T.O
SUPREME
11.LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/9590
RESOLUTION NO: 2513
DECISION DATE: 09.04.2018

> THE PENSION CANNOT BE BLOCKED DUE TO THE DEBT THAT THE PENSIONER IS VOUCHING FOR.

In the case between the parties, the Court of First Instance of Artvin decided on 13/04/2016 and 2016/28-2016/335 by the court of Cassation to review the decision was requested by the attorney of the plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the petition, the report prepared by the Court of Investigation Judge Gulden Pekcan Duman for the case file was listened and the petition, :

The acting plaintiff said his client’s salary lay in the Artvin branch of the defendant’s bank, his wife S. G.the defendant bank is the guarantor of the loan used by the Defendant Bank, the defendant bank’s credit debt is not paid against his wife and his client Artvin execution Directorate 2014/…6 execution follow-up initiated through the execution follow-up file, 1/4 part of his salary is cut to this file, the remaining 3/4 part is blocked by the defendant bank, until this time the, he demanded that the payment of TL 1.000.00,which is unjustly deducted from the salary and its annexes, be taken from the date of the lawsuit, together with the interest to be collected from the defendant and the decision to remove the blockade placed on the salary account.

The defendant’s attorney said that there is no deduction made to the client bank from the execution file stated in the lawsuit petition, that the file made with deduction is the file of Artvin execution Directorate 2009/…2 instructions, that this file has been interrupted until 2012 and that no deduction has been made after this date upon the end of the debt, that the plaintiff, the client said that the bank has the right of clearing and offsetting, that is, it can offset the money lying in the debtor’s account against the loan debt, that the claimant has his signature in this contract, that the contract is of commercial nature, and that his client has the right of clearing and offsetting the contract in question 67. he requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that he had made the deduction in question for the purpose of collecting the debt in accordance with the article, and that the case lacked legal basis.

According to the scope of the entire file by the court, the credit contract signed by the plaintiff as joint debtor’s fiduciary guarantor is commercial loan, the contract is 67. it is decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claimant bank’s pledge and Offset rights are regulated in the article and that the claimant bank will not want to refund the deductions made in this context.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.

The case is related to the rest of the deduction made by the defendant bank from the salary account of the claimant guarantor, and as a result of the trial by the court, the credit contract signed by the claimant as joint debtor’s fiduciary guarantor is a commercial loan and the contract is 67. in this article, it is decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the pledge and Offset rights of the Defendant Bank are regulated, so that there is no illegality in making this deduction.

However, upon non-payment of the loan debt by the plaintiff, the defendant was awarded the contract by the bank in the 67th century. blocking the pension of the claimant with the authority given by Article 93 of the law No. 5510. with article I.I.K.of 83. although there is no lien on the salary of the plaintiff, since the application of a block on the salary account of the defendant bank will result in Lien results, it is necessary to decide on the acceptance of the case and the establishment of a written provision required an unjustified impairment.

Conclusion: due to the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 09/04/2018 that the provision should be overturned for the benefit of the plaintiff with the acceptance of the appeal appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the advance appeal fee paid to the appellant should be returned to the appellant at his request.