Conditions for Raising the Statute of Limitations Defense and Postponing Execution in Enforcement Proceedings Based on a Court Judgment

In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the defense of statute of limitations and the postponement of execution are two of the most frequently confused concepts in enforcement law. In many cases, the debtor believes that the execution is automatically suspended the moment they appeal, while the creditor thinks that leaving the court judgment inactive for years will have no effect. However, the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 establishes separate regimes for both postponement based on the statute of limitations and postponement based on appeal and security in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment . This is where the problem begins: In which situations will Articles 33 and 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law apply, in which situations will Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law come into play, from what point will the statute of limitations begin to run, and how will the debtor raise this defense? Without correctly answering these questions, the legal fate of the enforcement case based on a court judgment cannot be determined in a sound manner.

Enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, as a rule, rely on a court judgment or a document equivalent to a judgment, and the process begins with the delivery of the judgment to the enforcement office. In judgments concerning the payment of money or collateral, the enforcement officer sends an enforcement order to the debtor; if payment is not made, the stages of seizure and compulsory enforcement are initiated. However, enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment do not remain open indefinitely. The legislator has regulated the institutions of statute of limitations and postponement of enforcement together, both to prevent the debt from being subject to indefinite enforcement in a material sense and to protect procedural economy. Therefore, the main issue in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment is not only the question of "is there a judgment?", but also "is the judgment still enforceable?".

What does the statute of limitations mean in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment?

According to Article 39 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a ten-year statute of limitations , starting from the date of the last legally significant action. The same article explicitly states that, for enforcement proceedings based on a notarized deed, the statute of limitations periods in the Code of Obligations or the Commercial Code shall apply, depending on the nature of the deed. This provision indicates that in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the statute of limitations is calculated not directly from the date of the judgment, but from the date of the last legally significant action in the enforcement file. Therefore, in practice, simply stating that "the court decision is not yet ten years old" is not sufficient; the crucial factor is when the last enforcement action was taken in the file.

This provision is also consistent with the general system of the Turkish Code of Obligations regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations. According to Article 154 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the filing of a lawsuit, recourse to arbitration, or initiation of enforcement proceedings by the creditor interrupts the statute of limitations. Article 156 of the Turkish Code of Obligations states that if the debt is determined by a court or arbitration decision, the new period will be ten years in all cases. Article 157 of the Turkish Code of Obligations stipulates that if the statute of limitations is interrupted by enforcement proceedings, after each action related to the pursuit of the debt . Therefore, in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the statute of limitations is not a fixed and uniform period; it is a dynamic period that is interrupted and restarted by the enforcement actions.

The crucial point here is that not every action in a case interrupts the statute of limitations. The law uses the phrase "every action related to the pursuit of a debt." Decisions and compilations citing Supreme Court practice also emphasize that for the statute of limitations to be interrupted, the creditor must make requests that ensure the continuation of the proceedings and not leave the case inactive. Therefore, passive applications merely to inquire about the case's status cannot be equated with requests for seizure, sale, collection, or further enforcement. In practice, many statute of limitations debates hinge precisely on what constitutes the "last action.".

How is the defense of statute of limitations raised?

In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, there is no classical "objection" system; the debtor cannot automatically stop the proceedings by objecting to the payment order, as in enforcement proceedings without a court judgment. Instead, there are special appeal procedures regulated in Articles 33 and 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL). According to Article 33 of the EBL, the debtor may apply to the enforcement court within seven days of the notification of the enforcement order, claiming that the debt has become time-barred, deferred, or extinguished. The same article also stipulates that requests for postponement based on extinguishment, deferral, or time-barring reasons occurring after the notification of the enforcement order can be made at any time. This system is a special and limited control mechanism that brings the debtor's defense directly before the enforcement court.

In contrast, Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law introduces a more specific provision and directly regulates the claim that the judgment has become time-barred . The article explicitly states that claims of time-barring, interruption, or suspension of the statute of limitations will be examined by the enforcement court based on official documents , and a decision will be made to postpone or continue the enforcement accordingly. Therefore, a mere legal claim is not sufficient; the defense of time-barring must be supported by documents suitable for formal review by the enforcement court. In this respect, the defense of time-barring in enforcement proceedings based on a judgment is not a classical trial based on broad freedom of evidence, but rather a limited enforcement judicial review based on documents.

In practice, the distinction between "statute of limitations for debt" and "statute of limitations for a judgment" is also important. In enforcement proceedings based on a judgment, the issue often debated is whether the judgment or the enforcement based on the judgment, rather than the principal debt, has become time-barred. The relationship between the ten-year period in Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Article 33/a of the same law is established precisely here. Even if the creditor has initiated enforcement proceedings within the prescribed time, if the case has been left inactive for many years, the debtor may request a stay of execution in the enforcement court, arguing that the judgment has become time-barred with respect to the enforcement proceedings. This request is not directed at the merits of the enforcement proceedings, but rather at whether the enforcement capability continues.

What does "Suspension of Enforcement" mean?

The postponement of enforcement is a special mechanism that allows for the suspension of compulsory enforcement under certain conditions in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment. However, this mechanism is not uniform. The first group is that the debt has been extinguished, postponed, or that the judgment has become time- of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The second group is the classic postponement of enforcement; here, the debtor, having appealed or filed a cassation appeal against the judgment, requests the postponement of enforcement from the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation by fulfilling certain security conditions. Although these two mechanisms seem to produce the same result, their basis, conditions, and evidentiary regimes are different.

The main question under Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) is: Has the debt been legally extinguished, postponed, or become time-barred before or after the enforcement order? Under Article 36, the main question is different: Has the debtor appealed, and should the enforcement of the judgment be temporarily suspended by providing security? Therefore, considering postponement based on the defense of statute of limitations and delay of enforcement under the same heading leads to serious errors in practice. The former involves a material defense; the latter regulates the effect of appealing on enforcement.

Conditions for Postponement under Articles 33 and 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law

The first condition for suspending enforcement based on the defense of statute of limitations is that the debtor must submit their application to the enforcement court. Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law explicitly states that an application must be submitted to the enforcement court within seven days of the notification of the enforcement order. However, in cases of repayment, deferment, or statute of limitations arising after the enforcement order, the application can be made at any time. The conclusion drawn from this is that the statute of limitations objection is not a rigid defense that can only be raised within the first seven days; if the statute of limitations has expired later, a request for suspension can be made even if the enforcement proceedings have progressed.

The second condition is that the defense must be proven in accordance with the document regime stipulated by law. Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law requires proof by a document that has been issued ex officio by the competent authorities, or duly certified, or acknowledged in the enforcement office, enforcement court, or before the court, regarding payment and deferment. Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law more explicitly states that claims of the judgment being time-barred, interrupted, or suspended will be examined based on official documents. Therefore, in enforcement proceedings based on a judgment, the defense of statute of limitations is not conducted through witness testimony, abstract statements, or broad discretionary evidence; rather, it is primarily based on the enforcement file, enforcement records, court judgments, and official documents.

The third condition is that the statute of limitations has actually expired. When determining the start date of the ten-year period in Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the rule in Article 157 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which states that "it starts running again after each action related to the enforcement of the debt," must be taken into account. Therefore, the debtor cannot obtain a result simply by saying "the file is old"; they must concretely demonstrate the last enforcement action in the file, the nature of that action, and that the ten-year period expired after that action. The creditor can also argue, with official records, that the statute of limitations has been interrupted or suspended. The decision of the enforcement court is the result of this formal review.

The fourth important consequence is the creditor's right to sue. According to Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, after the decision to suspend enforcement becomes final and is served on the creditor, the creditor within seven days to prove that the statute of limitations has not expired. The law explicitly states that if this lawsuit is not filed within the time limit, the judgment will be deemed to have expired due to the statute of limitations. This provision has extremely serious consequences. Because here, not only is the enforcement not suspended; if the creditor remains passive, the judgment becomes final due to the statute of limitations.

Conditions for Postponement of Execution under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law

Article 36 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) regulates a completely different postponement regime. This article stipulates that if a debtor who has appealed or filed a cassation appeal against a judgment proves that the awarded money or property has been deposited with an official authority, or provides movable collateral, shares, bonds, immovable collateral, or a reliable bank guarantee acceptable by the enforcement court for the value of the awarded money or property, they will be granted a reasonable period of time to obtain a decision to postpone the enforcement from the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation. Furthermore, the debtor can also resort to this method if sufficient assets have been seized. There is no requirement for security for state aid or legal aid recipients; however, no such period can be granted in alimony judgments.

This arrangement is entirely different from the statute of limitations defense. Here, the debtor does not say "there is no debt" or "the judgment has expired due to the statute of limitations"; they only state that they have appealed and are requesting a temporary suspension of compulsory execution in exchange for a certain guarantee. Article 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure complements this structure, stating that an appeal does not suspend the execution of the judgment, but that Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law remains in effect. The same article also stipulates that a decision to postpone execution cannot be made in alimony judgments, and that judgments concerning personal law, family law, and the ownership of immovable property cannot be enforced until they become final. Thus, the boundary between decisions subject to the condition of finality and those subject to a stay of execution is also defined.

Therefore, a crucial distinction arises in practice. If the issue is the statute of limitations on the judgment or enforcement proceedings, the basis for recourse is Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. If the issue is that the debtor has appealed or filed a cassation appeal and requested a temporary suspension of compulsory enforcement, then Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law comes into play. Confusing the defense of statute of limitations with a request for a stay of execution, or vice versa, can lead to consequences that are difficult to remedy in terms of both time and security.

Scope of Examination by the Enforcement Court in Statute of Limitations Defenses

When evaluating the defense of statute of limitations, the enforcement court essentially examines it on two axes: firstly, the start and interruption dates of the statute of limitations; and secondly, whether these claims are proven by official documents. Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law states that the court will examine claims of statute of limitations, interruption, and suspension based on official documents. Therefore, the enforcement court does not conduct a comprehensive factual investigation like a general court; it reaches a conclusion based on enforcement file records, court decisions, official notifications, and similar documents. In this respect, the defense of statute of limitations in enforcement proceedings is a technical approach between a complaint and a general court case, but distinct from them.

In the summaries of decisions reflecting the Supreme Court's practice, it is seen that for the statute of limitations to be interrupted, the creditor must make requests in the enforcement file that ensure the continuation of the proceedings. This approach places the "final action" debate at the center of the disputes brought before the enforcement court. If the final action is not truly an action that advances the proceedings, leaving the file open on paper may not save the creditor. Conversely, if there is an action that advances the proceedings in the direction of seizure, sale, or collection, it is considered that the ten-year period restarts after this action.

Most Common Mistakes in Practice

The most common mistake in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment is confusing the fact that the file is open with the statute of limitations never running. However, the period in Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) starts "from the last action," not "when the file is closed." A second common mistake is assuming that the debtor's mere appeal or cassation automatically suspends the enforcement proceedings. When Article 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and Article 36 of the EBL are read together, it becomes clear that this is incorrect; the rule is the continuation of enforcement, and suspension is only possible if the conditions stipulated in the law are met. A third mistake is the assumption that the defense of statute of limitations can be proven by free evidence. However, Articles 33 and 33/a of the EBL explicitly establish a document-based system.

Another practical error is confusing the seven-day period in Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law with the statute of limitations review in Article 33/a. Defenses that can be raised upon notification of the enforcement order and subsequently arising grounds for statute of limitations do not belong to the same category. Furthermore, the creditor's loss of the right to file a lawsuit in a general court within seven days of a decision to postpone enforcement has very serious consequences; because the law states that in this case, the conclusion that the judgment has become time-barred constitutes a final judgment. Therefore, in enforcement proceedings based on a judgment, the defense of statute of limitations is not a simple procedural objection; it is a powerful defense capable of terminating the entire case.

Conclusion

In enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, the defense of statute of limitations and the conditions for postponement of execution involve two distinct legal structures that are similar but not identical. The fundamental norm regarding the statute of limitations is Article 39 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK); this article stipulates that enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment are subject to a ten-year statute of limitations from the last action taken. Articles 154, 156, and 157 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) explain by what actions this period is interrupted and how a new period begins. The debtor raises this statute of limitations before the enforcement court in enforcement proceedings based on a court judgment, within the framework of Article 33 and especially Article 33/a of the İİK, using official documents. The court then decides whether to postpone or continue the execution.

In contrast, the suspension of execution under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law relates to temporary protection based on appeal and security, not to the statute of limitations. Therefore, the correct strategy in practice is to first identify the basis of the request for suspension: Is the defense based on the statute of limitations, or is the suspension of execution requested due to an appeal/cassation? When this distinction is correctly established, both the debtor's recourse and the creditor's position against it become clear. The most critical difference in enforcement law often emerges here: "Suspension of execution," mentioned under the same heading, are in reality two separate institutions subject to different conditions and different outcomes.