T.R.
Supreme Court
8th Legal Department
Docket No:2014/9373
Decision No: 2015/9402
K. Date: 27.4.2015
Enforcement Civil Court
Upon the request of the appellant to be examined within the period of the Court decision with the date and number written above, the file regarding this case was sent to the Department from the scene, and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the need for the job was discussed and considered:
DECISION
In his application to the Enforcement Court, the creditor’s attorney; He requested the removal of the said Enforcement Directorate’s action dated 11.02.2014, claiming that the proceedings based on the judgment initiated against the debtor had become final, that the file debt was deposited in the file as collateral upon the debtor’s attorney’s appeal with a request for postponement of the judgment, that the parties had made a request for attachment, but the request was rejected by the Enforcement Directorate, and that the transaction regarding the rejection of the requests for attachment was not correct, since the procedures required to be postponed by the debtor party were not fulfilled within 7 days for the postponement of the execution.
The court stated that the Enforcement Directorate decided to give 90 days from the date of transfer of the file to the Supreme Court, in case the amount in question was deposited to the file as collateral, with the decision minutes dated 06.02.2014, but the collateral determined by the debtor was deposited to the Enforcement Directorate’s safe on 11.02.2014, after 07.02.2014, which is the finalization date of the follow-up, and the money deposited to the file as collateral after this date was not subject to the enforcement order. It was decided to accept the complaint on the grounds that it was not legal to issue a grace period to the debtor on 11.02.2014, as it was not deposited within the legal period of 7 days from the notification, and the money deposited after the deadline could not be considered as money deposited against collateral, and the decision was appealed by the debtor’s attorney.
The period to be given for the postponement of execution is stated in Article 36 of the EBL: “If the debtor who appeals or appeals against the judgment proves that the judged money or goods have been deposited in an official authority, or shows a movable pledge or bond or immovable property pledge or a valid bank guarantee to be accepted by the enforcement court in the value of the judged money or goods, or if the debtor has the goods to cover the judged money and goods. The enforcement director gives an appropriate period of time to get a decision from the regional court of justice or the Supreme Court to postpone the execution.
This period can only be extended in case of necessity…” and the said article does not stipulate a specific period for requesting postponement of execution. If the conditions of the article are met, the prosecution can be stopped by making a decision to postpone the execution at every stage of the pursuit. For this reason, although the Court should have decided to reject the complaint, it is incorrect to make a decision to accept the complaint on the grounds that the decision to postpone the execution was not made within 7 days from the notification of the enforcement order.
CONCLUSION: With the partial acceptance of the debtor’s attorney’s appeal objections, the Court’s decision was REVERSED in accordance with Article 428 of the Civil Code No. 1086, by referring to the Provisional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, for the reasons stated above, and the parties stated that Article 388/4 of the Civil Procedure Code. (HMK b. 297/ç) and EBL article 366/3. It was unanimously decided on 27.04.2015 that, in accordance with the articles, a request for correction of the decision can be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court Chamber decision.