Territorial Limitation And Time Limitation in Terms of the Implementation of the Decision
In the Decision, it was clearly decided to stop the transactions and follow-ups “carried out throughout the country’.
April March 20, 2020, which is also the date of publication and entry into force of the decision, April 30, 2020
it has been decided to enter into force Article 330 of the Law No. 2004 by the date of its entry into force.
Although Article 330 of the Law No. 2004 says that only “enforcement proceedings” are stopped,
In the Decision, bankruptcy proceedings and precautionary foreclosures, except for enforcement proceedings, have been made in detail about the issue
(i) Enforcement Proceedings and Bankruptcy Proceedings, (ii) Party Follow-up Proceedings, (iii) New enforcement Proceedings
and failure to obtain bankruptcy proceedings, (iv) Execution and non-execution of precautionary foreclosure decisions, decision
has been given.
i. New Enforcement Proceedings and Bankruptcy Proceedings
Execution and bankruptcy for the period from 22.03.2020 to 30.04.2020, as clearly stated in the Decisionapplication and bankruptcy for the period of 22.03.2020 to 30.04.2020
it is not legally possible to obtain new enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings by the directorates. So there is no truth or
a legal entity may not open enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings against another natural or legal person.
ii. Party and Follow-Up Transactions
It is important to determine whether the actions taken in enforcement law are enforcement or party follow-up actions. Because
the legislator attributed different results to the enforcement proceedings. The first of these results is related to the execution follow-up process
the second result is that, as a rule, in case of holidays, the execution follow-up process is
it does not. For this reason, transactions that do not have the nature of an enforcement follow-up transaction, such as a follow-up request, are holiday-talik
it can also be done in their case.1 For this reason, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code of 2004 ‘Holidays in Exceptional Cases’
it is titled 330. In terms of the implementation of the Article, it will be important to determine the enforcement proceedings.
The elements of the enforcement follow-up process are,
• Execution by the executive body,
• Action taken against the debtor
• Ensuring the progress of forced execution
as a result, it is evaluated under three headings.
“The authority to use force within this framework, which ensures the fulfillment of the right arising from material law
the bodies which are de and whose powers are determined by the law are defined as ”forced executive bodies.2
Executive bodies are divided into main and auxiliary executive bodies. It is established only for executive affairs
bodies are the main executive bodies. These are the executive office, the executive court and the Supreme Court’s enforcement-bankruptcy affairs, as well as
the law offices are in charge. In addition to their main duties, the bodies that also take care of executive affairs are auxiliary executive
they are organs.
In order for a transaction to be considered as an enforcement follow-up transaction, the enforcement agency, the enforcement court or the general
it must be done by the courts. Therefore, the creditor, debtor or 3. for the enforcement monitoring of persons
transactions cannot be considered as an ”execution follow-up transaction”.
In order for the follow-up process to be qualified as an enforcement follow-up process, it must be performed against the “debtor”. Execution
or 3 of the creditor’s bodies. their actions against persons are not enforcement proceedings. In addition,
operations aimed at the internal functioning of executive bodies can also not be called executive follow-up operations. Forced execution
the person who initiated it and wants to obtain its request is the creditor, and the other party is the debtor. The debtor depends on the creditor
it is a concept. The person whom the creditor indicates as a “debtor” in the follow-up request acquires the title of debtor and
follow-up transactions are carried out against this debtor. In this sense, the third-party principle in enforcement law
it is valid; the person specified by the creditor in the follow-up request is considered a party.
3. Except for the creditor and the debtor in the enforcement proceedings. people can also take part in or during the follow-up 3. list of persons
their interests may be violated. (For example; 3. the person may have established a pledge right for the receivable subject to follow-up (m.
146/I, 149/I, 149b/I) or 3. the property and rights of persons may be foreclosed on the grounds that they belong to the debtor (m.
89, 94, 96-99, 228).) 3. although the persons are not directly related to the enforcement proceedings or the outcome of the proceedings, the enforcement
he plays an active role in the follow-up. However, this is the case with 3. being one of the parties to the enforcement proceedings of persons
it doesn’t have consequences. 3. persons are only parties to complaints and lawsuits related to them. This
article 3. since the transactions made against the persons do not fulfill the requirement of “made against the debtor”, the enforcement
it cannot be described as a follow-up process.
If there is a discretionary follow-up friendship between the debtors, the execution follow-dec process of the transaction made by the executive bodies
in order to qualify as such, it does not have to be done against all of the borrowers. The operation is only relevant
it is sufficient for the debtor to qualify the enforcement proceedings against the debtor. Because in the friendship of discretionary follow-up
stalking friends can act independently of each other.
The execution follow-up process should be of a nature that ensures the progress of forced execution. These transactions are aimed at the creditor
these are the following operations. The execution follow-up process is aimed at the purpose of collecting the creditor’s receivables. Order,
notification of the payment order, removal of the objection, foreclosure proceedings granting time to the debtor enforcement follow-up process
an example can be cited. However, the apportionment of monies (m. 138 et seq.), enforcement is not a follow-up process.
As stated in the Decision, only ‘party follow-up operations’ have been stopped. In the technical sense of the decision
according to the Execution Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, the qualification of the unused party follow-up process is ‘enforcement follow-up
we believe that transactions should be considered as ’transactions”. For this reason, execution without enforcement follow-up process
we believe that it is not a problem for them to continue their operations.
