The Removal of Objection - Av. Gökhan Akgül

In execution law, after the payment order is served to the debtor (the party to whom the payment order is addressed) in the execution proceeding initiated against the debtor, the debtor has the right to object to the debt or the signature within 7 days starting from the day the payment order is served. The debtor against whom the execution proceeding has been initiated may object to the debt or the signature within 7 days from the receipt of the payment order. If the creditor believes that the debtor has unjustly objected to the execution proceeding, the creditor can ensure the annulment of the objection by filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of the objection or, if the necessary conditions are met, by applying for the removal of the objection, thereby making the objection invalid and allowing the continuation of the execution proceeding.

As a result of the debtor’s objection to the execution proceeding, in accordance with Article 66 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), the creditor may file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the objection or apply for the removal of the objection in order to lift the suspension of the execution proceeding for non-judicial executions.

According to Article 66 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK):

An objection made within the prescribed period suspends the execution proceeding. If the objection is not made within the prescribed period, the enforcement officer continues the execution procedures for the entire debt at the creditor’s request. If the debtor has only objected to part of the debt, the execution will continue for the amount accepted by the debtor.

If the debtor has rejected the signature in the objection, the creditor may immediately request the enforcement office to collect the signatures to be enforced.

In order to ensure that the creditor quickly and easily obtains the receivable, under the non-judicial enforcement procedure, if the creditor possesses the legally required documents, the path of removing the objection is chosen for the swift and easy resolution of an execution proceeding that has been suspended due to a malicious objection by the debtor. Although the removal of the objection can be requested from the enforcement courts, it is not a type of lawsuit but a legal remedy specific to enforcement and bankruptcy law. The removal of the objection is regulated between Articles 68-70 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and it is divided into temporary removal of the objection and definitive removal of the objection. To apply for the removal of the objection, the creditor must have one of the documents listed in Articles 68 and 68/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR REMOVAL OF OBJECTION

The creditor, who has initiated the enforcement proceeding against the debtor, may request the removal of the objection from the enforcement court located where the enforcement office is situated, as stipulated by the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, after the enforcement proceeding is suspended due to the debtor’s objection. The removal of the objection is not a type of lawsuit but is a legal remedy specific to Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and it is a procedure exclusive to non-judicial enforcement proceedings, which can only be initiated for monetary and collateral claims. However, as mentioned, despite not being a type of lawsuit, the temporary or definitive removal of the objection must be requested from the enforcement court, not from the enforcement office.

CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING FOR REMOVAL OF OBJECTION

As stated in the law, there are certain conditions that must be met for the creditor to apply to the enforcement court with a request for removal of the objection to continue the enforcement proceeding, which was suspended due to the debtor’s objection. These conditions are:

The enforcement proceeding must be a valid, non-judicial enforcement procedure that complies with procedural and legal requirements.
The enforcement proceeding must have been suspended due to a valid objection made by the debtor within the required time frame.
The request for removal of the objection must be made within 6 months from the date the objection was notified to the creditor.
The creditor must not have filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the objection to continue the enforcement proceeding.
The creditor must have a legal interest in applying for the removal of the objection.
There must be no final judgment regarding the relevant non-judicial enforcement.
The amount of the claim subject to the enforcement proceeding must be clear.
Most importantly, one of the documents listed in the relevant article of the law must be present.

If the above conditions are met, the creditor can apply to the enforcement court for the removal of the objection.

FINAL REMOVAL OF OBJECTION

The final removal of objection, which is one of the types of removal of objection, is regulated in Articles 68 and 68/b of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. According to Articles 68 and 68/b of the Code:

(Amended first paragraph: 17/7/2003-4949/16 article) If the creditor’s enforcement proceeding is based on a document containing a signature acknowledgment or a debt acknowledgment certified by a notary or a receipt or document issued by official authorities or authorized bodies within their jurisdiction and in accordance with the procedure, the creditor may request the removal of the objection within six months from the date the objection is notified to them. If the removal of the objection is not requested within this period, a new non-judicial enforcement proceeding cannot be initiated.

If the debtor is unable to present any document to support their objection, the enforcement court will decide on the removal of the objection.

If the objection is based on the document, receipt, or certificate mentioned in the first paragraph, the request for the removal of the objection will be rejected.

If the debtor is being pursued for a claim of their deceased relative and asserts that the estate is bankrupt, they will be given an appropriate period to present a judgment on this matter. Apart from this, claims and defenses put forward for the acceptance or rejection of the request for removal of the objection cannot be made subject to a stay of proceedings.

(Amended: 9/11/1988-3494/2 article) If the debtor’s signature on the document is denied by the creditor, the judge, after conducting an examination according to the procedure specified in Article 68/a, will decide that the signature belongs to the creditor if they are convinced of it. In such a case, the judge will reject the creditor’s request for the removal of the objection and will impose a fine on the creditor amounting to ten percent of the value or amount related to the document in question. If the creditor files a lawsuit in the general court, the enforcement of this fine will be delayed until the finalization of the case, and if the creditor proves in this case that the debt is not theirs and the signature does not belong to them, the fine will be revoked.

If the creditor is not present at the hearing and the signature is denied by their representative, the representative is obliged to ensure that the creditor is available for the signature verification at the next session or to notify the creditor by paying the necessary costs. If the creditor fails to attend without a valid excuse, they will be deemed to have withdrawn their request for the removal of the objection concerning the amount written in the document on which the debtor’s objection is based.

(Added paragraph: 6/6/1985-3222/6 article; Amended: 9/11/1988-3494/2 article) (Amended first sentence: 17/7/2003-4949/16 article) In case the request for the removal of the objection is accepted for substantive reasons, the debtor shall be liable for compensation at a rate of no less than twenty percent, based on the request of the other party, if the request is rejected for the same reasons. If the debtor files a negative declaration and restitution lawsuit, or if the creditor files a lawsuit in the general court, the collection of the determined compensation will be postponed until the end of the case, and for the party that wins the case, the previously determined compensation will be canceled.

Debtor’s current account or short, medium, and long-term loans — final removal of the objection:

Article 68/b – (Added: 9/11/1988-3494/4 article)

In current accounts or short, medium, and long-term loans, the party providing the credit is required to send an account summary to the address specified by the borrower in the loan agreement, within fifteen days following the periods specified in the debtor’s current account agreement or the interest accrual periods written in the short, medium, and long-term loan agreements, via notary. (Amended last sentence: 17/7/2003-4949/18 article) A change in the address indicated in the contract, if the new address is notified to the party providing the loan through a notary in the country, will have legal consequences; if the new address is not notified in this manner, the date when the account summary reaches the old address will be considered as the notification date.

The content of the account summary sent within the prescribed period, if not objected to by the borrower within one month from its receipt, can only be challenged by the borrowing party through a lawsuit after paying off the debt.

Loan agreements, account summaries for which no objection has been raised within the prescribed period, notices, and other documents and receipts duly issued by the lender shall be considered as documents specified in the first paragraph of Article 68 of this Law. The borrowing party is deemed to have accepted the signature attributed to them in the documents underlying the account summary to which no objection was raised. This provision also applies in cases where Article 150/a of this law is relevant.

As can be seen from the article of the Law, for the final removal of the objection, the creditor must have one of the five documents specified by the law in their possession and must submit one of these documents to the execution court with the request for the final removal of the objection. These documents include:

A signed simple promissory note (the signature by the debtor must not be denied, and it must contain an unconditional acknowledgment of a specific debt amount).
A promissory note notarized (the signature on the promissory note cannot be contested. It must contain an unconditional acknowledgment of the debt).
Documents issued by official authorities or authorized bodies within the scope of their duties and in accordance with the required procedure (the debtor’s signature is not required, but it must contain an unconditional acknowledgment of the debt. Examples include receipts, payment confirmations, insolvency certificates, etc.).
Documents where the debtor has acknowledged the debt before official authorities or authorized institutions (such as execution minutes, provisional attachment minutes, etc.).
Documents issued by credit institutions (e.g., loan agreements, account summaries, etc.).

PROCEDURE OF FINAL REMOVAL OF THE OBJECTION IN THE EXECUTION COURT

If the creditor possesses one of the documents specified by the law, they can apply to the execution court located where the execution office conducting the enforcement is located, within 6 months from the date the objection was notified to them, requesting the final removal of the objection. The 6-month period is a time limit granted to the creditor for the removal of the objection. Upon the creditor’s application to the execution court, the court will resolve the creditor’s request by applying the simplified trial procedure. Although a simplified trial procedure is adopted in the execution court, a hearing is mandatory. The creditor can only make objections based on the document they have submitted to the court.

DECISIONS THE COURT WILL MAKE AFTER A REQUEST FOR FINAL REMOVAL OF THE OBJECTION

The execution court may decide to either accept or reject the request for the final removal of the objection. The court’s decision does not constitute a final judgment in the material sense, but it does have the nature of a final ruling in execution law. If the court decides to reject the request, the execution proceedings will be terminated. However, the creditor’s right to file a lawsuit regarding their claim in the general courts remains preserved.

If the execution court finds the creditor’s request for the final removal of the objection to be justified based on the documents submitted by the party, and accepts the request, the creditor may apply to the execution office to request the continuation of the execution proceedings and the initiation of seizure actions against the debtor. There is no need for the court’s decision to become final before the creditor applies to the execution office. The creditor may apply to the execution office to continue the execution proceedings and request seizure even before the court’s decision becomes final.

Following the execution court’s decision to remove the objection, the debtor is required to make a property declaration to the relevant execution office within 3 days from the date the decision is pronounced and notified. If the debtor fails to make a property declaration within 3 days, they may face imprisonment as a coercive measure.

The court’s decision constitutes a final ruling in execution law, but it is not considered a final judgment in material law. Therefore, the debtor retains the right to file a negative declaratory action or a restitution claim in the general courts within 7 days if they assert they are not liable for the debt. If the debt has been paid, they can file a claim for restitution with the execution office.

The issue of awarding compensation is important in the decisions the execution court makes regarding the request.

REQUEST FOR FINAL REMOVAL OF THE OBJECTION AND EXECUTION REJECTION COMPENSATION

If the parties request compensation for the rejection of the execution proceedings after the final removal of the objection, the following will apply: If the request for the final removal of the objection is rejected in favor of the debtor, the creditor will be sentenced to a compensation of no less than 20% of the claim amount. If the request for the final removal of the objection is accepted in favor of the creditor, the debtor will be sentenced to a compensation of no less than 20% of the claim amount.

The condition for the execution court to award compensation is that the parties have requested execution rejection compensation. When awarding execution rejection compensation, it does not matter whether the party against whom compensation is awarded is acting in good faith or bad faith. It is sufficient that the other party is unjust and that the court partially or completely accepts the compensation request of the requesting party.

The execution rejection compensation will be awarded by the court if the party in whose favor the decision is made requests it.

If the debtor files a negative declaratory action or restitution lawsuit, the execution of the execution rejection compensation ordered by the court will be suspended until the end of the proceedings, provided that the necessary conditions are met.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE OBJECTION

According to Article 68/a of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, the creditor can apply to the execution court to request the temporary removal of the objection in order to continue the execution proceeding that was halted due to an objection by the debtor. As per Article 68/a of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law:

(Amended first paragraph: 17/7/2003-4949/17) If the document on which the execution proceeding is based is private and the debtor has denied the signature during the objection, the creditor may request the temporary removal of the objection within six months from the date of the notification of the objection. In this case, the execution judge will take explanations from both parties.

If the debtor who denies the signature on the document is within the jurisdiction of the executing execution office, they are obligated to be present in the hearing before the execution court unless they have previously notified and substantiated their excuse. If the debtor, whose payment order has been served outside the jurisdiction of the execution office, is summoned through a rogatory letter (istinabe), they are subject to the same obligation to be present.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE OBJECTION

If a signature is present for comparison, the execution court will examine and compare it with the debtor’s written statement and signature, or any other evidence or circumstances. If the court is convinced that the denied signature belongs to the debtor, it will decide to temporarily remove the objection. If necessary, the judge may order an expert examination, ensuring that the hearing is not adjourned more than once. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding expert witnesses, and Articles 309 (2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs), 310, 311, and 312 shall apply in the signature examination process.

(Amended: 9/11/1988-3494/3) In the hearing, if the debtor is not present without valid excuse, the execution court, without investigating other matters, will decide to temporarily remove the objection and impose a fine equal to 10% of the debt in question, based on the document referred to. If the debtor fails to appear in the hearing, this must be stated in the summons for the temporary removal of the objection and the imposition of the fine.

(Amended: 9/11/1988-3494/3) If the execution judge determines that the signature belongs to the debtor, the debtor will be fined an amount equal to 10% of the debt in question, based on the document referred to. If the debtor files an action for debt relief, negative declaration, or restitution, the execution of this fine will be postponed until the end of the lawsuit, and if the debtor wins the case, the fine will be lifted.

If the debtor accepts the signature they previously denied during the hearing for the removal of the objection or at the latest during the session when the creditor presents the original document, no fine will be imposed, and they will not be held liable for legal costs. However, if the debtor has caused the execution by bad faith, they will be liable for the legal costs. If the original document has been submitted to the execution office at the time of the request for enforcement, this provision will not apply to the debtor who has been served with the payment order within the jurisdiction of the execution office.

(Added: 6/6/1985-3222/7; Amended: 9/11/1988-3494/3) In case the request for temporary removal of the objection is accepted, the debtor will be required to pay compensation of no less than 20% of the claim if the request is rejected, based on the other party’s request. If the debtor files an action for debt relief, negative declaration, or restitution, or if the creditor files a lawsuit in a general court, the collection of the determined compensation will be postponed until the end of the case, and if the party wins the case, the previously determined compensation will be lifted.

The temporary removal of the objection occurs when the debtor disputes the signature on the payment order served to them under an enforcement procedure, claiming that the signature is not theirs, and as a result, the enforcement is suspended. In the case of temporary removal of the objection, the court does not conduct a detailed review of the debt subject to the enforcement document. The request for temporary removal of the objection can only be made to the execution court if the debtor disputes the signature on the document concerning the enforcement. Just like in the case of permanent removal of the objection, the creditor must apply to the execution court within 6 months from the date the objection is served to them.

The same procedures and principles that apply for the permanent removal of an objection will also apply for the temporary removal of the objection. However, since the temporary removal of the objection relates to the signature on the document, the court will also conduct an examination on this matter. If the debtor fails to provide a valid excuse, they must attend the hearing. The court will take writing and signature samples from both the right and left hands of the debtor, and the expert will examine whether the signature on the enforcement document belongs to the debtor.

As stipulated by the law, the debtor is required to attend the hearing unless they present a valid excuse. If the debtor fails to attend the hearing, the decision will be made in their absence. Additionally, if the debtor fails to attend the hearing without presenting a valid excuse, they will be subject to a monetary fine equal to 10% of the debt amount in question under the enforcement.

If, after the examination following the request for the temporary removal of the objection, it is determined that the signature on the enforcement document belongs to the debtor, the court will decide to temporarily lift the objection, and if the creditor requests, they will impose a fine of 20% of the debt amount in question as an enforcement refusal penalty. If the debtor does not file a debt relief case in the general courts within 7 days from the notification or delivery of the decision, the enforcement procedure will become final. If the debtor files a negative declaration or restitution case in the general courts, the enforcement refusal penalty will be postponed until the end of the trial, and it will either be lifted or finalized depending on the outcome of the case.

If, after the examination following the request for the temporary removal of the objection, it is determined that the signature on the enforcement document does not belong to the debtor, the court will reject the request for the temporary removal of the objection. If requested by the debtor, the court will impose an enforcement refusal penalty equal to 20% of the debt amount in question.

EXAMPLES OF COURT OF CASSATION DECISIONS REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF OBJECTION

12th Civil Chamber 2016/15476 E., 2017/7350 K.

“Judgment Text”

COURT: Enforcement Court

The request for a review of the court decision with the date and number written above was made by the creditor within the statutory period. Following this, the case file was sent from the local court to the chamber. After the report prepared by the Examiner Judge … was heard and after reading and reviewing all the documents in the file, the necessary deliberations were made:

Regarding the examination of the creditor’s appeals against the debtor … Ltd. Co.;

It is observed that, in response to the non-judicial enforcement proceeding initiated through general seizure against the debtor company, the company’s representative objected to the jurisdiction and the debt following the service of the payment order, thereby halting the enforcement process. Upon the creditor’s attorney’s request for the removal of the objection, the enforcement court rejected the request, stating that the supporting document did not constitute a document within the meaning of Article 68 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, without assessing the objection regarding jurisdiction.

In a non-judicial enforcement proceeding through general seizure, the objection made according to Article 62 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) will suspend the enforcement process in accordance with Article 66 of the İİK. To continue the enforcement process, the creditor may request the removal of the objection from the enforcement court within six months from the “notification of the objection” under Article 68 of the İİK.

In the present case, considering that the debtor’s objection also includes an objection to the jurisdiction of the enforcement office, it is incorrect to directly review and decide on the request to remove the objection to the debt without first addressing the objection to jurisdiction and making a decision on that matter.

Therefore, the court’s task is to first make a decision on the creditor’s request to remove the jurisdictional objection. If the debtor’s jurisdictional objection is found to be valid, the creditor’s request should be rejected. Otherwise, after removing the jurisdictional objection, the court should proceed to examine the objection to the debt and make a decision based on the outcome.

2) Examination of the creditor’s appeal objections regarding the debtor … Tic. Ltd. Şti:

The creditor initiated an enforcement proceeding through general seizure based on a check dated 27/08/2013 and presented on the same date. A sample of payment order number 7 was served to the debtor. The debtor’s attorney filed an objection to the enforcement office within the time limit, stating the objection to the debt and informing that the criminal complaint regarding forgery in the official document related to the check was ongoing. The creditor then applied to the enforcement court for the removal of the objection.

According to Article 63 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), the debtor may present the grounds for objection, as understood from the text of the document on which the creditor’s claim is based, during the hearing for the removal of the objection.

In the present case, the debtor’s attorney, in their petition dated 31/03/2014, presented during the examination of the request for the removal of the objection, argued that the part of the check related to the issue date had been altered, that it had been presented to the bank after the due date, and that the check had expired. These objections are among the reasons for objection “understood from the document text” (Prof. Dr. Baki Kuru, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law 1-Volume, 1988, page 242 and onwards).

Therefore, the court should have examined the debtor’s objections in the response petition, which argued that the issue date part of the check was altered, presented to the bank after the due date, and expired, and that the creditor did not provide explicit acceptance of the alteration. These matters should have been properly examined, and a decision should have been made accordingly. However, issuing a decision based on incomplete examination is incorrect.

CONCLUSION: With the acceptance of the creditor’s appeal objections, the court’s decision is overturned as stated above, in accordance with Articles 366 of the İİK and 428 of the Civil Procedure Law (HUMK). The advance fee paid will be refunded upon request. The decision can be corrected within 10 days from the notification of the judgment. The decision was made unanimously on 08.05.2017.

20th Civil Chamber 2016/12834 E., 2019/2952 K.

“Judgment Text”

COURT: Civil Court of Peace

In the case between the parties regarding the removal of the objection and eviction law, the files were sent to determine the jurisdiction due to separate decisions of lack of jurisdiction issued by … Enforcement Court and … Civil Court of Peace. All documents in the case file were examined, and the necessary deliberation was made.

DECISION

The case concerns the request for the removal of the objection made by the plaintiff against the defendant debtor in the enforcement proceedings and the request for eviction in accordance with Article 68 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK).

The … Enforcement Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the case could not be heard due to limited examination.

The … Civil Court of Peace issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the case was one for the removal of the objection; the decision became final on 18/03/2016, and the plaintiff requested on 01/04/2016 that the case file be sent to the relevant department of the Court of Cassation for jurisdiction determination.

With the additional decision of the … Civil Court of Peace, numbered 2016/22 E. – 42 K., it was decided that the case would be considered as not filed, on the grounds that the request for submission had not been made within two weeks from the date the decision became final. The plaintiff appealed this additional decision.

Upon acceptance of the plaintiff’s request to appeal the additional decision, the additional decision of the … Civil Court of Peace, numbered 2016/22 E. – 42 K., was overturned. After determining that the conditions for jurisdiction determination were met, the case was reviewed.

DECISION

The debtor’s objection to the enforcement proceedings by general attachment, if made within the prescribed time, will suspend the enforcement. In order to continue the proceedings, the creditor may, if they wish, apply to the enforcement court for the removal of the objection. Alternatively, if the underlying document of the debt in the enforcement proceedings is not one of the documents listed under Articles 68-68/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), the creditor may file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the objection in the general court. Even if the creditor uses the term “cancellation of the objection” in their petition for the removal of the objection, the enforcement court should treat this petition as a request for the removal of the objection in accordance with Article 68 of the İİK and conclude it under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law (HUMK) Article 76.

In the present case, the creditor has requested the “removal of the objection and enforcement denial compensation” in the enforcement court. This request should be treated as a request for the removal of the objection under Article 68 of the İİK. The court should examine whether the documents underlying the enforcement are within the scope of the documents listed under Article 68 of the İİK, and then decide whether to accept or reject the request for the removal of the objection. In this case, the dispute should be heard and concluded by the … Enforcement Court.

RESULT: For the reasons stated above, and in accordance with Articles 25 and 26 of the Civil Procedure Code (HUMK), the … Enforcement Court is determined as the appropriate jurisdictional authority. The decision was made unanimously on 25/04/2019.

(Y12HD-K.2015/20790)

The creditor initiated an enforcement proceeding through general attachment against the debtor. The debtor made an objection to the debt within the legal period, and in response, the creditor applied to the enforcement court to have the objection removed. The court, reasoning that the enforcement was not based on documents listed in Article 68/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), rejected the request for the removal of the objection and ruled for compensation against the creditor.

Article 68/7 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 states: “If the request for the removal of the objection is accepted on the merits, the debtor will be required to pay compensation, and if the request is rejected on the same grounds, the creditor will be required to pay compensation to the other party, which cannot be less than 20%. If the debtor files a lawsuit for a negative declaration or restitution, or if the creditor files a lawsuit in the general court, the collection of the ordered compensation will be deferred until the end of the case, and the compensation previously ordered will be removed for the party that wins the case.”

In the present case, since the request for the removal of the objection made by the creditor was rejected on grounds unrelated to the merits of the case, specifically because the enforcement was not based on documents listed in Article 68/1 of the İİK, the ruling for compensation against the creditor is incorrect. Therefore, the decision should be overturned. However, since rectifying this error does not require a retrial, the decision was corrected and upheld. (Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/20790)

8th Civil Chamber 2017/4866 E., 2018/9644 K.

“Jurisprudence Text”

COURT: Enforcement Court

TYPE OF CASE: Removal of Objection and Eviction

At the end of the trial in the case between the parties, as explained above, the Court decided to reject the case. After the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney, the file was examined by the Chamber, and the necessary deliberations were made.

DECISION

The plaintiff’s attorney stated that they initiated an enforcement proceeding against the debtor for the collection of unpaid rent claims, with a request for seizure and eviction. The debtor objected, and the enforcement was halted. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the objection was unfounded and unjust, and requested the removal of the objection and the eviction of the defendant from the property. The defendant’s attorney defended the rejection of the case.

The court partially accepted the case, rejected the request for the removal of the objection concerning the excess amount of 2,911.38 TL, decided to remove the objection regarding the 112,224.34 TL debt, and allowed the enforcement to continue on this amount, while rejecting the eviction request. The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

The case relates to the request for the removal of the objection and eviction.

1- It was determined by the court, based on the case file, the case documents, trial minutes, and the existing evidence, that the decision was made with proper consideration, and no error was found in the evaluation. Therefore, the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal regarding the eviction request was not found to be valid.

2- As for the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal concerning the debt; the defendant, through their attorney, filed an objection stating that they had no debt to the creditor that was subject to the enforcement, and did not object to the principal debt amount, which has now become final. However, it was argued that the interest rate was excessive, and an objection was raised regarding the interest rate. The court should have accepted the request for the removal of the objection regarding the principal debt, as it was not an objection regarding the amount. However, rejecting the request for the removal of the objection regarding the 2,911.34 TL principal debt was incorrect. Furthermore, when deciding on the merits of the case, the ruling should have specified the amounts for both the principal debt and interest without creating any ambiguity in enforcement.

CONCLUSION: The appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney is rejected for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above. The appeal is accepted for the reasons explained in paragraph (2) above, and the decision is to be REVOKED in accordance with Article 366 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) and Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) through reference to the Temporary Article 3 of the Law No. 6100. The parties may request a correction of the decision within 10 days after the notification of the Court of Cassation’s decision, in accordance with Article 366/3 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The advance fee shall be refunded to the appellant upon request. The decision was made unanimously on 19.03.2018.