The Precedent Change of the Supreme Court of Appeals: The Punitive Effect of the Annulment of Negotiable Instruments on the Debtor (Upon the Decision of the Assembly of the Civil Chambers Identified As 19-1636/319, 19.3.2019)
Esra CenkciIn this article, the conclusions reached in the decision of the Assembly of the Civil Chambers identified as 19-1636/319, 19.3.2019) are discussed. The aim of this study is to create a balance between the rights of the holder of an annulment decision and the bill holder, considering the status of debtor when a negotiable instrument is annulled. The Supreme Court of Appeals has decided in its previous precedents that a bill can be acquired in good faith even if it has been subjected to an annulment decision; however, the consequences of an annulment decision cannot be ignored, and it is necessary to determine who is the owner of the right arising from the bill in a case in which the bill holder and the holder of annulment decision are confronted, and afterward, the debtor can be held liable to pay to the person entitled as the right holder in this case. In this way, it has been tried to create a balance between the interests of the holder of an annulment decision, the bill holder, and the debtor by considering the effect of an annulment decision and the circulation purpose of negotiable instruments. In the decision subjected in this study, the balance was disturbed by ignoring the consequences of the annulment decision and giving priority to the acquisition of the check holder. On the other hand, an invoice for the disturbed balance was made out to the debtor by exposing him to the risk of paying twice.
Yargıtay’ın İçtihat Değişikliği: Kıymetli Evrakın İptalinin Borçluyu Cezalandırıcı Etkisi (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 19-1636/319, 19.3.2019 Künyeli Kararı Üzerine)
Esra CenkciBu makalede, Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 19-1636/319, 19.3.2019 künyeli kararıyla varılan sonuçlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, kıymetli evrak iptal edildiğinde iptal kararı hamili ile senet hamilinin hakları arasında borçluyu da gözeterek adil bir denge kurmaktır. Yargıtay önceki kararlarında, iptal kararına konu olsa dahi senedin iyiniyetle iktisap edilebileceğini; ancak, iptal kararının sonuçlarının görmezden gelinemeyeceğini; bu durumda, senet hamili ile iptal kararı hamilinin karşı karşıya geleceği bir davada senetten doğan hakkın sahibinin kim olduğunun belirlenmesi gerektiğini; borçlunun, bu davada hak sahibi olduğu tespit edilen kişiye ödeme yapmakla yükümlü tutulabileceğini içtihat etmiştir. Böylece iptal kararı hamilinin, senet hamilinin ve borçlunun menfaatleri arasında iptal kararının etkisi ile kıymetli evrakın dolanım amacı gözetilerek bir denge kurulmaya çalışılmıştır. İncelenen kararda ise, iptal kararının hüküm ve sonuçları görmezden gelinmek ve çek hamilinin iktisabına üstünlük tanınmak suretiyle anılan denge bozulmuştur. Bozulan terazinin faturası ise, iki kez ödeme yapma tehlikesine maruz bırakılarak borçluya kesilmiştir.
The most characteristic feature of negotiable instruments is the unity of right and bill. As a result, right cannot be claimed separately from bills, and the debtor is only obliged to pay for the bill submission (TCC2 1 645). When a negotiable instrument is lost, it becomes either objectively difficult or impossible to claim the right within the bill. The annulment sanction can only be applied in the event of the loss of a negotiable instrument; therefore, it shall be accepted as limitedly applied method. An annulment decision gives a person who is a bill holder at the time of loss the opportunity to claim right without a bill or to request a new issued bill (TCC 651, 652). Thus, while the right holder is protected from the risk of not being able to obtain his/her right due to loss, the debtor is also protected from the risk of paying to an unentitled person.
Annulment decisions have two effects, positive and negative. With its positive effect, it authorises decision holder to claim his rights against the debtor. However, its negative effect removes the diagnostic function of the lost bill. Since an annulment does not affect its function of transferring the right, third parties who have acquired the bill may obtain the right under the bill. Nevertheless, to place the right of third parties before the decision holder requires their acquisition in good faith (TCC 686/2, 792).
When a bill, which was subjected to an annulment decision, is held by third parties, the debtor may be exposed to two separate claims for enforcement because one of them is the decision holder and the other is the bill holder. There are no regulations in law regarding how debtors should act in this case. Considering the problem in the context of the Procedural law, the content of an annulment decision should be respected unless proven otherwise, even if it is taken within an ex-part proceeding. In this case, neither the annulment decision nor the contrary of the decision was proven. Moreover, there is evidence supporting the maliciousness of the bill holder.
Regarding the effects of an annulment decision; since the diagnostic function of a bill is removed by annulment, it is impossible to determine the right holder on a bill in accordance with the formal entitlement principles (TCC 686/1). Therefore, bill holders cannot take advantage of the entitlement presumption. However, contrary to this, it has been concluded in the present case that a regular endorsement chain is sufficient to accept the bill holder as the right holder.
The holder of a bill, which has been removed from its owner in any way, is obliged to return it if he/she is malicious or has a gross fault in his/her acquisition (TCC 686/2, 778/1,a, 792). As a rule, the burden of proof of the maliciousness of a bill holder belongs to the decision holder. In the meantime, the criterion of ordinary life flow can be used, and the characteristics of the present event should be considered. According to some data in the present event (such as the fact that the check holder has not submitted the check to the court despite being aware of the annulment process, not notified the addresses of endorsers -except one- at the executive proceeding stage), accepting the bill holder in good faith is contrary to the ordinary life flow. In addition, a check holder who deliberately prevented the implementation of the return process regulated in law by not submitting the bill to the court should not be disadvantaged. Therefore, the bill holder should have been held liable to prove his good faith.
When we consider the problem from the viewpoint of debtor; debtor shall be discharged if he or she pays to the decision holder in good faith (TTK 646/2, 710/3). The fact that debtors’ awareness of bills circulation does not change the result. However, if the debtor is aware of the annulment decision, he/she should avoid paying the bill holder. Since the decision holder benefits from the presumption created in his favour with TCC 652/1, the bill holder shall bear the negative effect of the annulment decision.
The Supreme Court of Appeals has consistently held in its previous precedents that a debtor must not ignore the consequences of an annulment decision; otherwise, he or she cannot discharge. According to previous precedents, it is necessary to determine the right holder in a case between the bill holder and the holder of annulment decision, and the debtor can only be held liable to the person entitled in this case. On the contrary, in the present event subjected to this study, it has been accepted that the annulment decision will automatically become ineffective when the bill subjected to the annulment decision was procured by third parties; thus, the acquisition of the bill holder has been prioritised. However, a solution requires creating a balance between the interests of the holder of annulment decisions, the bill holder, and the debtor by considering the legal nature and effects of annulment decisions and the circulation purpose of negotiable instruments. Otherwise, debtors will unfairly be subjected to the negative consequences of bill annulment just because they have issued a bill and have no fault in the loss of the bill.
