Request for Cancellation of the Officer’s Operation by Way of Complaint

T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
E. 2017/12-1147
K. 2017/1304
T. 8.11.2017
• Process the request for cancellation by way of complaint OFFICER ( Payee a one-year period, claiming the lien within the same one-year period of the property hasn’t been taken within the garnishment of the debtor the right to request that drop, and do not require the removal of the file from the process – Creditor Attorney is a legal one-year period within the salary of the claim of the estate of the debtor of the borrower, and the creditor’s right of lien or warrant doesn’t fall/foreclosures renewal fees can be requested directly but need not )
• The right to request a garnishment ( with a pass would drop one year from the date of notification of the payment order/Payee a one-year period within the lien claim or Lien foreclosures request by request again within a year if the following file to be removed from the process – within a one year period of garnishment of the debtor’s property can be taken without falling the right to request that hasn’t been taken/Legal within a year, the warrant need not because it had been requested but can be requested directly foreclosures renewal fees )
• The lien within one year is required ( the same one-year period of the property hasn’t been taken within the garnishment of the debtor the right to request that drop, and do not require the removal of the file from the process – Creditor Attorney is a legal one-year period within the salary of the claim of the estate of the debtor of the borrower, and the creditor’s right of lien or warrant doesn’t fall/Legal within a year, the warrant need not because it had been requested but can be requested directly foreclosures renewal fees )
* RENEWAL FEE (If the Creditor Has Requested a Lien Within a One-Year Period, the Failure to Seize the Debtor’s Property Within the Same One-Year Period Does Not Require That the Right to Request a Lien Be Reduced and the File be Removed from the Transaction / The Request to Seize the Debtor’s Property Is Not a Renewal Request – The Right to Request a Lien Is Not Reduced, Although a Lien Has Been Requested Within a Legal One-Year Period / The Renewal Order
SUMMARY : The right to request foreclosure falls one year after the date of notification of the pay order. If the creditor does not request a foreclosure within a one-year period or withdraws the foreclosure request and does not request a re-foreclosure within this one-year period, the follow-up file is removed from the transaction. In this case, the follow-up file is removed only from the transaction; otherwise, the enforcement proceedings will not fall. He can request a lien in the same follow-up file by making a renewal request. If the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period, the fact that the debtor’s property could not be seized within the same one-year period does not require that the right to request a lien be dropped and therefore the follow-up file be removed from the transaction.In this case, requesting the seizure of the debtor’s property is not in the nature of a renewal request. Although the creditor’s attorney has requested the seizure of the debtors’ securities and the debtor’s salary within a legal one-year period, the creditor’s right to request a seizure has not been reduced. In this case, in order for the creditor to request a re-lien, there is no need to notify the debtor of the renewal order and therefore to charge a renewal fee, and the creditor may request a direct lien without requesting a renewal. LAWSUIT: At the end of the trial held due to the request for “cancellation of the civil servant transaction through a complaint” between the parties, the Execution (Civil) Court of Borçka issued a Decriminalization of the complaint on 10.07.2013 day and 2013/2 E., 2013/12 K . upon the request of the deputy of the complainant for the appellate examination of the decision numbered, the Court of Cassation 12. The date of the Legal Department is 05.12.2013 and 2013/31165 E., 2013/38701 K . according to the decision numbered, “… The creditor’s right to request foreclosure falls with the passing of one year from the date of notification of the paymentor (Article 78/2 of the IIK.C.1). In this case, the tracking file will be removed from the process (md.78/4) the creditor must submit a renewal request in order to request a foreclosure and this request must be notified to the debtor. On the other hand, the same article 5. in the paragraph; It is stipulated that a fee will be charged upon renewal request for follow-ups that are not based on information. A concrete case in example 7. Payment order, the first in the history of borrowers 18.9.2009, 30.9.2009 on the second,and the third by the creditor on the date 01.10.2009 bent on 10.3.2010 has been notified and 26.05.2010 in the history of the legal estate of the debtor and the debtor within a year…’s salary being requested the seizure of the creditor “bankruptcy” the right has not fallen. In this case, in order for the creditor to request foreclosure again, 78/5 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, there is no need to notify the borrower of the renewal order and therefore to charge a renewal fee. In other words, the creditor may request a lien directly without requesting a renewal. IIK’s 110/3. in the article, it is regulated that the creditor is responsible for expenses such as placing and maintaining the lien. Since the mentioned regulation is not related to the renewal fee and the foreclosure request period, there is no place for application in the concrete case.
Then, it is inappropriate for the court to decide to reject the complaint when it should have been accepted …” The court resisted the previous decision at the end of the retrial, which was overturned on the grounds of being turned back instead of the file.
The law was examined by the General Assembly and after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION : The request is related to the request for cancellation of the officer’s procedure through a complaint. The complainant’s representative, the respondent has started enforcement proceedings against debtors in the Executive Office on 11.09.2009 borçka ilamsiz if the payment order had been communicated to all of the debtors that have not been contested within the time determined to follow up debtors about the enforcement operation is performed that many, but for any period specified in the relevant articles of the EBL File No. 2004 foreclosures foreclosures placed with regards to the process of the removal of the decision has been made, and the first file given on 22.04.2013 a petition has been requested renewal of the foreclosure process, on the other hand, it was decided that the application and advance fee should be deposited for renewal, that the process of the Borçka Enforcement Office was unfair and constituted a violation of public order, that the decision entitled “Decision Tense Minutes” dated 22.04.2013 issued from the follow-up file numbered 2009/921 of the Borçka Enforcement Office should be canceled and the decision to renew the file without charging a fee was requested by way of complaint.
Subject to trial by a local court the Executive Office of attorney of the creditor’s borçka 2009/921 on 10.03.2010 foreclosures numbered in the following file that is in demand, and the borrowers belonging to Tk and numbered on plate 34 34 498 7400 vehicles have been sequestered 11.04.2010 where ZP, then the creditor you owe the attorney on 26.05.2010…’s salary if asked to foreclosure, distraint without any information and documentation that applies in the file after this date, the creditor’s attorney, file the absence of any demand on, the vehicles were seized according to the date of the sale of the vehicle is not possible until the date 11.04.2011, this demand was not until a vesting date, the date falling on the adoption of the warrant would require, as it fell 11.04.2011 removed from the Proceedings of the warrant until the date 12.12.2012 file date time of the file, since it’s been treated for more than a year removed from any irregularities in the absence of treatment, the renewal of files that were removed from the first 78/5 if requested in accordance with the provisions re-grout retrieved, due to the non-paying of the renewal fee, it was decided to reject the complaint on the grounds that the Execution Office’s procedure for rejecting the renewal request was in accordance with the Law, and the decision was overturned by the Special Chamber on the grounds described in the title section above upon the appeal of the complainant’s attorney. The court made a decision to resist by repeating the previous grounds.
The decision to resist was appealed by the complainant’s attorney.
The dispute, which came before the General Assembly of Law by way of resistance, is subject to Articles 78/2 and 4 of the IIK. the legal requirement in the paragraphs (in case a lien has been requested within one year from the notification of the pay order) is collected at the point of whether the file can be removed from the transaction for other reasons after it has been fulfilled. As is known, the right of the creditor to request foreclosure is subject to a one-year period. The right to request a lien falls one year after the date of notification of the pay order. (78/2 of the IIK. article C.1) The creditor, the term of one year (78/2 of the IIK. md.) if he does not request a lien within it, or if he withdraws the lien request (which he made within one year) and does not request a lien again within this (same) one-year period, the follow-up file will be removed from the transaction. (78/4 md.) In this case, the follow-up file is only removed from the transaction; otherwise, the enforcement proceedings will not be dropped. In other words, the enforcement proceedings will continue to remain in trouble. In this case, he may request foreclosure in the same follow-up file by making a renewal request. (78/5 md.)
On the other hand, if the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period, the fact that the debtor’s property could not be seized within the same one-year period (even later) does not require that the right to request a lien be dropped and therefore the follow-up file be removed from the transaction. In this case, the enforcement proceedings remain in trouble, and the creditor’s request for the seizure of the debtor’s property in accordance with the foreclosure request made within a one-year period (after a year has elapsed) is subject to Article 78/5 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. it is not in the nature of a renewal request in the sense of its article. In other words, in this case, there is no need for the creditor to pay the tuition fee again and to notify the debtor of the request. (Dry B.: Execution and Bankruptcy Law EI Book, 2013, 2. Edition, sh 414, 415).

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.