To Continue the Execution Proceedings Halted by the Objection of the Debtor: Actions for Withdrawal of Appeal

The person who has a right to claim needs to collect it from the debtor as soon as possible. For this, the relevant person tries to collect the receivables by initiating enforcement proceedings from the enforcement office. There are several enforcement proceedings that the creditor can initiate according to the documents proving the right to claim;

• If the creditor has a court decision or such document proving the right to claim, he or she carries out enforcement proceedings with judgement.
• Again, the creditor holding a bill such as a check, a bond, which are among the bills of exchange, can initiate proceeding through the attachment specific to the bills of exchange.
• The person who is secured by the right of pledge to be taken has to choose the proceeding made via converting the pledge into money.

However, the creditor may not have any of these documents proving that he/she is a creditor. In this case, the only proceeding type that the creditor can apply is the general attachment, which is a type of enforcement proceeding without judgment. In this proceedings, the debtor party has more advantages because the creditor has initiated proceedings based on a simple claim. Because the debtor can halt the proceedings initiated by the creditor by objecting it. Moreover, the debtor does not even need to prove the reason for the objection or that he/she is not indebted.

In order to be able to continue the proceeding and collect the receivable upon the objection of the debtor, the creditor must file and win the action for withdrawal of  appeal, which is specific to the enforcement law. With this lawsuit, the creditor will be able to collect both receivables and additional compensation from the debtor. The debtor, on the other hand, will be able to dismiss the proceedings and determine that he/she is not a debtor with his/her defense in this case, and in addition, he/she will be able to receive bad faith compensation from the creditor.

In this bulletin, we have explained the most important issues regarding the action for withdrawal of appeal and the progress of the process step by step clearly.

1. Who File the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal

The action for the withdrawal of appeal is filed by the creditor party, who demands the right to claim from the debtor with the request for proceedings. In other words, the person who is presented as the creditor in the proceeding request is the plaintiff party of this case.[1] The creditor may be an individual or a company.

2. Against Whom Will the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal Be Filed?

The action for withdrawal of appeal is filed against the debtor against whom enforcement proceedings have been issued. The person who is debtor in the proceeding is the defendant party of this case.

3. What Claims Can the Plaintiff Make in the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal?

By the action for withdrawal of appeal, the creditor requests the withdrawal of appeal made by the debtor in order to continue the proceedings, which are halted with the appeal of the debtor. This is the main topic and purpose of the case. However, with the judgment rendered as a result of the withdrawal of appeal, it is also proved that the plaintiff is a creditor for the amount specified in the proceeding request.

In this case, the creditor may also demand an enforcement appeal compensation, on the grounds that the debtor halts the proceedings by making an appeal unjustly or for no reason. The amount of this compensation is at least 20% of the receivable.

Again, in its defense, the debtor may demand bad faith damages from the creditor, provided that the debtor claims and proves that the creditor has initiated enforcement proceedings against her/him unjustly and in bad faith, even though the debtor does not actually have any debt.

4. When Should the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal Be Filed?

In order to continue with the enforcement proceedings, which is halted by the appeal odf the debtor, an action for the withdrawal of appeal must be filed in due time. The creditor must file the action for withdrawal of appeal within a 1-year period of the final term.[2] The beginning of this one-year period is the date on which the debtor’s objection is communicated to the creditor. A lawsuit that is not filed within one year from the notification of the debtor’s appeal to the creditor will not be an action for withdrawal of appeal and will not bear the same consequences. For example, the proceeding shall not be continued, it is only heard like a simple action of debt.

If the debtor’s appeal has not been notified to the creditor, it is possible to file an action for withdrawal of appeal as long as the proceedings are not terminated.

If a delayed objection has been made and the debtor’s property has already been seized, an action for withdrawal of appeal must be filed within 7 days from the acceptance of the excuse.[3]

After the provisional attachment is made, If an appeal is made to the payment order in the proceeding made via the general lien issued in due time, the creditor must file an action for the withdrawal of appeal within 7 days from the notification date of the objection[4] In these last two issues, it is important that the lawsuit is filed within 7 days in order not to release the attachment on the seized goods.

5. In Which Cases Is the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal Filed?

In order for the creditor to file an action for the withdrawal of appeal;

• First of all, the creditor must issue a valid enforcement proceeding. The enforcement proceeding should not be an invalid proceeding due to reasons such as the absence of the capacity for proceeding or the duration.
• The proceeding should be an enforcement proceeding without judgment made via general lien or foreclosure of the mortgage. The debtor’s objection does not suspend the enforcement proceedings in the proceedings made via attachments pertaining to bills of exchange. Therefore, there is no need to file an action for withdrawal of appeal.
• The debtor must object to the enforcement proceedings in whole or in part. One of the issues to be considered here is that if the debtor has objected to a part of the debt in the payment order, this issue should be clearly stated in the objection of the debtor. If the debtor does not specify the amount of the part she/he objected to, the debtor is deemed to have never objected. In this case, the action for withdrawal of appeal cannot be filed.
• The debtor shall object to the debt or signature. If the debtor has objected only on the grounds of things that are not directly related to the debt, such as authority, pendency or final judgment, an action for withdrawal of appeal cannot be filed.[5] In such cases, the only way to proceed is the procedure for the cancel the appeal in the enforcement courts.[6] If the debtor has made procedural objections such as authority, pendency etc., together with the objection to the debt, an action for withdrawal of appeal can be filed. The important thing is that the debt has been appealed.

6. In Which Courts Is the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal Filed?

Contrary to what is expected, the action for withdrawal of appeal is not heard in the enforcement courts. The general courts are competent in the actions for withdrawal of appeal.[7] In other words, the court in which the lawsuit will be filed will also change, depending on the type of receivable that is the subject of the proceeding and the relationship from which it arises. For example,

• The commercial courts of first instance are competent for the action for withdrawal of appeal in the proceedings related to commercial disputes,
• Civil courts of peace are competent in the proceedings regarding the receivables arising from the lease agreement;[8]
• Labor courts are competent is in lawsuits to be filed related to proceedings for receivables falling under the jurisdiction of labor courts (for example, workers’ salaries, severance pay);
• the specialised court for intellectual and industrial property rights is competent for claims arising from trademark rights;
• consumer courts are competent for claims arising from consumer law;
• Civil courts of first instance are competent in the action for withdrawal of appeal arising from the proceedings related to the receivables other than the topics mentioned above.

Not to file the action in the competent court will result in the dismissal of the action for withdrawal of appeal on the procedural grounds. For this reason, it is important to get information and advice from your lawyer about in which court the action should be filed.

7. How is the Competent Court Determined in the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal?

In the action for the withdrawal of appeal, the competent court is determined according to the general jurisdiction rules.[9] Since this issue is very detailed and will vary in each case, we recommend that you seek help from our lawyers.

If the debtor appeals against the payment order, in addition to the debt objection, that the enforcement office is not authorized, then the court will first examine and decide on this issue in the action for withdrawal of objection. If the court decides that the enforcement office is not competent, it shall dismiss the action for withdrawal of appeal on the procedural grounds.[10]

8. What is Enforcement Appeal Compensation and What are its Terms?

Enforcement Appeal Compensation is compensation that the debtor is sentenced to pay due to the unjust and unreasonable objection to a debt the debtor owes, and trying to render the enforcement proceedings ineffective or inconclusive. As stated before, the enforcement proceedings are halted by the appeal made by the debtor to the payment order, the creditor cannot continue the proceedings and seize the debtor’s properties. The creditor also has to file an action for the withdrawal of appeal and try to continue the proceedings. Here, the creditor must pay enforcement appeal compensation as compensation for these burdens and as a punishment for leaving the creditor in a difficult situation due to the debtor’s unjust appeal.[11] This type of compensation is peculiar only to enforcement law. It cannot be considered technically as a compensation. Because, as in a classical compensation, it is not required for the debtor to be at fault and to harm the creditor.[12]

Enforcement appeal compensation cannot be less than twenty percent of the receivable under the judgment (EBL art. 67/2).

Anyone who files an action for withdrawal of appeal and wins is not automatically entitled to receive enforcement appeal compensation from the debtor. In order for the creditor to receive enforcement appeal compensation, certain conditions is sought. These are as follows;

• First of all, the creditor must request enforcement appeal compensation. If the creditor has not requested such compensation, the court cannot decide on the payment of this compensation by itself. This request should be put forward at the petitions stage with a lawsuit petition or a petition of replication. Otherwise, it will only be possible to put them forward during the case through amendment.
• In order for an enforcement appeal compensation to be awarded, there must be a valid enforcement proceeding and the debtor must have unjustly objected to the payment[13] What should be understood from the unjust objection of the debtor is not that the debtor knew or should have known that she/he was indebted but made an objection. In other words, it is not necessary that the objection be in bad faith.[14] However, if the legal representative (such as a parent, guardian, or trustee) has made an objection, proof of their bad faith is also sought.[15] Except for this special case, if it is understood that the debtor is indebted at the end of the case, this situation is deemed sufficient to decide that the objection of the debtor is unjustified and that the proceedings have been procrastinated unnecessarily, and it is decided to pay the enforcement appeal compensation.
• The receivable that is the subject of the action for annulment of the objection must be liquid. A liquid receivable is a money receivable whose amount is known to the borrower or can be learnt by an easy calculation. The ability to prove that the debtor appealed to the debt unfairly or that the creditor issued a proceeding in bad faith depends on whether the amount of the claim is definite or determinable. The debt/credit must be in a certain amount so that it can be proved that the debtor objected to the debt unjustly or that the creditor initiated enforcement proceedings in bad faith, despite knowing the amount of debt or credit. Receivables that are accepted as liquid receivables or not are examined in detail below, with examples that have been the subject of Supreme Court decisions.

9. The Concept of Liquid Receivables

If the debtor can determine the amount of her/his debt or if she/he has the necessary information and documents to be able to determine it, the receivable/ debt is considered determined and liquid. If the debt amount can be calculated easily and objectively, the debtor is considered to be able to know this and the debtor is deemed unfair to object to the debt. However, if the amount of the receivable is to be determined during a trial and by the help of an expert, the receivable is not liquid.[16]

Interest receivables may not be considered liquid. Because interest rates may vary due to inflationary effects in our country. The interest, the amount of which can be determined by expert examination during the trial, is not considered liquid. The borrower can also not be considered unfair in objecting to such an interest. Interest receivables, the elements of which are determined, are considered liquid.[17]

Since the price of the goods purchased is clear and known by the debtor, the debt is considered liquid in the enforcement proceedings issued due to the non-payment of the price of the goods purchased.[18]

Since the determination of the amount of receivables is usually determined as a result of a judicial activity and expert examination, these receivables are not considered liquid in debts arising from tort and in compensation cases.

If it is possible to determine the amount of the debt with the documents in the possession of the creditor, and if the debtor objects to the payment order before the creditor has access to these documents in the proceeding process, the credit is not considered liquid.

Since the partnership share amount will only be determined as a result of the proceedings, the receivable is not considered liquid.

The fact that the amount demanded in the proceeding request and the amount ordered to be paid at the end of the trial is different and less than the amount in the proceeding request is proof that the amount of the receivable can only be determined after the trial, and such a receivable is not liquid.

Some of the receivables that are considered to be liquid in the decisions of the Supreme Court; Receivable from invoices, current account receivable, rent receivable and its accessories, bank account deductions, credit card debts and ancillary receivables, loan agreement receivables, employee employment contract receivables, receivables pertaining to bonds, receivable arising from subscription relationship, receivable arising from electricity consumption, penal clause receivable, receivable arising from loan agreement, receivable arising from open account relationship, profit share receivable of founder shareholder, receivable arising from consumer loan, severance pay receivable, notice indemnity receivable, receivable arising from accommodation service.[19]

Some of the types of receivables that are not accepted as liquid by the Supreme Court; receivables arising from unjust enrichment, receivables arising from the illicit use of water, natural gas, electricity, financial compensation due to death as a result of work accident, ejectment indemnity, collateral damage receivable.[20]

To summarize, if the receivable/debt is liquid, enforcement appeal compensation can be awarded, while if the receivable is not liquid, the enforcement appeal compensation cannot be awarded.

10. What is Compensation for Bad Faith and What are its Terms?

The creditor who is justified in the action for withdrawal of appeal can demand enforcement appeal compensation from the debtor, and if the debtor is right in this action, she/he can demand compensation from the creditor. However, in order for the creditor to be able to decide to pay compensation for bad faith, the creditor must both have started the enforcement proceedings unjustly and have bad faith in starting these proceedings. In other words, the creditor must have issued this proceeding even though she/he knew or should have known that she/he was not actually a creditor.[21] For example, the person who issues proceedings against the debtor even though the receivable has been paid fully is in bad faith and must pay compensation for bad faith. However, the fact that the creditor is found to be wrong in the case, that is, the creditor could not prove the receivables, does not mean that the creditor is in bad faith.

“The case is related to the request for withdrawal of appeal to the enforcement proceedings issued for the collection of the receivable based on the service contract between the merchants. It is fixed that there is a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff could not prove the receivables is not sufficient to prove that the creditor is in bad faith, and since there is no document in the file showing that the creditor is in bad faith, it is not considered right for the court to award compensation for bad faith against the plaintiff.”[22]

11. What are the Rules of Proof in the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal?

In the action for the withdrawal of appeal, the creditor can prove the receivables according to the general proof rules. It is not necessary to prove with a document within the meaning of EBL article 68/b.[23]

In the action for withdrawal of appeal, the burden of proof is on the creditor who claims to have a right to claim. In order to win this case, the creditor must prove her/his right to claim. However, the burden of proof may change depending on the course of the case and as a result of the claims made by the debtor. For example; If the debtor claims that the debt exists but has been paid fully, he/she must prove this claim himself/herself.

“.. it has been decided that the file is accepted on the grounds that the defendant stated that he paid the invoice amount in the notary notice sent for objection to the invoice subject to the lawsuit and the proceedings, he did not object to the content of the invoice, accordingly the defendant had to prove that he paid the debt, there was no record that the plaintiff was given a check, and the defendant could not prove his claim of payment with written evidence, and with the withdrawal of appeal, it has been decided that the proceeding will continue with the advance interest to be processed, and that the 20% enforcement appeal compensation will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.[24]

In this case, the debtor is not bound by the reasons for the appeal she put forward in the objection to the payment order. The debtor may change these claims or put forward brand new claims and documents. The debtor can freely put forward all these at the petition stage.

The creditor, on the other hand, cannot prove that she/he will receive it by asserting new documents other than the documents on which she/he is based in the proceeding request. Because the action for the withdrawal of appeal is a case that is strictly dependent on the execution proceeding. The creditor cannot file an action for the withdrawal of appeal based on a document that the creditor did not put forward during enforcement proceedings.

12. Evaluation of Proofs in the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal

Invoice as a proof: If the creditor has filed the action for withdrawal of appeal based on an invoice, in order to win the action for the withdrawal of appeal based on this invoice, the invoice must also be included in the commercial book records of the debtor, or other conditions must be fulfilled in order for the invoice to be accepted as evidence. If these conditions exist, the objection can be canceled. Otherwise, the creditor’s issuing an invoice by herself/himself and sending it to the debtor cannot prove the contractual relationship or the debt alone.

“The case is about the request for withdrawal of appeal against the invoice pertaining to the proceedings without judgment. Two animation service sales invoices issued by the plaintiff were returned by the defendant without being recorded in the books. Considering that the burden of proof regarding whether the service subject to the invoice has been provided or not is on the plaintiff creditor, making an error in the determination of the burden of proof and establishing a written judgment necessitated reversing it.”[25]

Bills as proof: In our law, bills are divided into ordinary bills and official bills. Official bills are those in which an official, such as a notary, participates in the arrangement. The signature under these bills cannot be denied; however, the invalidity of the bill can be proved by the case of detecting the forgery of a bill in which the officer participating in the transaction is also a party. Bills of exchange, such as bonds, checks, and written documents that the debtor confesses and signs that the debtor has a debt are considered ordinary bills. The debtor may deny the signature under ordinary bills. In this case, the signature examination will be made by the court and in this process, no transaction will be accredited in the said year.

According to the general proof rules, the receivables exceeding a certain amount must be proved with a bill. For the year 2021, every receivable exceeding TL 4.888,128 has to be proven with a bill; proof with a witness is prohibited.

The fact that the original of the bill is in the possession of the debtor constitutes the presumption that the debt has been paid.

The commercial books as proof: In order for the commercial books to be evidence in favor of the owner, they must be duly and fully kept, the opening and closing approvals must be made, and the records in the commercial books of both parties must confirm each other. Records in a book that is not kept properly can only be evidence against the owner. When the commercial books are relied on as evidence, the commercial books of both parties should be subject to expert examination.[26] For detailed information on this subject, you can see our article on “Legal Function of Invoice, Power of Evidence and Objection to Invoice”.

Remittance Receipt: The explanation on the money order receipt is accredited. If there is a statement in the remittance receipt that the money is sent as a debt, the burden of proof falls on the recipient. The recipient must prove that he/she does not borrow the money. If there is no explanation on the remittance receipt, the remittance is deemed to have been made to pay an existing money. The sender must prove that she/he has sent the money, which is the subject of the remittance, not as a payment but as a debt. The general rule is that the presumption is sent for the purpose of paying off an existing debt. If the parties to the case are merchants, they have to prove the contrary with written evidence.

13. Pendency/Final Judgment Relationship Between the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal and Negative Declaratory Action

There is a close relationship between the action for withdrawal of appeal and the action for negative declaratory action Because the relationship on the basis of these two cases is the same, only the parties change places. With the action for the withdrawal of appeal, the creditor wants to prove his/her right to claim, while the debtor wants to prove that he/she does not have any debt with the negative declaratory action. To put it more clearly, the creditor, who is the plaintiff of the action for withdrawal of the appeal, is the defendant of the negative declaratory action.

Pendency is the fact that a lawsuit that has been filed and still pending cannot be the subject of a lawsuit again. If the parties to the two lawsuits, the subject of the lawsuit and the reasons are the same, the pending situation arises and the second lawsuit should be dismissed.

A final judgement is a case where the same lawsuit has been filed before and has been given a final judgement. A lawsuit cannot be re-filed f the parties, subject and reasons are the same as before. Even if it is filed, it must be dismissed.

While the debtor may have filed a negative declaratory action to prove that she/he does not have a debt arising from the same relationship, the creditor may have filed an action for the withdrawal of appeal to collect the receivable. They will have filed these cases mutually at different times from each other. In this case, the question arises of how these two cases will affect each other in terms of pendency and final judgment. The solution brought by the Supreme Court for the solution of this problem varies depending on which case has been filed before.

• It is accepted that the debtor has no legal interest in the negative declaratory action filed after the creditor’s action for withdrawal of appeal. The debtor is in a position to make the defenses in the withdrawal of appeal filed against him/her, and he/she does not need to file a new lawsuit to prove that he/she is not a debtor. Because with the withdrawal of appeal, it is also ruled whether there is a receivable or not. Therefore, a pending situation arises between the two cases and the negative declatoray action case must be dismissed.[27]

“After filing an action for withdrawal of appeal upon the appeal to the enforcement proceeding without judgment issued by the plaintiff company against the defendant, the defendant filed a negative declaratory action against the defendant, claiming that he/she was not indebted based on the same commercial relationship and evidence. Legal interest is a condition of action and must be taken into account ex officio by the court. Since the claims put forward in the negative declaratory action may be asserted as the reasons for defense in the action for the withdrawal of appeal, and the debtor has no legal interest in filing a negative declaratory action, a decision should be made by the court considering this aspect, while making a judgment in writing is inaccurate and shall be reversed.”[28]

• If the debtor has filed a negative declaratory action and the creditor files an action for withdrawal od appeal for the same claim after this action, the creditor is deemed to have legal interest. Because the creditor cannot continue the proceeding which is halted upon the appeal of the debtor, as a result of the current negative declaratory action. In order to do this, it is necessary to file a lawsuit for the withdrawal of appeal. However, since in these cases, the existence of basically the same relationship or claim will be the subject of the proceedings, the possibility of executing these two lawsuits separately and different decisions regarding the same claim comes to the fore. For this reason, it is necessary to combine these two cases or make one of the cases a prejudicial question. Whichever of the cases is concluded first will constitute both a conclusive evidence and a final judgment in terms of the other case.[29]
• What to do if one of these cases has been filed and concluded before the other?
• If a negative declaratory action has been filed and concluded for the same debt before, two different situations arise depending on the consequences of the lawsuit; If the negative declaratory action is concluded in favor of the debtor and the lawsuit is accepted, then an action for withdrawal of appeal cannot be filed; even if it is opened, it is dismissed on the procedural grounds. Because there is a final judgment, and the absence of a final judgment is a condition of litigation.[30]
• If the negative declaratory action is dismissed, this provision constitutes final evidence in the action for withdrawal of appeal filed; that is, the judge is obliged to make a decision in accordance with the outcome of this case. In short, nothing will change for either side.
• In the event that the action for withdrawal of appeal has been filed and heard before, whether the action is accepted or dismissed, the finalized provision prevents the negative declaratory action to be filed by the debtor afterwards. It constitutes a final judgment and in fact, the debtor has no legal interest in filing this lawsuit.[31]

14. Action for Withdrawal of Appeal Filed for the Continuation of the Proceeding Through the Foreclosure of Mortgage

Proceedings without judgment are also suspended with the appeal of the debtor through the foreclosure of the pledge (mortgage). In order to continue the proceedings, the creditor must file an action for the withdrawal of appeal. However, there is something peculiar in this case. In order to issue a proceeding with the foreclosure of mortgage, a warning of maturity must first be sent to the owner of the mortgaged immovable. If this notice has not been given, the action for withdrawal of appeal filed on the grounds that the execution proceeding could not have been heard will be dismissed due to the absence of litigation conditions.

“..before the proceeding without judgment through foreclosure of mortgage, it is required to send a warning of maturity to the mortgage debtor and the principal debtor and this warning must also be notified. This is a proceeding requirement. It cannot be said that a proceeding issued before this condition is fulfilled is a duly proceeding… Since the existence of duly issued proceedings is also a condition of the action for the withdrawal of appeal, it is against the procedure and the law to make a judgment in writing without considering this issue, while the original lawsuit should be dismissed due to the absence of the condition of litigation.[32]

15. What is the Consequence and Meaning of the Dismissal of the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal?

If the creditor considers that the receivable that is the subject of proceedings does not exist or that the receivable is barred by limitation, it decides to dismiss the action for withdrawal of appeal.

If the receivable is not due and payable or if the condition is not fulfilled in contingent liabilities, the court will dismiss the case.

With the finalization of these decisions, it is determined with the final decision that the claim subject to proceeding does not exist. As a result, the creditor cannot file a new claim against the debtor for the same debt. (CCP art. 303).[33]

If the court, which decides to dismiss the case, concludes that the creditor has issued a enforcement proceeding in bad faith and has filed a lawsuit for the withdrawal of appeal, and if the debtor has made a request, it condemns the creditor to pay a minimum of twenty percent compensation of bad faith to the debtor (EBL Article 67/2-3).[34]

16. What is the Consequence and Meaning of the Acceptance of the Action for Withdrawal of Appeal?

If the court finds that the claim exists, it decides to accept the case, that is, to cancel the appeal. There is no need for the creditor to wait for the finalization of the decision for the enforcement of this provision. It may demand the continuation of the pending proceedings and the seizure of the debtor’s properties by giving the judgment directly to the enforcement office.

If there are conditions, the court orders the debtor to pay enforcement appeal compensation  to the creditor.

The action for withdrawal of appeal constitutes a final judgment in material terms for the parties. In other words, after this lawsuit is finalized, the creditor cannot file a new claim on the same claim, and the debtor cannot file a negative declaratory action. The decision is final and binding on both parties.

Conclusion

The enforcement proceedings issued by the creditor to collect the receivables are interrupted by a simple appeal of the debtor, and the proceedings are halted immediately. The way for the creditor to be able to get his/her receivable as soon as possible by continuing the proceedings is to apply for the cancellation of appeal or the withdrawal  of the appeal. The procedure for withdrawal of appeal is a process carried out in enforcement courts, and the creditor can only get results from this way if he or she has strong official documents proving the right to claim. If the creditor does not have such documents, her/his only remedy is to file an action for the withdrawal of appeal in due time.

The action for withdrawal of appeal is a technical action pertaining to the law of enforcement and subject to strict form rules. The burden of proof and the activities of showing evidence have special features. If the right tactics and techniques are not known or applied, losing the case is unfortunately inevitable.

We are experts in providing the most effective solutions in the shortest time possible to all your legal problems related to your enforcement proceedings and lawsuits filed in this process. To benefit from the experience of our team, please send us your requests and questions.

Best Regards.

References

[1] PEKCANITEZ, Hakan/ATALAY, Oğuz/SUNGURTEKİN ÖZKAN, Meral/ÖZEKES, Muhammet, 2015, İcra İflas Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, s.150.

2 KURU, Baki, 2019, İstinaf Sistemine Göre Yazılmış İcra Ve İflas Hukuku Ders Kitabı, Yyetkin Yayınları, Ankara, s.93; İİK m.67/1.

3 EBL art.65/5.

4 EBL art.264/2.

5 BULUR, Alper, 2020, İcra İflas Hukuku, Monopol Yyayınları, Ankara, s.64.

6 YILMAZ, Halil, “İtirazın İptali Dvası ve İcra İnkar Tazminatı”, Yargıtay Dergisi, cilt:30, Ocak-Nisan 2004, sayı:1-2, s.53.

7 BULUR, a.g.e., s.63.

8 AKYÜREK, Bevran Bahadır, 2019,  İcra-İflas Hukukunda Borç İnkar Tazminatı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, s.61.

9 PEKCANITEZ/ATALAY/SUNGURTEKİN ÖZKAN/ÖZEKES, a.g.e., s.151;HMK m. 5vd.

10AKYÜREK, a.g.e., s.61-62.

11 YILMAZ, a.g.e., s.47-49.

12ERCAN, İsmail, 2016,  İcra İflas Hukuku, Kuram Kitabevi, Kocaeli, s.91.

13 YILMAZ, a.g.e., s.50.

14 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, E.2020/3960, K.2020/8333, T.24.12.2020.

15YILMAZ, a.g.e., s.61;BULUR, a.g.e., s.66; EBL art.67/3.

16 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, E.2020/3577, K.2020/19623, T.22.12.2020.

17YILMAZ, a.g.e., s. 65-66.

18YILMAZ, a.g.e., s.67.

19AKYÜREK, a.g.e., s.73-74; .19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, T. 15.02.2016, E. 2015/11156, K. 2016/2345, 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 2012/10248E.,2012/17344K.,21.11.2012T, . 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 18.01.2012, E. 2011/8096, K. 2012/423, 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 7.10.2008, E. 2008/1122, K. 2008/9058, 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 12.01.2015, E. 2014/13877, K. 2015/68, 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 08.12.2015, E. 2014/21928, K. 2015/34786

20AKYÜREK, .a.g.e., s.75; 1st Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 11.03.2014, E. 2013/18934, K. 2014/5304, 21st Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 21.09.2010, E. 2010/1537, K. 2010//8786, 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 01.05.2007, E. 2006/11280, K. 2007/4317, 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 28.6.2004, E. 2004/5958, K. 2004/7736(Lexpera), 13rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court T. 04.11.1999, 858/7930(Lexpera).

21YILMAZ, a.g.e., s.62.

2223rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court E.2016/8483, K.2019/5285,T.12.12.2019.

23PEKCANITEZ/ATALAY/SUNGURTEKİN ÖZKAN/ÖZEKES, a.g.e., s.152.

24 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court., E.2020/4844, K.2020/5645, T.02.12.2020.

25 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court E.2020/2699, K.2020/5882, T.15.12.2020.

26 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court E.2020/10920, K.2020/7852, T.16.12.2020.

27 AKKAN, Mine, “İcra Hukukunda Menfi Tespit ve İtirazın İptali Davası Arasındaki Derdestlik ve Kesin Hüküm İlişkisi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, cilt:12, sayı:2, yıl:2010, basım yılı:12, s.13.

28 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, E.2013/14644, K.2013/19360, T.04.12.2013.

29 AKKAN, a.g.e., s.21-22.

30 AKKAN, a.g.e., s.38.

31 AKKAN, a.g.e., s.38.

32 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court E.2017/4091, K.2019/1071, T.21.02.2019.

33 KURU, a.g.e., s.112

34 KURU, a.g.e., s.113.