4) Address issue in notifications: Commercial registry, MERSİS, last known address

4.1. Primary address for companies: “address on official records”

For legal entities, notifications are, in principle, to the address recorded in official records (for example, the registered address in the commercial registry). The implementing regulation also explicitly emphasizes that the addresses in official records shall be considered the primary address for legal entities.

The practical implication at this point is as follows:

• The plaintiff/creditor should determine the notification address not "randomly"; if possible, it should be based on the trade registry/MERSİS registration information.

• The company must keep the address change up-to-date through registration/announcement and notification processes; otherwise, the defense of "my address has changed" will not always provide protection.

4.2. Change of address: Risk of "notification to the old address"

If an address change is not reported, under certain conditions, notifications may be deemed to have been served to the old address. For legal entities, the approach of using the address on official records as the primary address poses a serious risk for companies that do not properly manage address changes.

Application warning: The factual status of "we took down the sign and moved" is not a safe haven in itself. If the registration in the commercial registry has not been updated, the fate of the notification is often determined by the official record.

4.3. The “last known address” logic and research burden

The regulation stipulates that notifications shall primarily be made at the last known address; if notification is not possible, in some cases the address in the registration systems shall be used.
In commercial enterprises, the source of the last known address is usually the trade registry/MERSİS and concrete commercial relationship documents (contract, invoice, delivery note, reconciliation, etc.).

5) To whom are notifications sent to companies?

The most critical point in serving notices to companies is the question of "who will receive the document?" Because delivery to an unauthorized personforms the core of allegations of irregular service of process in many cases.

5.1. First circle: Authorized representative

For legal entities, notifications are generally to the authorized representative ; if there is more than one representative, notification to one of them is sufficient.

5.2. Second circle: “Officer/employee” if there is no authorized representative

If the authorized persons are not present at the workplace during regular business hours or are unable to personally receive the document, notification may be made to one of the legal entity's permanent employees or staff at that location. However, this does not mean "any random person"; rather, it requires someone in a position similar to the representative's successor in terms of duties, such as someone responsible for paperwork.

A common error in practice: Documents delivered to individuals such as security guards, receptionists, subcontracted personnel, or employees of different companies in the same building raise questions regarding the "permanent employee – suitable person in terms of duties" criterion. (Each case is evaluated with concrete evidence; the explanations in the notification document are decisive.)

5.3. Notification to the representative of the commercial enterprise: "The authorized commercial representative for that transaction"

The regulation also stipulates that in disputes arising from transactions of a commercial enterprise owned by a natural or legal person, notification made to the authorized commercial representative in that transaction is valid. This provision becomes particularly critical in structures such as branches, sales representatives, and business managers.

6) Is it possible to serve the notification at the branch office? When is that meaningful?

A branch is an extension of a commercial enterprise; however, the branch's role in notifications is not always automatic. The practical approach should be established as follows:

• the dispute from branch operations , the branch's authorized representative/organization in the transaction may be subject to a discussion regarding the "eligible recipient to accept the notification."

• If the dispute is unrelated to the branch, serving the notice to the branch simply because its address is known may later create a validity dispute.

Practical advice for the plaintiff/creditor: Even in branch-related cases, establishing a two-way strategy of "headquarters address + branch evidence" reduces the risk of service of process being unsuccessful.

7) Electronic Notification System (UETS): An invisible but the most challenging timeframe for companies

The most critical feature of electronic notifications for commercial businesses is this:
they can start the time limit regardless of whether you read them or not.

7.1. What does the Electronic Notification Regulation say?

Electronic notification is detailed in the regulation issued based on Article 7/a of the Notification Law. The regulation defines the concepts of evidence recording, transaction recording, delivery-information-documentation logic, and the Electronic Notification System (UETS).

7.2. Notification date: The "5th day" rule

The basic principle in electronic notification is this: Once the notification reaches the electronic address, deemed served at the end of the fifth day .
For companies, this means that the defense of "I didn't receive the email/SMS notification" or "no one accessed the system" alone may not suspend the deadlines.

7.3. Internal control obligation for companies

In electronic notification systems, responsibility is practically placed on the recipient company: a company that does not regularly check its UETS account often reflects its own internal organizational weaknesses in the judgment.

Institutional proposal (a viable model):

• Designate the primary and secondary responsible parties for the UETS account .

• Establish a check-in routine at specific times each workday.

• Initiate the "document registration and forwarding" process for incoming notifications (legal department / external lawyer).

• Update UETS access management for authorized personnel changes (director, board member, signature circular).

Access to UETS and the message center is provided via PTT infrastructure.

8) Irregular notification: This doesn't mean "invalid," but it changes the deadlines

In commercial settings, most disputes regarding notifications irregular notifications . The critical distinction here is:

• Absence of notification: There is no record of a notification process (never issued, never addressed to the recipient, etc.).

• Irregular notification: Notification exists; however, it was done contrary to the procedure stipulated in the law/regulation.

In cases of improper notification, if the recipient has actually learned of the notification, the notification is considered "valid" and the date on which the recipient declares that they learned of it is accepted as the date of notification; this approach is openly debated in legal doctrine and practice.

The outcome from a business perspective:

• Instead of the defense of "I never received any notification," the consistency of the procedures in the file, UETS records, internal correspondence, and the date of learning becomes important.

• The time calculation is re-established along the lines of "Illegal, but I learned the ropes.".

9) The most common mistakes and practical solutions

9.1. Errors of the plaintiff/creditor

1. Issuing notifications without checking the trade registry/MERSIS address

2. a notification delivered on behalf of the company by an unauthorized person (delivery without justification stated in the notification receipt)

3. Insisting on using the traditional method when the company already has an e-notification address (may create controversy in this specific case)

4. In branch operations, determining a notification strategy without clearly distinguishing between branch and head office

Solution: Prepare a "notification checklist" before opening the file:

• Commercial registry registration / official address verification

• UETS obligation/activity check

• Investigation of relevant representatives and signature circulars/authorization for representation

• Is there a branch transaction link? (contract, invoice, delivery, correspondence)

9.2. Company mistakes

1. Failure to register/announce the change of address (the old address remains in official records)

2. Linking the UETS account to "one person's phone" and not institutionalizing it

3. Delaying the delivery of the received notification to the legal department/lawyer

4. Failure to establish a rule within the company regarding "who will collect the notifications"

Solution: Make "notification management" an internal procedure. Create a single line for all notifications, including UETS: registration-transfer-calendar-action.

10) Frequently Asked Questions

What happens to the notification if the company is closed or no one is present?
Depending on the specific case, the graded procedures outlined in the regulations (notification to employees if no authorized person is available, adding a note to the notification document, etc.) are applied. The explanations in the notification document play a critical role in the validity dispute.

I opened the electronic notification on day 1; does the time limit start from day 1?
Since electronic notifications are considered "deserved of service at the end of the fifth day," this regime in the legislation is used as the basis for calculating the time limit.

If the notification is improper, will the time limit not run at all?
If the recipient has learned of the notification, the approach of taking their statement of learning as the basis and determining the notification date accordingly is accepted; therefore, in most cases, the time limits start from the "date of learning".

Conclusion

Serving notices to commercial businesses is not simply a matter of "delivering the envelope"; complete procedural engineering, . For companies, the safest approach is to keep their trade registry address up-to-date and to monitor UETS notifications with a corporate routine; for plaintiffs/creditors, it is to verify the address based on official records and to direct the notification to the correct person. When this discipline is established, the risk of "missing deadlines" and "validity disputes" arising from notifications is significantly reduced.