Can an Objection to Debt be Made Before the Notification of Payment Order in Turkish Law?
According to Article 62 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law in Turkey, the debtor can object to the debt within seven days from the notification of the payment order. This provision is intended to protect the debtor’s rights and provide an opportunity for defense. However, in some cases, the debtor may become aware of the proceedings before the payment order is served and may want to object. At this point, a contradiction arises between the letter of the law and the needs that emerge in practice.
When examining the decisions of the Court of Cassation on this issue, it is seen that different conclusions are reached depending on the specifics of the concrete case. Indeed, in one Court of Cassation decision, it was ruled that “if the payment order cannot be served to the debtor, and it is understood that the debtor has been informally notified of the proceedings and has notified the enforcement office of their objection within seven days, and the creditor’s will to continue the dispute and proceedings exists, even if the payment order cannot be served, the debtor’s objection is valid and the creditor has a legal interest in requesting the removal of the objection,” thus accepting that an objection made without service could be valid. However, it is important to emphasize that this approach is not valid in every situation and that courts should make decisions considering the specifics of the concrete case.
On the other hand, there are also some Court of Cassation decisions that strictly adhere to the letter of Article 62 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law in the Turkish Legal System. These decisions state that objections made before the payment order is served will not have legal consequences. For example, in one decision, it was stated that “since the payment order has not yet been served to the debtor, the debtor’s objection to the enforcement office does not have any consequences,” thus making an interpretation in line with the letter of the law. This approach is important in terms of legal security and predictability.
To resolve the discussions on this issue, methods such as intervention by the legislator or a unification of case law decision can be considered. Because technological developments and today’s conditions allow debtors to become aware of enforcement files more easily. Therefore, it should be taken into account that the aim of the law, which is to inform the debtor and provide an opportunity for defense, can also be achieved through means other than notification.
For more help or consultation on this matter, you can contact us.
Attorney Ozan Soylu
