“The formal requirements of a promissory note are listed in Article 776 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) No. 6102, which was in effect as of the date of issuance of the instrument. These are: the expression ‘Promissory Note’ (Bono) or ‘Order Note,’ an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money, the maturity date, the place of payment, the payee (beneficiary), the date and place of issuance, and the signature of the issuer. If one of the mandatory requirements is missing, the instrument loses its status as a promissory note. Among these, the maturity date and the place of payment are not essential formal requirements. In addition to the listed mandatory formal requirements, there are also optional terms. Optional clauses such as interest, whether the value was received in cash or in goods, or authorized court jurisdictions may also be included in the promissory note.”
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CIVIL CHAMBERS | Basis No: 2017/714 | Decision No: 2017/639
“LEGAL PRECEDENT” COURT: Enforcement Law Court
JUDGMENT: The dispute concerns the objection to the order of payment and the request for the cancellation of the execution proceedings based on the claim that the instrument lost its character as a negotiable instrument (kambiyo vasfı) due to the “value received” clause.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: As adopted in the decisions of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers; the claim that the underlying document is a “security/guarantee instrument” (teminat senedi) must be proven either by a statement on the instrument itself specifying the relationship it guarantees or by a separate written document.
The “value received clause” (bedel kaydı) is one of the optional elements specific to promissory notes. This record serves to prove that the issuer (keşideci) received the counter-performance from the payee (lehtar). In terms of the law of negotiable instruments, these records do not affect the validity of the instrument because the issuance of a negotiable instrument creates an abstract debt relationship (mücerret borç ilişkisi). Therefore, whether the counter-performance was actually obtained is irrelevant to the status of the note.
In the concrete case, the word “in cash” (nakden) was written on the face of the promissory note. This explanation does not subject the collection of the instrument to a condition, nor does it reflect a declaration of intent that the document was given as a guarantee. Words that merely explain the underlying debt relationship and the purpose of issuance do not affect the legal status of the promissory note under Article 776 of the TCC.
CONCLUSION: The local court’s decision to cancel the proceedings was found improper. It was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED on 05.04.2017 to REVERSE (BOZULMASINA) the decision to resist, in accordance with the reversal decision of the Special Chamber.