1.1. The Claim and Proof of Debt Settlement in Enforcement Proceedings Based on a Court Judgment

In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the claim that the debt has been settled is one of the most frequently used defenses, but also one that suffers from the most procedural errors. Many debtors believe that simply stating "I have paid the debt" is sufficient to stop the enforcement proceedings. However, this is not the case in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment. In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the debtor cannot stop the proceedings with a simple objection as in enforcement proceedings without a court judgment; instead, they must use the special and limited application procedure stipulated by the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. At the heart of this system is Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. This article clearly regulates when, before which authority, and with which documents the claim of debt settlement can be made.

1. In Enforcement of Judgments, what does "Itfa" mean?

In its narrowest sense, extinguishment means the payment of a debt. However, in the context of enforcement based on a court judgment, the issue is not simply "the payment of a sum of money." What is important is the assertion that the debt arising from the judgment has been legally extinguished. This extinguishment can sometimes occur through direct payment, and sometimes through other actions that result in the complete settlement of the debt. However, the main point of contention before the enforcement court is not so much whether the debt has actually been extinguished, but whether this extinguishment has been proven in a manner accepted by law. This is because in enforcement based on a court judgment, the enforcement court acts not like a general court that re-examines the entire history of the debt relationship, but like a specialized body that conducts a limited review.

2. The Core of the Problem: Saying "Payment Made" Isn't Enough

According to Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the debtor may, within seven days of receiving the enforcement order, apply to the enforcement court claiming that the debt has become time-barred, deferred, or extinguished. However, the law immediately imposes a second condition: the claim of extinguishment or deferral must be proven by a document issued ex officio by the competent authorities or duly certified, or by a promissory note acknowledged in the enforcement office, enforcement court, or before the court. In other words, in enforcement proceedings, the question is often not "has payment been made?" but rather "has the payment been documented according to the standards of Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law?".

3. The Main Distinction Determining the Proof Regime: Before or After the Enforcement Order?

The most important distinction in this matter is whether the payment or settlement occurred before or after the notification of the enforcement order . This is because Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law does not accept the same standard of proof for these two periods. In the defense of settlement raised within the first seven days after the notification of the enforcement order, proof is possible with the documents listed by law. In contrast, for settlement or deferment requests that have arisen after the notification of the enforcement order, the law adopts a stricter regime and states that these requests must necessarily be based on documents prepared or certified by a notary public or on the enforcement record. This distinction is at the very heart of the problem of proof in enforcement proceedings.

4. How to Claim a Settlement That Occurred Before the Enforcement Order?

If the debtor claims to have paid the debt before the commencement of enforcement proceedings or, at the latest, before the enforcement order is served, they must present this defense to the enforcement court within seven days of the service of the enforcement order. The documents accepted at this stage are listed individually in the law. Documents prepared ex officio by the competent authorities, duly certified documents, and promissory notes acknowledged before the enforcement office, enforcement court, or court can be used here. Therefore, for example, a randomly prepared note, a document containing a one-sided statement, or any freely prepared receipt is not accepted with equal force. The law, in order to maintain the speed of enforcement proceedings, has not left the burden of proof open, but rather has tied it to specific types of documents.

5. Why are the conditions for redemption occurring after an enforcement order more stringent?

Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is even stricter for payments or other settlements that occur after the notification of the enforcement order. The article explicitly states that requests for postponement based on settlement or deferment related to this period can always be made, but they must be based on documents notarized or certified by a notary public, or on an enforcement record. This means that after the enforcement proceedings have begun, the debtor cannot stop the proceedings based on any ordinary payment document. The law requires a higher degree of reliability in proving payments made after the enforcement proceedings have commenced. This is because it does not want the proceedings to be easily stopped by documents that may be created later or become disputed after the compulsory enforcement has begun.

6. The "Always Available Application" Option Does Not Mean "Proof with Every Document"

Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law states that requests for postponement based on payment or deferment that arise after the notification of the enforcement order can be made "at any time." This means that the debtor is no longer bound by the initial seven-day period. However, this leniency does not relax the standard of proof. On the contrary, while a broader scope for application is granted in terms of time, a stricter regime is maintained regarding documentation. Therefore, the fact that a payment has been made from a bank after the commencement of the proceedings may not, by itself, be sufficient to yield results in every case; what is decisive is whether or not there is a document providing official guarantee of the quality required by law.

7. The Power of Confession Before the Court

Another noteworthy element in Article 33 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is the explicit acceptance of the promissory note before the enforcement office, enforcement court, or court. At this point, Article 188 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure becomes important. According to this article, facts acknowledged by the parties or their representatives before the court cease to be disputed and do not require further proof. Therefore, the creditor's explicit acceptance of payment before the court creates a very strong position for the debtor. However, this acceptance must have been genuinely made before a court or enforcement authority in accordance with proper procedure; verbal admissions allegedly made in private conversations do not automatically produce this effect.

8. The Enforcement Court Does Not Conduct Extensive Investigations

One of the most challenging aspects of claiming repayment in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment is the narrow scope of the enforcement court's review. Unlike a general civil court, the enforcement court does not hear witnesses and engage in extensive discussions of evidence; it primarily examines matters within the framework of the document standards accepted by law. Therefore, even if the debtor has actually made the payment, if they cannot prove this with the document required by Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the request for suspension of enforcement may be rejected. This seemingly harsh outcome in practice stems from the nature of enforcement based on a court judgment. The legislator did not intend for the compulsory enforcement process, which is based on a court judgment, to transform into a new and lengthy substantive litigation.

9. The claim for redemption should not be confused with a request for postponement of execution

A common mistake in practice is confusing the defense of repayment under Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) with the institution of postponement of execution under Article 36. Article 33 of the EBL relies on material defenses such as the debt being subsequently repaid, deferred, or becoming time-barred. Article 36, on the other hand, relates to a completely different area; here, the debtor appeals or files a cassation appeal against the judgment and requests a postponement of execution by fulfilling certain security conditions. The basis, form of proof, and purpose of these two methods are different. Therefore, a debtor who says "I have paid the debt" cannot raise this claim with the logic of a secured postponement of execution; similarly, a debtor who merely appeals cannot present this as a defense of repayment under Article 33 of the EBL.

10. If the Redemption Defense is Rejected, Will Everything Be Over?

No. Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law explicitly reserves the right of a debtor who is forced to pay money they do not owe to file a restitution lawsuit under Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. This means that the debtor may not have received a stay of execution order from the enforcement court because they could not provide the document standard stipulated by law; however, they can still assert in a general court, with broader means of proof, that they are not actually indebted or that they have paid the debt. However, this second option goes beyond the swift and limited enforcement proceedings; it moves to a broader area. Furthermore, the "restitution of execution" in Article 40 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law should not be confused with a restitution lawsuit. Article 40 regulates the restoration of the executed portion of the judgment to its original state after its annulment or reversal; the defense of extinguishment, on the other hand, is based on the claim that the debt has been extinguished due to reasons such as payment.

11. Most Common Mistakes in Practice

The most common mistake in this area is assuming that every payment made in cash or via bank transfer will necessarily be considered valid in enforcement court. However, in enforcement proceedings, what is decisive is not only the economic reality of the payment but also its documentation in accordance with the law. The second major mistake is acting as if there is no difference between payment before and after the enforcement order. The third mistake is assuming that the process is closed after the debt is paid without creating strong means of proof such as a notarized document, enforcement record, or explicit admission. Such deficiencies cause the debtor to be weakened procedurally, especially in enforcement proceedings involving large sums of money.

12. Summary of the Article: The Main Issue in Enforcement Based on a Court Judgment is Not Righteousness, but Documentability

In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the claim that the debt has been settled is theoretically a strong defense, but in practice, it is strictly tied to documented evidence. Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law aims, on the one hand, to prevent the debtor from being subjected to compulsory enforcement again due to a debt they have actually paid, and on the other hand, to maintain the speed of enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment. This balance is established not with a free system of evidence, but with a limited and reliable system of documents. Therefore, in most cases in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the main question is not "Has payment been made?", but "Can payment be proven in a manner accepted by law?".

Conclusion

The success of a defense based on a court judgment depends not only on factual evidence but also on procedural preparation. When making a payment, the debtor should consider the possibility of a future enforcement dispute; they should, as much as possible, create strong means of proof such as notarized or certified documents, enforcement records, or explicit admissions. Otherwise, even if they have actually made the payment, they may not achieve the desired outcome in the enforcement court. Therefore, the issue of repayment in court judgment enforcement is less about the termination of the debt itself and more how that termination is recorded .