Response to Appeal

File Reference No: …/… … To be sent to the relevant chamber of the REGIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE … To the ENFORCEMENT LAW COURT OF ANKARA

PLAINTIFF RESPONDING TO APPEAL: [Plaintiff Bank Inc.] – [Address]
REPRESENTATIVE: Attorney [Name and Surname] – [Address]
DEFENDANT APPELLING: [Industry and Trade Ltd. Co.] – [Address]
REPRESENTATIVE: Attorney [Name and Surname] – [Address]

SUBJECT: Submission of our responses to the defendant's appeal.

EXPLANATIONS:

1- The appeal filed by the defendant, … Industry and Trade Ltd. Co., in the case file with the above-mentioned case number, was served on us on …/…/…. We hereby submit our responses to this appeal within the prescribed time limit. The defendant company's appeal is unjust, unfounded, and malicious. The local court's decision is in accordance with procedure and law, and the appeal should be rejected.

2- The defendant claimed ownership of the seized goods based on the address of the debtor company registered in the trade registry gazette. However, documents obtained during the seizure proceedings conducted by the court reveal that the debtor company's address and place of business are not different from what the defendant claims. Invoices belonging to the debtor were found at the seizure location, indicating that the debtor's place of business is the address at the seizure location. In this case, Articles 96-97 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) should be applied. The defendant's claims are unfounded, and the local court's decision is correct.

3- The defendant company claims that the official's action was lawful based on the address information provided. However, the address where the seizure was carried out differs from the address provided by the defendant. The documents at the seizure location clearly show that the workplace belongs to the debtor company. Therefore, the official's action is contrary to procedure and law, and the local court's decision to annul this action is justified and lawful.

4- The defendant's defenses in the appeal, based on the presumption of ownership and the claim that the seized goods belong to them, do not reflect the truth. The documents obtained during the seizure show that the seized goods belong to the debtor and are located at the debtor's workplace. Therefore, Article 99 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law cannot be applied. The local court's decision is in accordance with procedure and law and should be upheld.

5- The defendant's claim, based on invoices submitted in their appeal, that the seized goods belong to them is irrelevant to the case. The subject of the case is the application of the correct legal provision based on the information and documents obtained during the seizure. Discussions regarding the ownership of the goods will be evaluated after this process. Therefore, the defendant's grounds for appeal in this regard should be rejected, and the local court's decision should be upheld.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: Based on the reasons stated above, we respectfully request and demand that the defendant company's unjust, unfounded, and procedurally and legally flawed appeal be rejected, the local court's decision be upheld, and the court costs and attorney fees be borne by the defendant.

…/…/…
Plaintiff's
Attorney [Name Surname]
Signature