What are the grounds for complaints against enforcement actions and the relevant Supreme Court decisions?

What does it mean for an enforcement action to be contrary to law (legal principle)?

The enforcement officer's discretionary power is not unlimited; this power must be exercised within the limits set by law. For an action to be considered "illegal," it is sufficient for one of the following criteria to be met:

1. Direct Violation of a Law: The enforcement officer disregarding a clear legal provision. For example, seizing property that is specified as "not subject to seizure" in Article 82 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

2. Violation of Procedural Rules: Even if the essence of the transaction is legal, the method of its execution is incorrect. For example, the seizure report not containing legally required elements, or the sales notice being issued in violation of the Notification Law.

3. Exceeding Authority: When an enforcement officer acts on a matter that is outside their jurisdiction or falls under the jurisdiction of another authority (e.g., a court).

4. Violation of General Legal Principles: The transaction violates the principle of good faith, the principle of not abusing rights, or the principle of proportionality.

Relevant Supreme Court Decision: 

12th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2025/3591 E., Decision No. 2025/5600 K.
“Case Law Text”

COURT: Bursa Regional Court of Appeals, 6th Civil Chamber

Date above And by the Regional Court of Justice with the number written given Upon the defendant's request for appellate review of the decision within the prescribed time limit, the file concerning this matter was sent to the chamber, and after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge ... for the case file.. And After reading and examining all the documents in the file, the matter was discussed and considered as required:
It was determined that the conditions of Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law were not met, and the parties made mutual claims AndThe appeals are rejected on procedural grounds as they are found to be unfounded according to the defenses presented, the documents they relied upon, and the reasons stated in the Regional Court of Appeal's decision to which the appeal is being made And to the lawIn accordance with Article 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, which should be applied by reference to Article 364/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 5311 as amended by Law No. 5311, the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal is hereby AFFIRMED, and the required appeal fee of 615.40 TL is waived previously If any fees have been collected, they shall be deducted, and the remaining fees shall be collected from the appellant. This decision was made by majority vote on September 25, 2025 given.

(M)

Dissenting Opinion;
Executive And Bankruptcy apartment, Executive And Bankruptcy He is primarily responsible for enforcing the law. In performing these duties, he may misapply the law, fail to use the discretionary power granted to him by the law appropriately to the situation, or fail to uphold a right or If a procedure unjustifiably delays the fulfillment of a right And to the law against It will have moved. Executive And bankruptcy against such irregular actions of the department, those who have been harmed by them executive to the court complaint They can apply through this method. Complaint; executive And bankruptcytheir apartments executive And bankruptcy to the law against cancellation of existing transactions or It is a unique legal method that has been accepted to ensure its correction (Prof. Dr. Baki Kuru) Executive AndBankruptcy (Law Handbook).
Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law states: "Except for matters which the law leaves to the court to resolve..." executive And bankruptcy about the transactions made by their departments to the law dissident from or because it was not appropriate for the incident executive to the court complaintIt is possible. Complaint The rule is structured as follows: "These actions must be taken within seven days of the date the actions are learned of." complaint Subject the process subject to a seven-day period from the date it was learned isThis rule (subject to time) your complaintThere are two important exceptions:
1- According to Article 16/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, "From the failure to fulfill a right..." or always (indefinitely) because of being left in limbo without reason complaint "It is possible." The purpose of this provision is to inform those concerned executive The purpose is to protect against an official's failure to fulfill a duty.
2- Public order against also indefinitely against the transactions that have taken place complaint This approach can be taken. The aforementioned principle has been adopted in this way in legal doctrine And This has also been accepted in the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Complaint, executive And bankruptcy It is a unique legal remedy (a legal fix) against the actions of the departments, and not a lawsuit. Therefore, the plaintiff in the complaint And The term "defendant" is not relevant here. There are two parties to a complaint: 1) The complainant, 2) The respondent (the opposing party) Executive one of the directors from the process Any party who reports having suffered harm may file a complaint regarding that transaction. In other words, executive one of the directors processto cancel based on one of the reasons mentioned above or anyone who has a legal interest (benefit) in having it corrected, complaint can be found. A person, a the process in its cancellation or In order to say that there is a protected interest in its correction, the process directly relating to its own legal situation being AndThe damage must be determined.
In the specific case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant based on a court judgment seeking compensation arising from expropriation without compensation executive The follow-up process has been initiated. The primary objective is to determine whether Article 4 of the Expropriation Law (Added: 16/11/2022-7421/5 md.) has been fulfilled regarding the debt based on the court order executive Directorate's evaluation And not within his/her authority, executive upon notification of the order by the debtor executiveindefinite period that can be asserted in court complaint This is a matter that could be discussed.
Therefore, executive the director, without applying to the debtor administration before the enforcement of the judgment to executionThe court cannot consider the issue of whether it can be placed there ex officio. Since there is no requirement for the creditor to first apply to the defendant administration for a claim based on a judgment, the creditor's claim based on the judgment.. executive regarding the follow-up executive The Regional Court of Appeals cannot refuse the request for the issuance of the order. Therefore, the Regional Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated above, your complaint decision to accept giving It is entirely correct. I unanimously agree with the affirmation of the Regional Court of Appeals decision under review on appeal. However, I cannot agree with the majority's statement that "it is understood that the conditions of Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law are not met...". 25.09.2025

The Inappropriateness of the Enforcement Authorities' Actions to the Incident:

Another ground for complaint regulated in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is that the action is "inappropriate to the circumstances." This concept refers to situations where, even if the action appears formally compliant with the letter (written text) of the law, it is incompatible with the specific characteristics of the case, the ordinary course of life, or the current state of the file. The enforcement officer must observe the principles of "appropriateness" and "proportionality" when exercising their authority.

What is inappropriateness to an event?

The fact that an enforcement proceeding strictly follows legal procedure does not always mean it is lawful. If the enforcement officer performs a mechanical procedure, ignoring the specific facts in the file, the circumstances of the parties, or the nature of the assets, this constitutes an "inappropriateness to the circumstances.".

• Violation of the Principle of Proportionality: Seizing or liquidating an amount far exceeding what is necessary to satisfy the creditor's debt. For example, completely shutting down a debtor's business worth 1,000,000 TL for a debt of 10,000 TL is incompatible with the "discretionary power" granted to the bailiff by law.

• Incompatibility Between the Nature of the Goods and the Process: The seized goods are subjected to processing that leads to their destruction, without regard for their storage conditions or economic value.

• Ignoring Circumstances for Postponing Enforcement: Even though it's clear that the collateral or payment commitment submitted by the debtor changes the course of the case, the officer continues with the seizure process, claiming it "hasn't been updated in the system."

Relevant Supreme Court Decision:

12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Turkey

Docket No: 2020/xxxx Decision No: 2021/xxxx

SUMMARY: The actions of the enforcement officer can be reviewed by the Enforcement Court through a complaint. While exercising their discretionary power, the enforcement officer must remain within the limits set by law, considering the specifics of the case, the current status of the file, and the principles of preventing abuse of rights. If the enforcement officer disregards a current situation in the enforcement file (for example, the debtor having deposited security with a request for suspension of enforcement or the annulment of the underlying decision) and proceeds with compulsory enforcement by citing a formal provision of the law, this constitutes "inappropriateness of the action to the circumstances." This is a legal irregularity requiring annulment through a complaint.

FROM THE DECISION TEXT (RELEVANT SECTION):

“Upon examining the specific case, it is understood that the debtor applied to the enforcement office requesting a stay of proceedings in accordance with decision number … and submitted the relevant documents. The enforcement officer's continuation of the proceedings with a formal approach, without evaluating this concrete fact within the file, is contrary to the spirit of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the principle of good faith, and the principle of the appropriateness of the procedure to the circumstances.”

It is not enough for the enforcement officer's action to merely comply with the law; it must also be consistent with the specific circumstances of the case and the stage reached. The enforcement officer cannot act by ignoring documents submitted by the debtor that could alter the course of the proceedings. Any practice to the contrary would result in an abuse of the power of compulsory enforcement. While the court should have accepted the complaint and annulled the enforcement officer's action, its decision to reject it in writing based on a mistaken assessment is incorrect.”

Analysis of the Decision

The key points emphasized by the Court of Cassation in this decision are as follows:

1. File Blindness: The enforcement officer cannot focus "only on the routine workings of the enforcement office." They must read all documents submitted to the file (debtor's petitions, court decisions) that could affect the proceedings as a whole.

2. Inappropriateness of the Situation: If the case file contains a reason to halt the proceedings (e.g., provision of security, a decision by a higher court), it is inappropriate for the officer to proceed with the seizure claiming "I don't have a stay order before me."

3. Reason for Annulment: The legality of a transaction is not measured solely by legislation; it is also measured by its conformity to "justice in the specific case."

Failure to Fulfill a Right in Enforcement Proceedings:

Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, which defines "failure to fulfill a right" as a ground for complaint, refers to the enforcement office refusal to perform its duties stemming from law or a court decision. The enforcement office is a public body obligated to ensure that parties can exercise their legal rights. While failure to fulfill this obligation produces similar results to "procrastination" in enforcement law, it essentially represents a more passive and dismissive attitude.

What does "Failure to Fulfill a Right" mean?

This complaint is based on the fact that the bailiff or director "failed to perform a legally mandated action" or "rejected a legitimate request on unjust grounds ." In this case, the enforcement office does not perform an action, does not fulfill a request, or prevents the exercise of a right.

Typical examples of this situation include:

• Unjustified Rejection of Request: When an enforcement officer rejects a creditor's legally required seizure request with justifications lacking legal basis, such as "I'm too busy," "I don't have enough staff," "I'm exercising my discretion," or "I will not seize assets from this debtor."

• Refusal to Provide Documents: This refers to the enforcement officer preventing the debtor or creditor from exercising their rights guaranteed by the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, such as requesting copies of documents or obtaining transcripts of minutes.

• Failure to Execute: The failure of the bailiff to make the necessary correspondence with law enforcement or assign officers to carry out a court order (e.g., eviction of real estate or delivery of property).

• Ignoring the Claim of Ownership: When a claim of ownership is made regarding a property, the enforcement officer fails to follow the procedures outlined in Article 96 and subsequent articles of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (sending the file to the court, granting deadlines to the relevant parties, etc.).

Condition for Complaint: Request and Impossibility

As a rule, for this complaint to arise, the parties have made a request to the enforcement office .

1. Request Requirement: The parties must request the enforcement office to fulfill their rights in writing or orally. If the officer remains inactive despite this request, or says "no, I won't," then the right to file a complaint is open.

2. Legal Obligation: The action that the enforcement office fails to perform must be one that it is "obligated to perform" under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law or related legislation. If the enforcement officer has discretionary power to perform that action and has exercised it, this is generally not grounds for complaint (except in cases of abuse of discretionary power).

Outcome of the Complaint: Jurisdiction of the Enforcement Court

If the Enforcement Court concludes that "the right has not been fulfilled," it will not only accept the complaint but also a "definitive order" to the enforcement office to carry out that action .

• Not Cancellation, but Order: When the reason for the complaint is "the illegality of the action," the court cancels the action; however, if the reason is "failure to fulfill the right," the court orders the action to be carried out.

• Obligation of the Enforcement Officer: The court decision is binding on the enforcement officer. It obliges the officer to carry out the procedure immediately (or within the time specified in the decision).

Relevant Supreme Court Decision: 

12th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Turkey

Case No: 2021/4892 Decision No: 2022/2541 Date: 10.03.2022

DECISION

the creditor's request for appellate review of the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, dated and numbered above,the file concerning this matter was sent to the chamber. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file and reviewing all the documents in the file, the matterwas discussed and considered as follows:

Following the rejection of a seizure request submitted to the enforcement office by the creditor's representative, on the grounds that "no action can be taken without the notification being returned to the debtor," the creditor appealed to the enforcement court, seeking the annulment of the rejection decision. The enforcement court rejected the appeal, ruling that the enforcement officer had discretionary power.

According to Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the enforcement court has jurisdiction to review, through complaints, the actions taken by the enforcement officer or the actions he/she should have taken but failed to take.

The enforcement officer is obligated to perform the duties assigned to him in accordance with the law. In the compulsory enforcement system, the enforcement officer's discretionary power is limited to the framework granted to him by law. The enforcement officer cannot reject the request by introducing a condition not provided for in the law (such as the return of the notification slip) in a way that would prevent the creditor from exercising his legal rights.

In this specific case, it is clear from the file that the payment order was served on the debtor and the enforcement proceedings were finalized on the date the creditor requested the attachment. The enforcement officer must examine the file before him to determine whether the request is in accordance with the law. If there is no impediment to attachment in the file, the enforcement officer's rejection of the request on an unlawful ground constitutes "failure to fulfill a right" within the scope of Article 16/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

Unjustified Delay in the Exercise of a Right by Enforcement Authorities:

Article 16/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) defines "unjustifiable delay in the execution of a right"as the situation where an enforcement office, without rejecting a procedure, delays, slows down, or renders inconclusive the procedure it is obligated to perform without any legal justification. This ground for complaint aims to protect the principles of "speed" and "efficiency" inherent in compulsory enforcement.

Definition and Scope of the Concept

The enforcement officer or bailiff must act within the time limits stipulated by law when fulfilling the requests of the creditor or debtor, or when carrying out procedures that must be performed ex officio. If the enforcement officer delays the process for unlawful reasons such as workload, staff shortages, or arbitrary actions, this gives rise to a complaint of "procrastination.".

The most common examples of procrastination are:

1. Delaying the Request for Actual Seizure: When a creditor requests a seizure, having paid all expenses, the enforcement office fails to appear on site for days or weeks, citing vague reasons such as "we are preparing" or "we are busy."

2. Correspondence Negligence: Failure to record or send seizure warrants that should be sent to banks, land registry offices, traffic offices, or other institutions, even when there is no technical obstacle.

3. Failure to Finalize the Sale Request: Despite the submission of a sale request and the advance payment of necessary expenses, the enforcement office fails to take any steps to conduct a valuation or publish a sale announcement.

4. Failure to Send Objection/Claim: Keeping objection petitions or claims of entitlement submitted to the enforcement file in the file without sending them to the relevant authority or court.

Nature of the Complaint

• No Time Limit: According to Article 16/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, there is no time limit for filing a complaint in cases of "failure to fulfill a right" or "unjustified delay in fulfilling a right." A complaint can be filed at any stage of the process.

• Burden of Proof: The complainant must prove that the action was not taken and that this failure was due to the fault of the official (e.g., that a reasonable amount of time has passed since the request was made).

The Supreme Court's Approach (Case Law)

The Supreme Court does not accept the workload of the enforcement officer as a defense for "unjustified delay." The enforcement office is obligated to plan its personnel according to its workload.

Turkish Supreme Court, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2022/6894, Decision No: 2023/1542 , Date: 09.03.2023

SUMMARY: The enforcement officer's failure to fulfill the creditor's request and their indefinite delay constitutes a complaint of "unjustified delay" under Article 16/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The workload of the enforcement office cannot be accepted as a legal excuse for failing to fulfill legal obligations.

DECISION TEXT:

"It is understood from the case file that the attachment request submitted to the enforcement office by the creditor's representative has not been fulfilled despite a reasonable period of time having passed, and the file has been left inactive. The 'workload' justification put forward by the enforcement office is not a legal excuse that would prevent the application of the mandatory provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The enforcement office is obliged to finalize the requests it receives within the legal deadlines.".

In this specific case, it was determined that the creditor's request for attachment, made within the legal time limit, was delayed for 20 days without any justifiable reason. This constitutes an unjustified delay in exercising a creditor's right, and while the complaint should have been accepted and the process ordered to be carried out immediately, the court's decision to reject the complaint is contrary to the law.”

CONCLUSION:

The procedures of the enforcement office are not merely an administrative activity, but a public service subject to judicial review. The right to appeal is the most effective defense mechanism that parties can resort to against "illegality, arbitrariness, and delays" in the enforcement process. Any situation where the enforcement officer fails to manage the case file comprehensively, taking into account legal provisions and up-to-date case data, can be rectified through appeals within the framework of the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. This oversight prevents unnecessary pressure on the debtor during compulsory enforcement and ensures that the creditor receives their due rights as quickly as possible.