The Problem of Non-Execution of the Precautionary Attachment Decision Taken during the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions
Zeynep Derya TarmanObtaining and executing a provisional attachment order during the recognition and enforcement proceeding of a foreign court judgement constitutes a significant issue in both private international law and enforcement law. Under Turkish law, rules regarding the procedure and conditions for the enforcement of foreign court judgements are regulated under the Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 (PIL Code) Article 50, and so forth, while the rules governing the conditions of issuance of provisional attachment orders are regulated under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 (EBL) Article 257, and so forth. Pursuant to Article 257 of the EBL, a distinction is made between those receivables that are due and those other receivables that are not due in terms of the conditions needed for the issuance of a provisional attachment order. Nevertheless, there is no specific provision under Turkish law regarding receivables that are subject to a foreign court judgement whose enforcement is yet to be requested or finalised before Turkish courts. The determination of whether the receivable is due or not is important in terms of the conditions to be sought for provisional attachment. Furthermore, the relationship between Article 57 (2) of the PIL Code, which envisages that an appeal to the enforcement decision with regard to the foreign court judgement shall suspend the execution of the enforcement decision, and the time limits foreseen regarding the complementary procedures of a provisional attachment order is a debated subject. Moreover, whether foreigners who have deposited a security payment to file an enforcement lawsuit pursuant to Article 48 of the PIL Code will also be required to deposit security for a second time for the issuance of the provisional attachment order pursuant to Article 259 of the EBL is another issue that needs to be clarified. In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation.
Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tenfizi Sırasında Alınan İhtiyati Haciz Kararının İcra Edilememesi Sorunu
Zeynep Derya TarmanTenfiz yargılaması sürecinde ihtiyati haciz kararının alınması ve icra edilmesi hem milletlerarası özel hukuk hem de icra hukuku açısından önem arz etmektedir. Hukukumuzda tenfiz kurumu 5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun’un (MÖHUK) 50. maddesi ve devamında; ihtiyati haciz kurumu ise 2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nun (İİK) 257. maddesi ve devamında düzenlenmiştir. İİK m. 257 uyarınca ihtiyati haciz kararı verilebilmesi için aranan şartlar yönünden vadesi gelmiş ve gelmemiş borçlar bakımından bir ayrım yapılmıştır. Ancak, henüz tenfiz edilmemiş bir yabancı mahkeme kararına konu olan bir alacağa istinaden ihtiyati haciz talep edilmesi halinde aranacak olan şartlar ile ilgili olarak hukukumuzda özel bir düzenleme bulunmamaktadır. Bu tür alacakların muaccel alacaklar gibi mi yoksa vadesi henüz gelmemiş alacaklar gibi mi yorumlanacağı tartışmalı bir husustur. Bununla birlikte, MÖHUK m. 57/f.2’de yer alan temyizin icrayı durduracağı hükmünün ihtiyati haczin tamamlayıcı merasimleri bakımından öngörülen sürelerle nasıl bir ilişki içinde olduğu da uygulamada sorun arz eden bir durumdur. Öte yandan, MÖHUK m. 48 gereğince teminat yatırmış yabancıların İİK m. 259 uyarınca ihtiyati haciz istemleri kapsamında bir kez daha teminat yatırmalarının gereği de doktrinde tartışmalı bir mesele teşkil etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak ihtiyati haciz kurumu ana hatlarıyla incelenecek, ardından anılan meseleler kapsamında uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunlar, doktrin görüşleri ve Yargıtay kararlarından örneklerle tartışmalı hususlar irdelenecektir.
The Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 (PIL Code) stipulates the rules that govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgements under Article 50 and so forth; whereas Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 (EBL) stipulates the requirements and procedures for the issuance of provisional attachment orders under Article 257 and so forth.
Under Turkish law, for a foreign court judgement to be enforceable in Türkiye, the Turkish courts must grant an enforcement decision. Unless the foreign court judgement is enforced pursuant to Article 50 (1) of the PIL Code, it shall not be executed by Turkish courts or execution offices. Considering the volume of lawsuits and appeal mechanisms available under the Turkish legal system, enforcement can become a lengthy process. In this process, the creditor’s collection of receivables may be jeopardised because of the debtor’s abusive behaviour. At this point, the institution of provisional attachment, which restricts the debtor’s right of disposition on their property, becomes a significant tool.
According to the established practise of the Court of Cassation, it is possible to obtain a provisional attachment order during proceedings initiated for the enforcement of a foreign court judgement. Nonetheless, it is debateable whether the receivable subject to the foreign court judgement which is yet to be enforced in Türkiye, should be considered a due receivable or an undue receivable. This classification is important because the conditions for issuing a provisional attachment order will differ and be subject to different rules. Accordingly, while Article 257/1 of EBL sets forth the conditions for receivables that are due, the second paragraph of the same provision (Article 257/2 of EBL) lists the conditions to be sought for receivables that are not due. The main difference here is that the creditor who wishes to rely on Article 257/2 must prove the bad faith of the debtor.
Even if a provisional attachment order is obtained, problems arise in terms of complementary procedures and their time limits for the execution of this provisional order. According to paragraph 3 of Article 264 of the EBL, the creditor must apply for an executory proceeding within one month after the judgement is rendered regarding the case in which the provisional attachment order was obtained. Otherwise, the provisional attachment order will be annulled. The major problem stemming from the said provision is that under Article 57/2 of the PIL Code, an appeal to the enforcement of the foreign court judgement decision suspends execution. As the appeal suspends the execution of the enforcement of foreign court judgement, it shall not be possible to initiate executory proceedings within one month based on this decision. In such a case, the effect of the provisional attachment order will be discussed in this paper. Whether the ‘appeal’ under this provision means an appeal to the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) or an appeal to the Regional Courts of Justice (İstinaf Mahkemesi) is also a matter of debate and will be examined in this paper.
Another issue to be further discussed in this paper concerns the security required to be deposited by the claimant. Under Article 259 of the EBL Code, a claimant requesting a provisional attachment order must provide a security payment. This security is requested to cover all damages incurred by the debtor if the claimant who seeks a provisional attachment order proves to act unfairly in the future. It is controversial whether foreigners who have already deposited a security when filing a lawsuit for the enforcement of a foreign court judgement according to Article 48 of the PIL Code should also deposit a security to obtain a provisional attachment order. The controversy arises from the fact that these two securities have the same objective of securing the debtor’s rights if the claimant will be wrong in his/her claims. However, these securities are different in terms of their scope. Security deposited according to Article 48 of the PIL Code protects against damages incurred in the event of an unfair claim in terms of the subject matter of the lawsuit. On the other hand, the security deposited under the EBL Code guarantees the damages to be incurred in the event of an unfair outcome in provisional attachment order proceedings. Therefore, if the judge deems it necessary, it is possible for him/her to request security for the issuance of a provisional attachment order, and it is within the discretion of the judge to determine the amount of the securities. The need for a second payment of securities is a highly debated issue.
In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation. Accordingly, this paper focuses on the solutions for the identified problems.
