PETITION REQUESTING THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT

… TO THE ENFORCEMENT LAW COURT
OF ANKARA

… ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
File Reference No: …/…

CREDITOR REQUESTING ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION:
Name and Surname – (Turkish Republic Identity Number: …)
Address

ATTORNEY:
Lawyer's Name and Surname,
Address,
Telephone

THE OTHER SIDE:

1. … Enforcement Directorate
2. Name and Surname – Address

SUBJECT:
Request for annulment of the decision rejecting the enforcement request in file number …/… of the … Enforcement Directorate.

EXPLANATIONS:

1. Rejection of Enforcement Request:
   The enforcement request submitted by my client was rejected by the ... Enforcement Directorate on the grounds of discrepancies in the names of the issuers. However, Article 168/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) stipulates that the enforcement officer is only authorized to examine whether the instrument is a negotiable instrument and whether it has matured.
2. Authority of the Enforcement Officer:
   The enforcement officer does not have the authority to examine the name match on the promissory note and reject the enforcement request on this ground. According to Article 692 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), it is sufficient for a check to possess certain elements to be considered a valid negotiable instrument. The checks subject to enforcement proceedings possess these elements, and therefore, while a payment order should have been issued pursuant to Article 168/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the rejection of the enforcement request is contrary to procedure and law.
3. Supreme Court Decisions:
   In the decisions of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1995, numbered E.1995/5945, K.1995/5952, and the 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 17, 1995, numbered E.1995/8081, K.1995/4275, it was stated that the enforcement officer does not have the authority to examine issues such as name discrepancies in checks that are considered negotiable instruments; he can only assess whether the instrument is a negotiable instrument and whether it has matured.
4. Good Faith Collection:
   My client initiated debt collection knowing that the person who signed the check was … . According to Article 695 of the Turkish Commercial Code, it is not possible to hold the check account holder liable without their signature. Therefore, the collection request is based on legal grounds, and my client did not act in bad faith.
5. Complaint to the Prosecutor's Office:
   My client has filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office against the person who signed the check, ... The delay in collecting my client's debt is causing him/her hardship. The enforcement office's decision is failing to protect my client's right to collect the debt.

EVIDENCE:

1. … Enforcement Directorate’s enforcement file numbered …/…
2. Sample checks subject to the follow-up request,
3. Expert examination,
4. Supreme Court rulings,
5. Other legal evidence.

LEGAL GROUNDS:
Articles 168/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Articles 692 and 695 of the Turkish Commercial Code, and other relevant legislation.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST:
For the reasons explained above,

1. ...the decision of the Enforcement Directorate regarding the rejection of the enforcement request in file number .../... is hereby annulled
2. A payment order shall be issued to the debtor for the checks that are the subject of the enforcement request
3. I respectfully request and demand that the court order the opposing party to pay the court costs and attorney's fees
   

…/…/… Name and Surname of the Complaining Creditor's Attorney Signature