İşlenemeyen hüküm

17:47 Jul 8, 2015 

No problem Yusef...

17:28 Jul 8, 2015 

There might be a misunderstanding, I just meant one cannot expect
the heading 'zamanında işleenemeyen hüküm' even if it is so.
as to incorparated, the asker mentioned at first anlaşma which is not correct, it is a legistlation 'mevzuat' or yasa (law) so there are no parallels to articles of incorporation.

14:12 Jul 2, 2015 

Yusef ...useful elaboration, but I don' see why you thought I expected the heading to explain things in DETAIL . I was just thinking the ones before and after my shed light on the what distinguishes this particular heading from the others, that's all..Neyse...

14:00 Jul 2, 2015 

The reason it is also a geçici madde this time (not allways) is that the provision is only valid for 45 days.

13:58 Jul 2, 2015 

It is a provision which was not included in the original law regarding this question which has a number and a date.. But was for some reason (not remembering at that time, this or that) not included in the original. It can be and generally is also called geçici madde but not always, ek hüküm is also possible. Regarding contracts, instead of rewriting the complete contract, problem is solved much easier by setting the procedure to follow in such case. And Harold we don't expect such headings to explain it in detail. Which cabinet would give all detailed errors. If its işlenemeyen
its nobodys fault, zamanında concedes that it was not thought about at that time.

12:30 Jun 30, 2015 

İŞLENEMEYEN HÜKÜM
17/2/2015 tarihli ve 29720 sayılı Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanan Çevrenin Korunması Yönünden Kontrol Altında Tutulan Atıkların İthalat Denetimi Tebliği (Ürün Güvenliği Ve Denetimi: 2015/3)’nde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Tebliğ (Ürün Güvenliği Ve Denetimi: 2015/27)’nin geçici maddesidir.
GEÇİCİ MADDE 1 ‒ (1) Bu Tebliğin yürürlüğe girdiği tarihten önce çıkış ülkesinde ihraç amacıyla taşıma belgesi düzenlenmiş veya gümrük mevzuatı uyarınca gümrük idarelerine sunulmuş atıkların ithalatında, yürürlük tarihinden itibaren 45 gün süreyle bu Tebliğin aleyhindeki hükümleri uygulanmaz.

08:40 Jun 29, 2015 

I think it is a provision that is to be applied but could not be included in the main text of the statute.

15:54 Jun 28, 2015 

I wonder if in the spirit of Yusef'ts suggestion, "unincorporated provision" as in a provision not incorporated/included in the contract/legislation might be a good option for the heading. Whether this may or may not be applied to the contract or legislation in question would become clear if we knew what the headings just before and just after the heading İşlenEmeyen hüküm" were. Seems like the intention would be a provision not to be applied, but it's impossible to know without an idea of what precedes and follows the phrase being asked about.

14:42 Jun 28, 2015 

Alp Bey, header olduğunu anladık, altında metin yok mu? O metini başta
açıklama olarakgönderseydiniz, yardımcı olmak isteyenlere vakit kazandırırdınız.

13:36 Jun 28, 2015 

It is not very elegant, but the above is the best suggestion I can find, apart from making a relative clause: "that could not be included in the text (of the law/contract)".

03:43 Jun 28, 2015 

Having read Yusef's explanation, I have removed my answer. My proposal of 'inapplicable' would of course correspond to 'uygulanamayan'. However, Yusef's suggestion of 'unrecorded' would surely correspond to 'işlenmeyen', but here we have 'işlenemeyen'.

19:30 Jun 27, 2015 

It's just İşlenemeyen hüküm as a header.

18:52 Jun 27, 2015 

Yusef, I get your point.... It probably would help to get more of the original text for context... What you describe in your explanation sounds more like an amended provision/ amendment, which would make sense if the original text indicated: 'zamanında işlenemeyen' ...But we need more or the original text from the asker to know if this is what is being referred to.

18:40 Jun 27, 2015 

Please check my explkanation, these clauses arer applied but were not recorded inthe original legistlation or agrreement

17:27 Jun 27, 2015 

Yusef... Actually "Unworkable" is not the same as "inapplicable" . I would go with Tim's suggestion of "inapplicable" as I suggested in my original comment....