicating to the existence of different mechanisms and microorganisms during simultaneous heterotrophic nitrification and aerobic or anoxic denitrification. Luffa sponge was found to be the best candidate as a biobarrier substrate for a longer timescale, although walnut and almond shells may be excellent materials both supporting the denitrification process and permeability of barrier system.

With the Industrial Property Law, the higher education institution has been given the opportunity to claim rights on the inventions that emerged as a result of scientific research and studies in order to reveal the current invention potential in higher education institutions and bring them into the economy. The solution of entitlement in higher education institutions, which is one of the institutions with the highest invention potential, is important for the inventor and the higher education institution. The country's economy and society benefit from the inclusion and commercialization of existing inventions in the patent process. The protection of the patent right brings with it economic growth within the country and prepares the ground for the production and transfer of technology. Determination of entitlement on inventions made in higher education institutions, application and notification obligation, objection to entitlement decision, transfer of right and sharing of income to be obtained from invention will be examined within the framework of Industrial Property Law and Regulation on Employee Inventions, Inventions Made in Higher Education Institutions and Inventions Emerged in Publicly Supported Projects.

There is a need for a strong cooperation and trust relationship between the partners in limited companies which is one of the most established company types in practice. In cases where any of the partners damage this cooperation and trust, it is important to recognize the right of the company to expulse a partner. Forcing the company and other partners to endure this situation may disrupt the harmony of the partnership. A limited liability company partner can be expulsed from the company by the decision of the general assembly based on the reason stipulated in the articles of association or by a court decision for justified reasons. Expulsion is the termination of the partner's relationship with the partnership against the will of the partner, and the termination of the partnership title with a general assembly or court order. In this article, grounds for expulsion, applying to court for expulsion, and its consequences will be examined theoretically in accordance with the doctrine and supreme court decisions.

Bu makalede, Yargıtay’ın 12.11.2021 tarihli ve 2020/2 E., 2021/3 K. Sayılı İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu Kararı çerçevesinde kooperatiflerin tacir niteliği incelenecektir. Kooperatiflerin tacir sayılıp sayılmayacakları yıllardır öğreti ve uygulamada çeşitli yönleri ile tartışılmaktadır. Kooperatiflerin hukuki niteliği konusundaki tartışmaların ortaya çıkışı, 1969 tarihli 1163 sayılı Kooperatifler Kanunu’nun yürürlüğe girmesinden öncesine dayanmaktadır. Nitekim konu ile ilgili olarak kooperatiflerin ticaret şirketi ve tacir niteliğinde olduğu sonucuna varılan 1945 yılında verilmiş bir içtihadı birleştirme kararı da bulunmaktadır. Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda ticaret şirketleri arasında düzenlenen kooperatiflerin, Kooperatifler Kanunu’nda “ortaklık” olarak belirtilmesine rağmen, açıkça ticari nitelikte olduğunun belirtilmemiş olması, kooperatiflerin kazanç elde etmek ve paylaştırmak amacının bulunup bulunmadığı ve tacir ve tacir olmaya bağlı sonuçların kooperatifler hakkında uygulanmasının uygun olup olmayacağı noktasında gerek doktrinde gerekse mahkeme kararlarında görüş ayrılıkları oluşmuştur. Mahkeme içtihatları arasındaki görüş ayrılıkları ve farklı uygulamalar nedeniyle İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulunca 2021 tarihli içtihadı birleştirme kararı alınmıştır. Sözü edilen karar, ilgili mercilerin görüşleri ve karşı oy yazısı da dikkate alınarak yasal hükümler ve bilimsel görüşler çerçevesinde değerlendirilecektir.

ÖzÇalışmamız, sigorta acentelerinin ücret isteme hakkının incelenmesini konu edinmiştir. Bu hususa ilişkin olarak her ne kadar Sigortacılık Kanunu ve Sigorta Acenteleri Yönetmeliği'nde bazı düzenlemeler mevcutsa da yeterli olduğu söylenemez. Türk Ticaret Kanunu'nun genel olarak acenteye ilişkin düzenlemeleri arasında acentenin ücret hakkına 113 ilâ 116. maddelerinde detaylı olarak yer verilmiştir. Söz konusu hükümlerin sigorta acentelerine uygulanabilirliğinin incelenmesi hedeflenmiştir.Anahtar Kelimeler: Acente, sigorta acenteleri, ücret hakkı AbstractThe subject of this study is to analyze the commission right of insurance agents. Despite the fact that there are some regulations about this topic by Insurance Code and Insurance Agents Regulation, it is not said to be practicable. The commission right of agent have been regulated in detail under articles 113 to 116 of Turkish Commercial Code. The aim of this study is to carefully scrutinize the applicability of these articles to insurance agents.