SUPREME COURT 12TH CIVIL CHAMBER E.2015/19497, 2015/29941
The process of creating a copy of the file and the notification in this regard are unacceptable.
In a specific example, the notification regarding 10 payment orders sent to the debtor was returned without notification on 12.06.2014, the debtor obtained a copy of the enforcement file on 12.06.2014, was informed about the follow-up by the decision of the enforcement directorate dated 24.06.2014, the follow-up procedures regarding the debtor were completed, the creditor’s request dated 24.06.2014 was evaluated, 100 transactions were made regarding the sale of real estate with the request dated 28.10.2014, and it was seen that it was decided to collect the information on the benefits of the article.
The actions taken before the payment order was served on the debtor and before the enforcement proceedings were completed are incorrect. This is because, according to Article 61 of the IIK, the debtor can exercise their right to object and complain upon service of the payment order. This matter concerns public order and is subject to unlimited complaint. If a previously issued payment order is not served on the debtor, even if it is irregular, it is not possible to apply the provisions of Article 32 of Law No. 7201.
CONCLUSION: In this case, although the complaint should have been accepted and examined within the complaint period, the court’s written decision is incorrect. CONCLUSION: The court’s decision to accept the debtor’s objections has been unanimously decided in accordance with Article 366 of the IIK and Article 428 of the HUMK (REGARDING ITS REVERSAL) for the reasons stated above.