T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2017/12-1147
K. 2017/1304
T. 8.11.2017
• REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF THE OFFICER’S TRANSACTION BY COMPLAINT (The Creditor IS A
If He Has Filed a Foreclosure Request Within the Annual Period, the Same One-Year Period
In Case the Debtor’s Property Has Not been Foreclosed, Do Not Ask for Foreclosure
Revocation of the Right and Removal of the File from the Process
Does not Require – The Creditor’s Deputy Legally Obliges the Debtors Within a One-Year Period
Having Demanded the Foreclosure of His Real Estate and the Borrower’s Salary,
The Creditor Has No Right to Request a Lien / No Need for Renewal Fees
It may not be Requested to Foreclose Directly)
• THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A LIEN (From the Date of Notification of the Payment Order
One Year Shall Lapse/The Creditor Shall Foreclose Within a One-Year Period
Does Not File a Claim or Withdraw a Lien Request Within This One Year
If He Does Not Request Re-Foreclosure, the Follow-up File Will be Processed
- Removal of the Debtor’s Property Within a One-Year Period
The Right to Request a Foreclosure of the Fact That It Cannot be Foreclosed is Reduced
Does Not Require/Is Legally Required to Foreclose Within a One-Year Period
There is No Need to Spend on Renovation and Direct Foreclosure May Be Requested)
• FILING A FORECLOSURE CLAIM WITHIN ONE YEAR (Same One Year
Foreclosure of the Debtor’s Property Could Not be Foreclosed Within the Time Limit
The Right to Request is Revoked and the File is Removed from the Process
Does not Require – The Creditor’s Deputy Legally Obliges the Debtors Within a One-Year Period
Having Demanded the Foreclosure of His Real Estate and the Borrower’s Salary,
The Creditor Has No Right to Request a Lien / Within a Legal One-Year Period
Since the Foreclosure Is Requested, There is No Need to Spend the Renewal Fee Directly
Foreclosure May be Requested) - RENEWAL FEE (The Creditor Requests a Lien Within a One-Year Period
If it has been Found that the Debtor’s Property Within the Same One-Year Period
Loss of the Right to Request a Lien and the Fact that it Cannot be Foreclosed
The File Does Not Require the Removal of the Transaction / The Debtor’s Property
The Request for the Foreclosure is Not a Renewal Request –
A Lien Has Been Requested Within a Legal One-Year Period, But the Creditor
The Right to Request a Lien Has Not Been Dropped / The Renewal Order
SUMMARY : The right to request a lien is one year from the date of notification of the payment order
it falls in passing. The creditor does not make a lien request within the one-year period
or we can take back the foreclosure request and foreclose again within this one-year period
if he does not make a request, the tracking file is removed from the process. In this case, the follow-up
his file is removed from processing only; otherwise, enforcement proceedings will not be dropped. Refresh
he can request a lien on the same follow-up file by making a request.
If the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period, the same one-year
failure to foreclose on the debtor’s property during the time limit does not require foreclosure
revocation of the right and, consequently, removal of the tracking file from the transaction
it does not require.In this case, the debtor is asked to foreclose on his property,
it is not a renewal request.
The deputy creditor is responsible for the management of the debtors’ real estate within a legal one-year period and
by requesting the foreclosure of the debtor’s salary, the creditor does not request the foreclosure
it is not his right. In this case, in order for the creditor to request a lien again
notification of the renewal order to the debtor and, consequently, receipt of the renewal fee
direct foreclosure without the need and without the creditor requesting renewal
he may want to.
CASE : ”cancellation of the civil servant transaction dec complaint“ between the parties
at the end of the trial due to his request, Borçka Enforcement (Law)
The Court granted the refusal of the complaint on 10.07.2013 days and 2013/2 E.,
2013/12 K. the appeal examination of the numbered decision by the complainant’s deputy
upon request, the Supreme Court of Cassation 12. The day of 05.12.2013 of the Legal Department and
2013/31165 E., 2013/38701 K. by his numbered decision,
“…The creditor has the right to request a lien from the date of notification of the payment order
with the passage of a year, it falls (article 78/2 of the IIK.C.1). In this case, the follow-up file
since it will be removed from the process (art.78/4) in order for the creditor to request a lien
a renewal request must be made and this request must be notified to the borrower. Other
- the same item from the side. in the paragraph; in non-disclosure-based follow-ups
it is envisaged that fees will be charged upon request for renewal.
In the concrete case, example payment order No. 7 is issued to the first of the debtors
on 18.9.2009, to the second on 30.9.2009,to the third on 01.10.2009
it was notified on 10.3.2010 and 26.05.2010 by the creditor
on their date, that is, within a legal one-year period, the debtors’ real estate and
by requesting the foreclosure of the debtor’s salary, the creditor is required to “request a foreclosure
his right has not fallen”. In this case, the creditor may request a lien again
for IIK 78/5. in accordance with the article, the debtor is notified of the renewal order and
therefore, there is no need to charge a renewal fee. In other words,
the creditor may request a lien directly without requesting a renewal.
110/3 of IIK. for expenses such as placement and storage of foreclosure in the article
it is regulated that the creditor is responsible. Renewal of the said arrangement
since it is not related to the fee and the foreclosure request period, the application in a concrete case
has no place.
In that case, the court must accept the complaint and decide on its rejection
it’s not accurate…”
instead of the file being corrupted on the grounds of being converted back to the
at the end of the trial, the court resisted the previous decision.
Appeal within the period of the decision to resist by examining the law by the General Assembly
after the information has been understood and the papers in the file have been read, as required
i was interviewed:
DECISION : The request relates to the request for cancellation of the officer’s action by way of complaint.
The deputy complainant is in the Debtor’s Enforcement Office against the debtors who have been complained about
on 11.09.2009, ilamsiz enforcement proceedings were initiated, the payment order
all debtors have been notified, as there is no objection during the period
that the follow-up has been finalized, many enforcement actions have been taken against debtors
however, in the relevant articles of the IIC No. 2004 in the file,
since no foreclosure transactions were made during the specified period, the
it was decided to remove the liens, issued on 22.04.2013
although the foreclosure process has been requested by the petition, the file must be renewed first,
for renewal, the decision is made that the application and advance fee must be deposited
that it was taken, that the transaction of the Borçka Enforcement Agency was unfair and that the public order
2009/921 of the Borçka Enforcement Agency, which constitutes a violation of
the “Decision Tensip Minutes” from the file dated 22.04.2013 are titled
by revoking the decision, it is decided to renew the file without fees
he requested it through a complaint.
Follow-up No. 2009/921 of the Borçka Enforcement Agency, the subject of the case by the Local Court
on 10.03.2010, the creditor’s attorney filed a foreclosure request in his file
it was found that on top of this, 34 TK 498 and 34 ZP 7400 plates belonging to the debtors were found
the numbered vehicles were foreclosed on 11.04.2010, after which the creditor
although the deputy demanded the foreclosure of the debtor’s salary on 26.05.2010
there is no information and documents in the file that this foreclosure has been applied,
after this date, the creditor’s attorney does not have any request in the file,
according to the date of foreclosure of vehicles, the date of sale of vehicles is 11.04.2011
as much as it is possible to request, request a lien by this date
since it has not been accepted that the foreclosure has fallen on this date, it will be necessary to accept,
since 11.04.2011, when the foreclosure fell, the file has been removed from the treatment
since more than a year has passed since 12.12.2012, the file
there are no irregularities in the removal of muamal,
if the file removed from the treatment is requested to be renewed, IIK 78/5
in accordance with the provision of the article, the fee will be charged again, the renewal fee
refusal of the renewal request due to non-payment of the Enforcement Agency
the decision to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the transaction is in accordance with the law
the decision was made by the Special Department upon the appeal of the complainant’s deputy
it is broken down on the grounds described in the title section above.
The decision to resist the court by repeating the previous grounds
has been given.
The decision to resist has been appealed by the deputy complainant.
The dispute that came before the General Assembly of the Law by way of resistance was resolved in accordance with Article 78/2 of the IIK
and 4. the legal requirement in the paragraphs (a from the notification of the payment order
if a lien has been requested within the year) after it has been fulfilled, another
at the point where the file cannot be removed from the process for reasons
it is being collected.
As is known, the creditor’s right to request a lien is subject to a one-year period. Confiscation
the right to request passes one year from the date of notification of the payment order
it falls. (IIK’s 78/2. article C.1) The creditor has a one-year term (IIK 78/2. md.)
does not request a lien in or request a lien (which it does within a year)
and if you take it back, it does not request re-foreclosure within the (same) one-year period
if the tracking file is removed from the process. (78/4 md.) In this case, the follow-up file
it is removed from the transaction only; otherwise, enforcement proceedings will not be dropped. So enforcement proceedings are the most
he continues to stay. In this case, by requesting renewal, the same
he can ask for a lien on the tracking file. (78/5 md.)
In turn, if the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period,
within the same one-year period (or even later), the debtor’s property
the fact that it cannot be foreclosed reduces the right to request a lien, and therefore the pursuit
it does not require that the file be removed from the process. In this case, the enforcement proceedings are derdest
it remains to remain, and the creditor has done so within a one-year period
according to the foreclosure request (after a year has elapsed), the debtor’s property
78/5 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. in the meaning of Article
it is not a renewal request. So in this case, the creditor will have to re-pay the fee
there is no need for its payment and notification of the request to the debtor. (Dry B.: Execution and Bankruptcy
The EI Book of Law, 2013, 2. Edition, sh 414, 415).
In a concrete case, example 7 payment order was issued to the first of the borrowers on 18.9.2009
on 30.9.2009, the second on 01.10.2009 and the third on 01.10.2009
it has been notified and the creditor’s attorney has notified the debtors within a legal one-year period
having demanded the foreclosure of his real estate and the borrower’s salary,
the creditor has no right to request a lien. In this case, the creditor
78/5 of the IIK in order to request foreclosure again. according to the article, the debtor
the renewal order must be notified and therefore the renewal fee must be received
there is no. In other words, without requesting a creditor renewal
he can ask for a lien directly.
As such, the law adopted by the local court and the General Assembly of
While the decision to demolish the Private Apartment must be complied with with the previous
it is against the procedure and the law to resist the decision.
Therefore, the decision to resist must be overturned.
CONCLUSION : The decision of the complainant’s deputy to resist the acceptance of appeals
DETERIORATION of the Private Apartment due to the reasons shown in the decision to spoil,
if requested, the appeal will be returned to the depositor of the advance fee, correction of the decision
it was decided unanimously on 08.11.2017 to open the way.
