Turkish Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber
Article No: 2017/9857 Decision No: 2017/9650 Decision Date: 20.11.2017
OBJECTION TO THE APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY – OBJECTION TO THE PROPERTY ORDER
LOCATION,
RELATED TO THE ATTACHMENT MADE BY THE EXECUTION DIRECTORATE IN COMPLAINTS, THE EXECUTION BOARD THAT MADE THE ATTACHMENT IS RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO ENSURE THE JURISDICTION OF THE EXECUTION COURT
SUMMARY: If the property to be attached is located elsewhere,
SUMMARY: If the property to be seized is located elsewhere,
in objections to seizure filed with the seizure office, the location of the property is determined by order and reviewed by the enforcement office
under the jurisdiction of the enforcement office that conducted the seizure. Therefore, since the valuation of the property is conducted by order,
the valuation must be conducted by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that filed the relevant objections is affiliated.
(2004 PK Art. 4, 79, 128/A)
In the case between the parties, … Enforcement Law and … 11th Enforcement Law Courts
ruled that an individual lack of jurisdiction decision should be issued, and in order to ensure that the Regional Courts of Appeal perform their duties in the event that the final decision in the case
is issued later, two separate Regional Courts of Appeal within the jurisdiction of the courts should also issue decisions.Pursuant to Article 36/3 of Law No. 5235, the decision rendered is a mutual decision of lack of jurisdiction.
The judicial court within the jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Appeal’s legal chambers,
being the first instance to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction and competence between the decision-making and competent courts,
has reviewed all the documents in the file sent for the determination of jurisdiction and deemed it necessary:
The case concerns an appeal against the valuation of assets.
… By the Enforcement Court; … The 5th Enforcement Directorate Presidency, in a letter dated 12/07/2016 addressed to the Enforcement Directorate Presidency,
stated that instructions had been given regarding the sale of the vehicle exclusively kept in the district, and in the letter,
it requested that the asset valuation increase procedure be carried out in accordance with the Enforcement Directorate Presidency’s instructions,
but that this request pertained to the debtor’s movable and immovable property, and that, for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of third parties,
a seizure decision requesting the seizure of a specific asset, rather than a general seizure of assets,
was issued without authority.
… 11. Pursuant to Article 128/a-1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code, complaints regarding the valuation of assets are submitted to the enforcement court, and when necessary,
the valuation of assets is conducted by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office responsible for the valuation is affiliated. The valuation is conducted based on the enforcement office’s file numbered 2016/89.
It is understood that the court authorized by the instruction is the enforcement court to which the Enforcement Directorate is affiliated.
An unauthorized decision has been made.
Article 4/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 states that “…complaints and objections made against the proceedings of the enforcement and bankruptcy offices
shall be examined by the enforcement court judge or the judge assigned to him/her in accordance with the law,
who shall perform the assigned task…”
. Article 79 of the same Law states, “The enforcement office shall carry out the attachment procedure definitively within three days of the request.
If the property to be seized is located elsewhere, the enforcement office where the property is located
shall immediately issue a written order to carry out the seizure. In such cases, complaints regarding the seizure shall be referred to the enforcement office where the objection was filed and
decided by the court…”
As can be understood from the aforementioned legal regulations, it is the enforcement office where enforcement proceedings are carried out.
Complaints and objections regarding enforcement are handled by the enforcement office to which the enforcement office where the enforcement is carried out is affiliated, and
are decided by the court. However, if the property to be seized is located elsewhere, the location where the property is located
must be affiliated with the enforcement office carrying out the seizure.
Complaints regarding seizures carried out by the enforcement office are
reviewed by the enforcement court in the location where the seizure took place.
In the present case, since the valuation was conducted by the enforcement office pursuant to instructions, the authority to review objections related to the valuation
belongs to the 11th Enforcement Court.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above, in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100; … the 11th Enforcement
Court was unanimously determined to be the competent authority on November 20, 2017.