Precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation for millions of retirees

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation pointed out that in enforcement law, a lien procedure can only be carried out after the proceedings have become final. The Assembly reached a consensus that a debtor's consent to a lien given in the same petition in which they accept the debt is considered to have been made before the proceedings became final and is therefore invalid.

HOW DID THE CASE PROCESS BEGIN?

According to information obtained by an İHA reporter from the Case Law Bulletin Application, the debtor's attorney stated that enforcement proceedings had been initiated against their client by the creditor and that a payment order had been issued for service. Fearing a lien, the debtor went to a PTT branch to receive the notification in person and, in a petition submitted to the enforcement office on the same day, waived legal deadlines and consented to the garnishment of their entire pension. However, the debtor's attorney, arguing that this consent was not legally valid, requested the removal of the lien. The defendant creditor party requested the dismissal of the complaint.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REMOVED THE LIEN

The court of first instance emphasized that in this specific case, the enforcement proceedings had not yet become final on the date the consent was given. For this reason, the court accepted the complaint on the grounds that consenting to a deduction from a pension before the proceedings became final would not be valid, and decided to remove the lien on the pension.

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM THE APPELLATE COURT

Following the decision, the defendant creditor's attorney appealed. The Regional Court of Justice stated that the debtor had explicitly consented to the garnishment of their entire salary received from the Social Security Institution and that waiving legal deadlines after the service of the payment order would have legal consequences. Based on these grounds, the appeal was accepted, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned, and the dismissal of the complaint was ordered. Thereupon, the debtor's attorney filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation.

12TH CIVIL CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED THE DECISION

Reviewing the file, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the Regional Court of Justice on the grounds that the acceptance of the debt and the consent to the lien were made in the same petition, which coincided with the finalization of the proceedings, and therefore could not be considered as having been given after the proceedings became final.

REGIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE RESISTED

The Regional Court of Justice reiterated its previous reasoning, arguing that the debtor's consent to the lien and the finalization of the proceedings did not occur at the same time, and decided to resist the overturning decision. Consequently, the file was moved to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation for appellate review.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CIVIL CHAMBERS OF THE COURT OF CASSATION HAD THE FINAL SAY

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, which convened with 25 members, delivered its final ruling on the dispute. Stating that the debtor's acceptance of the debt and consent to the lien in the same petition occurred on the same date as the finalization of the proceedings, the Assembly assessed that, "Since the debtor's acceptance of the debt and consent to the lien in the same petition occurred on the same date as the finalization of the proceedings, it is invalid." On these grounds, it was ruled that the lien placed on the pension was not legally valid.