Period to Request Seizure in Case of Objection to Execution Process
Uğur BulutThe aim of execution proceedings in money claims is to pay the amount of money owed to a creditor by encashing the seized assets. The time limit of the creditor’s right to request seizure starts even before s/he gains the right. Moreover, when there is an objection or action, the time limit stands still until a final judgment has been handed down, i.e., res judicata. However, the exact moment for pausing the time limit based on the objection and action is unclear. Some opinions support that the right moment is the time of the debtor’s objection. Others support that the request for seizure standstill should be when the creditor applies or sues for the annulment of the objection. Another view that originated from the lapse of time to sue for annulment of objection suggests that the moment when the notification of objection is delivered to the creditor should be accepted as the starting point of the one-year time limit. Because the last opinion is in contradiction with the clear letter of the law, other opinions seem more appropriate. However, it is necessary to amend the law regarding the right to request a seizure to minimize possible problems and conform to previous related legal amendments. Hence, we argue that the appropriate amendment is to begin calculating the period for the right to request a seizure only after the creditor gains the right to request a seizure.
Takibe İtiraz Edilmesi Hâlinde Haciz Talep Etme Süresi
Uğur BulutPara alacaklarına ilişkin bir icra takibi ile borçlunun malvarlığı değerleri haczedilip satılarak elde edilen paradan alacaklının alacağının karşılanması amaçlanır. Alacaklının haciz talep etme hakkı, ödeme emrinin borçluya tebliğinden itibaren 1 yıl olarak düzenlenmiş olmasına rağmen, takip kesinleşmedikçe alacaklı kesin haciz talep edememektedir. Ayrıca, itiraz ve dava hâlinde bu konudaki hükmün kesinleşmesine kadar haciz talep etme süresinin işlemeyeceği düzenlenmiştir. Ancak, Kanun’da ifade edildiği şekliyle itiraz veya dava ifadelerinden tam olarak hangi anın anlaşılması gerektiği; diğer bir deyişle, hangi anda haciz talep etme süresinin duracağı konusu tartışmalıdır. Bu noktada, borçlunun itiraz anının esas alınması gerektiği yönündeki görüşler yanında alacaklının itirazın kaldırılması veya itirazın iptali davası yoluna başvurduğu anın esas alınması gerektiği yönünde görüşler de ileri sürülmüştür. Başka bir görüş ise, özellikle itirazın iptali davası açma süresinin başlangıcından hareketle, haciz talep etme süresinin, itirazın alacaklıya tebliğinden itibaren işlemeye başlaması gerektiğini ifade etmektedir. Ancak bu görüş, haciz talep etme süresinin ödeme emrinin alacaklıya tebliğinden itibaren işleyeceğine dair açık kanun hükmüyle çeliştiğinden, mevcut kanunî düzenlemeler karşında itirazın kaldırılması veya itirazın iptali davası yoluna başvurulduğu anda haciz talep etme süresinin duracağı yönündeki görüşlerin daha uygun olduğu söylenebilir. Diğer yandan, muhtemel sorunları en aza indirgemek ve sonradan yapılan kanunî değişikliklerle uyum sağlamak adına haciz talep etme süresinin başlangıcına ve durmasına ilişkin kanun hükmünde de değişiklik yapılması gerektiğini kabul etmek gerekmektedir. Bu noktada, haciz talep etme süresinin alacaklının haciz talep etme hakkına sahip olduğu an olarak takibin kesinleşmesinden itibaren başlamasının en uygun çözüm olacağı kanaatindeyiz.
The aim of the execution proceedings regarding claims for money is to pay the amount of money owed to the creditor by encashing the seized assets. Although the creditor has no right to request a seizure unless the proceeding is legally executable, the creditor’s right has to be exercised within a period of one year starting from the date of notification of a default summon. Furthermore, in case of an objection or action, the time limit stands still until the final judgment about the matter has been handed down, i.e., res judicata. However, there is a lack of clarity as to the exact moment for pausing the time limit based on the objection and action; in other words, when will the period for requesting a seizure be suspended?
There are opinions and court decisions that support that the moment of the debtor’s objection and request for a seizure standstill should be the moment the creditor applies or sues for the annulment of the objection. Another view, which is originated from the time period to sue for annulment of the objection, suggests that the moment of the notification of the objection delivered to the creditor should be accepted as the starting moment of the one-year period. Some court decisions seem to support this point of view.
However, there is some ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the legal terms objection and action. If they are interpreted as the debtor’s objection, the action remains meaningless; if they are interpreted as the creditor’s choice to eliminate the debtor’s objection, then the objection seems unnecessary. The second view suggests that the term objection should be understood as the objection of the creditor against the objection of the debtor. In other words, the period to request a seizure, starting from the date of notification to the debtor, will be suspended when the creditor makes his/her objection against the objection of the debtor in enforcement courts. This option which is available to the creditor is regulated under Article 68 and 68/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. According to this view, the other choice that the creditor has is to sue for the annulment of the objection in a general court, which is regulated under Article 67 and referred to as an action in Article 78 regulating the period to request seizure. This interpretation is meaningful and suitable to the letter of law.
Meanwhile, accepting the period to request a suspension of the seizure as the moment the creditor applies or sues for the annulment of objection causes another problem. The time limitation to apply or sue for the annulment of objection starts from the date of notification of the debtor’s objection to the creditor; consequently, it becomes possible that the debtor’s objection can be annulled, but the seizure cannot be requested after the annulment. This conclusion does not seem right.
A third opinion is that the moment the notification of objection is delivered to the creditor should be accepted as the starting point of the one-year period for both requesting the seizure and the annulment of the debtor’s objection. However, because this last opinion is in contradiction with the clear letter of the law, which expresses that the time limit of the right to request a seizure starts with the notification of a default summons, it can be said that the opinions supporting the moment the creditor applies or sues for the annulment of objection should be accepted as the moment the time limit to request a seizure standstill. This notwithstanding, it is necessary to amend the law regarding the right to request a seizure to minimize possible problems and conform to previous related legal amendments. Hence, we argue that the appropriate amendment is to begin calculating the period for the right to request a seizure only after the creditor gains the right to request a seizure, which is the moment the execution proceeding is legally executable.
