T.R. Supreme Court 12th Law Office Principle: 2010/ 32724 Decision: 2011 / 15605 Decision Date: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: İzmir 4th Enforcement Court
DATE: 29/07/2010
NUMBER: 2010/537-2010/1071
Upon the request of the creditor for the examination of the court decision on appeal within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number written above, the file regarding this matter was read from the place and sent to the office, and the need was discussed and considered:
With the precautionary lien decision of the İzmir 1st Commercial Court of First Instance dated 29.03.2010 and numbered 2010/312 D.iş by the creditor’s attorney, enforcement proceedings were started with the way of foreclosure specific to bills of exchange. It was notified to the debtor in 2010, and it was observed that the liens were applied based on the provisional lien on 05.04.2010 upon the request of the creditor’s attorney.
In the application of the debtor’s attorney to the enforcement court; He claimed that the foreclosure process could not be applied as if there was a finalized follow-up, more lien was made, and that no information was given about the lien in the lien report, and demanded the cancellation of the lien and preservation process.
Although the follow-up has not been finalized; In the presence of a valid precautionary attachment decision, there is no violation of procedure and law in the attachment and preservation process made on 05.04.2010. However, in case of a lien in excess of the amount of debt determined in the precautionary attachment decision, the debtor may make this matter the subject of a complaint. As a matter of fact, the debtor also claimed in his complaint petition that the love was foreclosed.
In that case, while the court should make a decision based on the result of the refusal of the complaint regarding the abolition of the attachment and custody process and the result of an examination in terms of excess attachment, it is wrong to establish a decision to accept the request with a written justification. CONCLUSION: The acceptance of the creditor’s appeals and the court decision for the reasons written above, according to İİK.366. and HUMK.428. It was decided unanimously on 07/07/2011, pursuant to the articles of
