Zone Limitation And Time Limitation In Terms Of Implementation Of The Decision
In the resolution, it was clearly decided to stop the operations and follow-ups “carried out throughout the country’.
April March 20, 2020, the date on which the decision was published and entered into force, until April 30, 2020, Article 330 of the Law No. 2004 has been decided to enter into force.
Although Article 330 of the law No. 2004 says that only’ enforcement proceedings ” stop,
Bankruptcy proceedings and injunctive foreclosure, except for enforcement proceedings, by making detailed arrangements on the subject in the decision
decisions included, by decision (i) enforcement proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings, (ii) Party follow-up proceedings, (iii) New enforcement
(iv) execution and execution of injunctive foreclosure decisions, decision
has been given.
i. New execution and bankruptcy proceedings
As clearly stated in the decision, it is not legally possible to obtain new enforcement and Bankruptcy follow-up by the executive and Bankruptcy directorates between 22.03.2020 and 30.04.2020. In other words, no natural or legal person will be able to pursue enforcement and bankruptcy to another natural or legal person.
ii. Party and follow-up operations
It is important to determine whether the transactions made in enforcement law are Enforcement or party follow-up transactions. Because the legislator has linked different results to the Enforcement follow-up process. The first of these results is with the execution follow-up process
the second result is that, as a rule in holiday-talik States, the execution follow-up process cannot be performed. For this reason, such as a follow-up request, transactions that do not have the nature of an execution follow-up process can also be performed in holiday-talik States.1 for this reason, 330 of the enforcement and Bankruptcy Act 2004 entitled ‘holidays in exceptional cases’. Determination of execution follow-up procedures will be important for the implementation of the article.
If the elements of the execution follow-up process are,
* Execution by the executive body,
* Against the debtor
* Ensuring the progress of forced execution
it is evaluated under three headings.
“The authority to use force in this framework, which ensures the fulfillment of the right arising from material law
bodies that are also and whose powers are determined by the law are defined as” forced enforcement bodies.2 executive bodies are divided into Main and auxiliary executive bodies. Established for executive affairs only
bodies are the main executive bodies. These are the law offices of the Executive Office, the executive Court and the Supreme Court charged with executive-bankruptcy Affairs. In addition to their main duties, the bodies that also deal with executive affairs are auxiliary executive bodies.
In order for a transaction to be considered an enforcement follow-up process, it must be performed by the Enforcement Department, the enforcement court, or the general courts. Hence the creditor, debtor or 3. enforcement of persons
operations cannot be considered as” execution follow-up operations”.

In order for a follow-up transaction to qualify as an execution follow-up transaction, it must be performed against the “debtor”. The creditor of the executive bodies or 3. their actions against people are not Enforcement follow-up. In addition, operations related to the inner workings of executive bodies can also not be called executive follow-up operations. Forced execution
the person who initiates and wants to obtain his demand is the creditor, and the other party is the debtor. The debtor is a creditor-dependent concept. The person that the creditor shows as “debtor” in the follow-up request acquires the title of debtor, and follow-up transactions are carried out against that debtor. In this sense, the form party principle in enforcement law
it is valid; the person specified by the creditor in the follow-up request is considered a party.
3, except the creditor and debtor in enforcement proceedings. contacts may also take part or during follow-up 3. people’s interests can be violated. (E.g. 3. the person may have established the right to pledge for the receivables subject to follow-up (M.146/I, 149/I, 149b / I) or 3. property and rights of persons may be confiscated with the idea that they belong to the debtor (m.89, 94, 96-99, 228).) 3. individuals play an active role in enforcement tracking, although they are not directly related to enforcement tracking or the outcome of the follow-up. But this is the case, 3. it does not result in people being one of the parties to enforcement proceedings. 3. persons are only parties to complaints and lawsuits against them. Therefore 3. execution because transactions made against persons do not meet the requirement that they be ” made against the debtor”
it cannot qualify as a follow-up process.
If there is a discretionary follow-up friendship between borrowers, the transaction made by the enforcement authorities does not have to be made against all borrowers in order to qualify as an execution follow-up process. Performing the transaction only against the relevant debtor is sufficient to qualify the execution follow-up transaction. Because discretionary follow-up friendship
follow-up friends can act independently of each other.
The execution follow-up process must be of the nature of ensuring the progress of forced execution. These transactions are transactions that bring the creditor closer to its target. The execution follow-up process is for the purpose of collecting the creditor’s receivables. Payment order, notification of payment order, cancellation of Appeal, foreclosure operations giving time to the borrower execution follow-up process
an example can be shown. However, the allocation of money (m. 138 et al.), execution is not a follow-up process.
As stated in the resolution, only ‘party follow-up operations’ have been stopped. We believe that the qualification of the party follow-up process, which is not used in the technical sense in the decision, should be considered as ‘execution follow-up operations’ in accordance with the Enforcement Bankruptcy Act 2004. For this reason, we believe that there is no problem with continuing enforcement operations that are not Enforcement follow-up operations.