Territorial Limitation And Time Limitation in Terms of the Implementation of the Decision
\nIn the Decision, it was clearly decided to stop the transactions and follow-ups \u201ccarried out throughout the country\u2019. Marching April 30, 2020, from March 20, 2020, the date of publication and entry into force of the decision, it was decided to enter into force Article 330 of the Law No. 2004. 2004 330 hereof only article of the law enforcement proceedings \u2018\u2019 called stops, although enforcement proceedings and bankruptcy transactions detailed in the decision about the subject by editing outside of liens have been included in the decisions of the decision (i) enforcement proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings, (II)the party to the proceedings, (III) New and not to be taken enforcement of bankruptcy proceedings, (iv) the execution and enforcement of judgments, liens, we have not decided
\nhas been given.
\ni. New Enforcement Proceedings and Bankruptcy Proceedings As clearly stated in the Decisionit is not legally possible to obtain new enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings by the enforcement and bankruptcy directorates between 22.03.2020 and 30.04.2020. So there is no truth or
\na legal entity may not open enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings against another natural or legal person.
\nii. Party and Follow-up Transactions It is important to determine whether the transactions made in the enforcement law are an enforcement or party follow-up transaction. Because the legislator attached different results to the enforcement proceedings. The first of these results is that the execution follow-up process and the statute of limitations are cut off; the second result is that, as a rule, execution follow-up cannot be performed in case of holidays. For this reason, transactions that do not have the nature of an enforcement follow-up transaction, such as a follow-up request, can also be performed during holidays.1 For this reason, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code of 2004 \u2018Holidays in Exceptional Cases\u2019
\nit is titled 330. In terms of the implementation of the Article, it will be important to determine the enforcement follow-up procedures. The elements of the enforcement follow-up process are,
\n\u2022 Execution by the executive body,
\n\u2022 Action taken against the debtor
\n\u2022 It is evaluated under three headings as ensuring the progress of algebraic execution.
\n\u201dBodies that are authorized to use force within this framework that ensure the fulfillment of the right arising from material law and whose powers are determined by law” are defined as a forced executive body. Executive bodies are divided into main and auxiliary executive bodies. It is established only for executive affairs
\nbodies are the main executive bodies. These are the law offices of the enforcement agency, the executive court and the Supreme Court, which are responsible for the enforcement and bankruptcy affairs. In addition to their main duties, the bodies that also look after the executive affairs are the auxiliary executive bodies.
\nIn order for a transaction to be considered as an enforcement follow-up transaction, it must be conducted by the enforcement agency, the executive court or the general courts. Therefore, the creditor, debtor or 3. the actions of persons for enforcement proceedings cannot be considered as \u201denforcement proceedings”.<\/p>\n
In order for the follow-up process to be qualified as an enforcement follow-up process, it must be performed against the \u201cdebtor\u201d. Or 3 of the executive bodies to the creditor. their actions against persons are not enforcement proceedings. In addition,
\noperations aimed at the internal functioning of executive bodies can also not be called executive follow-up operations. The person who initiated the forced execution and wants to obtain his request is the creditor, and the other party is the debtor. The debtor is a concept that depends on the creditor. The person whom the creditor indicates as a \u201cdebtor\u201d in the follow-up request acquires the title of debtor, and follow-up transactions are carried out against this debtor. In this sense, the third-party principle in enforcement law
\nit is valid; the person specified by the creditor in the follow-up request is considered a party.
\n3. Except for the creditor and the debtor in the enforcement proceedings. people can also take part in or during the follow-up 3. the interests of persons may be violated. (For example; 3. the person may have established a pledge right for the receivable subject to follow-up (m. 146\/I, 149\/I, 149b\/I) or 3. the property and rights of persons may be foreclosed on the basis that they belong to the debtor (m.
\n89, 94, 96-99, 228).) 3. persons play an active role in the enforcement proceedings, although they are not directly related to the enforcement proceedings or the outcome of the proceedings. But this is the case, 3. it does not lead to the fact that the person is one of the parties to the enforcement proceedings. 3. persons are only parties to complaints and lawsuits related to them. This
\narticle 3. transactions made against persons cannot be qualified as enforcement proceedings because they do not fulfill the \u201cmade against the debtor\u201d requirement. If there is a discretionary follow-up friendship between the debtors, the execution follow-up process of the transaction made by the executive bodies dec
\nin order to qualify as such, it does not have to be done against all of the borrowers. The transaction is only related to
\nit is sufficient for the debtor to qualify the enforcement proceedings against the debtor. Because in the friendship of discretionary follow-up
\nstalking friends can act independently of each other.
\nThe execution follow-up process should be of a nature that ensures the progress of forced execution. These transactions are aimed at the creditor
\nthese are the following operations. The execution follow-up process is aimed at the purpose of collecting the creditor’s receivables. Order,
\nnotification of the payment order, removal of the objection, foreclosure proceedings granting time to the debtor enforcement follow-up process
\nan example can be cited. However, the apportionment of monies (m. 138 et seq.), enforcement is not a follow-up process.
\nAs stated in the Decision, only \u2018party follow-up operations\u2019 have been stopped. We believe that the qualification of a party follow-up transaction that is not used in a technical sense in the decision should be considered as \u2018enforcement follow-up transactions\u2019 in accordance with the Enforcement Bankruptcy Code of 2004. For this reason, execution without enforcement follow-up process
\nwe believe that it is not a problem for them to continue their operations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Territorial Limitation And Time Limitation in Terms of the Implementation of the Decision In the Decision, it was clearly decided to stop the transactions and follow-ups \u201ccarried out throughout the country\u2019. Marching April 30, 2020, from March 20, 2020, the date of publication and entry…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[211],"tags":[217,223,1087,220,218,1165],"yoast_head":"\n