Summary:
After the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through foreclosure of foreign exchange notes, the complaining third party bank deputy, in the enforcement proceedings against the debtor; 73 of the Banking Code of requesting account movements belonging to the debtor from the client bank. article 367 of the Law on Bankruptcy Enforcement and Enforcement.it is understood that the court has decided to accept the complaint by requesting the cancellation of the securities sent by the executive directorate claiming that it is a customer secret within the scope of the article.
Article 367 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, all the information that the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices will request about the existence of the debtor is genuine and every person with a decision is obliged to provide it immediately and deliver the existence to these apartments if requested.
73 of the Banking Code. according to the article; “the chairman of the board and the members and staff of the institution, staff members and the chairman of the board of the fund with the fund they learned in the course of their duties banks and their subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and the secrets to this law and authorized clients can’t explain to someone else what happened and according to special laws to benefit themselves or others may not use. Persons and organizations where the organization receives support services from outside, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues after leaving office.”
These restrictions in the law prevent members of banks and other officials from discretionary and arbitrary disclosure of secrets belonging to banks and their customers that they have learned due to their adjectives, and affect enforcement, as the restriction is not contained in the said article, it does not cover enforcement.
T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Issue No:2015/33017
Decision No:2016/10595
K. Date:11.4.2016
COURT : Hanak Executive Civil Court
PLAINTIFF : Third Party : Yapı Ve Kredi Bankası A.Sh.
Above date and number upon request by the creditor in writing within hours of the court’s decision temyizen this audit work-related files from the scene have been sent to the apartment and rested for the audit report to file a claim held by a judge, and all the documents in the file is read and analysed, after it was thought that the nature of the business discussed:
After the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through foreclosure of foreign exchange notes, the complaining third party bank deputy, in the enforcement proceedings against the debtor; 73 of the Banking Code of requesting account movements belonging to the debtor from the client bank. article 367 of the Law on Bankruptcy Enforcement and Enforcement.it is understood that the court has decided to accept the complaint by requesting the cancellation of the securities sent by the executive directorate claiming that it is a customer secret within the scope of the article.
Article 367 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, all the information that the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices will request about the existence of the debtor is genuine and every person with a decision is obliged to provide it immediately and deliver the existence to these apartments if requested.
73 of the Banking Code. according to the article; “the chairman of the board and the members and staff of the institution, staff members and the chairman of the board of the fund with the fund they learned in the course of their duties banks and their subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and the secrets to this law and authorized clients can’t explain to someone else what happened and according to special laws to benefit themselves or others may not use. Persons and organizations where the organization receives support services from outside, as well as their employees, are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues after leaving office.”
These restrictions in the law prevent members of banks and other officials from discretionary and arbitrary disclosure of secrets belonging to banks and their customers that they have learned due to their adjectives, and affect enforcement, as the restriction is not contained in the said article, it does not cover enforcement.
In that case, while the court should decide to reject the request of the complaining bank, it is incorrect to make a provision for its acceptance on written grounds.
CONCLUSION : The decision of the court on the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals for the reasons written above is in accordance with Article 366 of the IIK and Article 428 of the IK. in accordance with the articles (ON DETERIORATION), the refund of the fee received in advance upon request was decided unanimously on 11.04.2016, with the path of decision correction open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.
