The action for annulment of the objection is an action for performance to which a creditor resorts, asserting that the objection raised against enforcement proceedings without a judgment is unfounded, in order to set the proceedings in motion once more and to collect the claim. The basis of this route is Art. 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act No. 2004; while clearing the way for proceedings that have been halted by the objection, it also enables the court to determine whether the claim genuinely exists and what its amount is.
With a view to protecting the debtor, the legislature has afforded the possibility of objecting to the debt and thereby halting the proceedings within seven days of the payment order reaching the debtor. Where the objection is used, a single option remains open to the creditor: to resort to one of the legal routes indicated in the statute in order that the proceedings may be continued.
In this briefing note we address the circumstances in which the action arises, the points at which it differs from the route of removal of the objection, the time limit to which it is subject, the allocation of the burden of proof, the conduct of the proceedings and the effect of the judgment given on the enforcement file, in the light of the statutory provisions and settled judicial practice.
Enforcement Without a Judgment and the Debtor’s Objection
The Nature of Proceedings Without a Judgment
Enforcement without a judgment is a route of proceedings that may be pursued in respect of monetary claims and claims for security without reliance on any court decision. Regulated in Article 42 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act No. 2004, this route begins to operate once the creditor files the request for proceedings and pays the fees and costs.
In these proceedings the enforcement office issues a payment order and serves it on the debtor without requiring any document or evidence from the creditor. The basis consists of the creditor’s declaration alone. That facility afforded to the system is balanced by the mechanisms of objection recognised in the debtor’s favour.
The Right to Object and Its Consequences
Within 7 days of the payment order reaching them, the debtor may object to the debt, the interest, the ancillary items or the jurisdiction under Art. 62 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act No. 2004. The objection may be submitted in writing to the enforcement office that issued the payment order, or may be made by being entered in the record. If the proceedings are founded on an instrument, an objection to the signature is also possible.
An objection raised within the time limit halts the proceedings and prevents them from advancing. In order to continue the process, therefore, the creditor must bring an action for annulment of the objection or, where the conditions are met, pursue the route of removal of the objection.
Effect on the Enforcement File
With the objection the proceedings are halted and do not become final. If the creditor wishes to continue with collection, they face one of two options: to bring an action for annulment of the objection and prove the claim, or to request the removal of the objection and thereby establish that the objection is without effect.
Definition and Legal Character of the Action
The action for annulment of the objection is an action for a debt directed at securing, by a court decision, the resumption of enforcement proceedings without a judgment that have been suspended by reason of an objection raised within the time limit.
The basis of the action is Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act No. 2004; its function is to render the objection ineffective and thereby reopen the creditor’s route of enforcement.
Since the proceedings are conducted under the general provisions, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 apply. Although in form the action appears to be directed at setting aside an act of enforcement law, that is, the objection, in essence it is an action for a debt founded on substantive law.
The direct consequence of that characterisation is as follows: the creditor must prove both that the objection is unjustified and that the claim forming the subject of the proceedings genuinely exists. Witness evidence, court-appointed experts, the oath and other types of evidence may be used as means of proof just as much as written documents.
Conditions for Bringing the Action
The action may be brought where certain substantive and procedural conditions are met together. Since its purpose is to secure the continuation of proceedings halted by reason of an objection made within the time limit, both the conditions relating to the merits and the procedural requirements and time limits must be scrutinised with care.
Substantive Conditions
- The existence of enforcement proceedings without a judgment duly commenced. Collection of the claim must have been sought by way of enforcement without a judgment and the proceedings must have been opened in accordance with the proper procedure.
- The existence of a valid objection made within the time limit. It is required that the debtor, within 7 days of the payment order being served on them, should have gone to the enforcement office and raised a valid objection as to the debt, the interest or the jurisdiction. Otherwise the proceedings will become final and no action for annulment will be needed.
- The claimant must have a legal interest. The creditor must have a current and legitimate interest that they seek to protect by way of the action. If the proceedings have become final or the claim has been collected by another route, the action brought will be dismissed for want of legal interest.
Procedural Conditions and the Time Limit
- The one-year period for bringing the action (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act, Art. 67). The creditor must bring the action within one year at the latest, running from the date on which the objection was served on them; once that period has expired, the action is no longer available.
- Completion of mandatory mediation. If the claim is a monetary claim arising from a commercial, employment, lease or consumer relationship, the mediation process must have been concluded before the action is brought. If that step is omitted, the action is dismissed on procedural grounds for want of a procedural requirement.
- The absence of any bar of lis pendens or res judicata. There must be no other action pending between the same parties in respect of the same claim (lis pendens) and no decision previously given on the same matter that has become final (res judicata).
Evidence and the Allocation of the Burden of Proof
Since the action is an action for a debt subject to the general provisions, the adducing of evidence and the apportionment of the burden of proof are determined within the framework of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100.
The Burden of Proof
As a rule the burden of proof lies with the creditor, who is in the position of claimant. The creditor is expected to establish, by legally valid evidence, that the debtor’s objection is not well founded and that the claim forming the subject of the proceedings exists.
The debtor, for their part, may adduce evidence in rebuttal in order to strengthen their defence. The debtor’s obligation of proof arises, however, only in respect of defences directed at refuting the creditor’s assertions, for instance where performance, set-off or the statute of limitations is pleaded.
Types of Evidence Available
Any type of evidence valid in law may be used in the proceedings. The types of evidence most frequently relied upon in practice are the following:
- Written documents: contracts, instruments, invoices, delivery notes, collection receipts and similar papers.
- Examination by a court-appointed expert: particularly in commercial claims, for the purposes of auditing accounts, establishing the balance of a current account and analysing contractual relationships.
- Witness testimony: in cases where there is no obligation to prove by written evidence.
- Admission and commencement of proof: the declarations of the parties and matters expressly accepted by the opposing side.
- On-site examination and expert opinion: where the nature of the claim so requires.
- The oath: as a last resort and for the purpose of establishing the truth of a party’s declaration.
Consequences in Damages
The proceedings do not end merely with a conclusion as to whether the enforcement will continue; it is also possible for damages to be awarded, following an assessment of whether the parties’ conduct in the enforcement process is compatible with the rule of good faith. That sanction may be directed at the debtor as well as at the creditor.
The purpose of the provision is to hold responsible the party who needlessly puts the other side to trouble by an unfounded objection or by an untrue assertion of a claim, and to deter such conduct.
Compensation for Wrongful Denial of the Debt (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act, Art. 67)
A creditor who establishes before the court that the debtor, although in fact aware of being indebted, objected without justification solely in order to halt the proceedings, may claim compensation for wrongful denial of the debt. This head is directed at making good the loss caused to the creditor by the improper objection.
For it to be awarded, three conditions must be met together:
- The objection must be found by the court to be unjustified,
- The creditor must have succeeded in the action,
- The compensation must have been expressly claimed by the creditor.
Where the conditions are satisfied, the court awards compensation for wrongful denial of the debt at a rate of at least 20% of the claim forming the subject of the proceedings.
Compensation for Bad Faith (Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act, Art. 67)
Where the request for annulment of the objection made by a creditor who has commenced enforcement proceedings without a judgment in bad faith, in respect of a claim that does not in fact exist or has no foundation, is dismissed as unjustified and made in bad faith, compensation for bad faith in favour of the debtor comes into play.
The conditions required are the following:
- The action brought by the creditor must have been dismissed,
- It must be established by the court that the creditor acted in bad faith both at the enforcement stage and in the proceedings; asserting a manifestly baseless claim, or directing proceedings at a person the creditor knows is not a debtor, are examples of this,
- The debtor must have raised the claim for compensation.
The existence of bad faith is assessed within the particular circumstances of each dispute, and whether or not compensation is awarded lies within the court’s discretion. Where the conditions are made out, the court may order the creditor to pay compensation in favour of the debtor; this head may rise to as much as twenty per cent of the claim forming the subject of the proceedings.
Enforcement of the Judgment
At the close of the proceedings the court may allow the action, allow it in part, or dismiss it. The content of the judgment produces different consequences both for the fate of the enforcement and for the rights of the parties.
Depending on the value of the action, the judgment may be final in character or may be given with the route of appeal open. That said, a judgment annulling an objection is among the court decisions that may be enforced without having become final; it need not have become final in order to be put into enforcement.
Note: for details on the exceptions to this rule, our note entitled Court Decisions That Cannot Be Enforced Before Becoming Final may be consulted.
Consequences for the Creditor
- If the action is allowed, the creditor may request attachment directly, without any need for fresh service.
- By contrast, for the litigation costs, the attorney’s fee and the compensation for wrongful denial of the debt awarded by the court, an enforcement order must additionally be served on the debtor through the enforcement file to which the objection relates. Collection of these heads depends on the expiry of the 7-day payment period running from service of the enforcement order.
- If the action has resulted in partial allowance and partial dismissal, the proceedings continue only in respect of the amount allowed; the creditor may commence attachment and sale operations for that part.
Note: detailed information on the attachment stage is set out in our note entitled What Is Attachment?
Consequences for the Debtor
- If the action is dismissed, the objection retains its validity and the proceedings without a judgment remain halted.
- Once the judgment becomes final, the enforcement file is closed.
- The debtor, in the position of respondent, may collect the litigation costs, the attorney’s fee and, where applicable, the compensation for bad faith awarded in their favour upon the dismissal or partial allowance of the action, by way of separate enforcement proceedings based on a judgment commenced against the creditor.
Mediation as a Procedural Requirement
Since annulment of an objection is an action for a debt, mandatory mediation as a procedural requirement comes into play in certain types of dispute. If the claim arises from a commercial relationship, an employee-employer relationship, a lease relationship or a consumer transaction, a mediator must have been applied to before the action is brought.
In this context mediation is a procedural requirement in the following fields:
- For commercial claims, Art. 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102,
- For employment claims, Art. 3 of the Labour Courts Act No. 7036,
- For consumer claims, Art. 73/A of the Consumer Protection Act No. 6502,
- For disputes arising from a lease relationship, Art. 18/B of Act No. 6325.
Actions brought before the process is completed are dismissed on procedural grounds for want of a procedural requirement. Whether or not the mediation obligation exists must therefore be determined at the outset according to the legal nature of the claim.
Court with Jurisdiction
Which court will hear the matter varies according to the source and the legal nature of the claim forming the subject of the proceedings. Since the action is brought upon an objection directed at proceedings without a judgment, the forum that will conduct the trial may be a specialised court, according to the type of claim, or may be a court of general jurisdiction.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is a matter of public policy and is considered by the court of its own motion. The possibilities most frequently encountered in practice may be summarised as follows:
- In proceedings founded on a commercial claim → the Commercial Court of First Instance
- In proceedings relating to claims arising from a lease agreement or from the Condominium Ownership Act No. 634 → the Civil Court of Peace
- In proceedings founded on an employee-employer relationship → the Labour Court
- In respect of claims not falling within the sphere of a specialised court → the Civil Court of First Instance
- In proceedings arising from a consumer transaction → the Consumer Court
- In exceptional cases such as proceedings founded on an alimony debt → the Family Court
may have jurisdiction.
Territorial Jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction is as a rule not regarded as a matter of public policy. Neither the court nor the enforcement office may therefore examine jurisdiction of its own motion; the objection must be raised by the parties. That said, in certain special fields such as employment law, territorial jurisdiction is accepted as being a matter of public policy and is accordingly reviewed by the court of its own motion.
Under the general rule, the court with territorial jurisdiction is the court of the debtor’s place of residence (Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Art. 6 and Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act No. 2004, Art. 50).
In practice the debate over jurisdiction most often turns on the following question:
May a debtor who has not raised an objection as to jurisdiction at the enforcement stage object to the jurisdiction of the court in the action brought?
Although the statute contains no provision directly regulating this matter, the settled practice of the Court of Cassation is that the debtor may object to the jurisdiction of the court in the action even if they have not raised an objection as to jurisdiction in the enforcement proceedings. The question of jurisdiction may accordingly be reopened for debate at the trial stage.
Remedies Against the Judgment
The judgment established at the close of the proceedings is open to the legal remedies, just as in other civil actions. Whether the judgment may be taken to appeal or to appeal on points of law is determined according to the value of the action and the character of the judgment.
Appeal and Appeal on Points of Law
- Appeal: The parties may apply to the Regional Court of Appeal where the threshold for the value of the action, set at TRY 50,000 for 2025, is exceeded; that threshold must be updated in line with current decisions of the Court of Cassation and legislative provisions. The period for the application is 2 weeks following service of the judgment.
Note: for details on the subject, our note entitled The Remedy of Appeal in Civil Actions may be consulted.
- Appeal on points of law: This route is available against a decision of the regional court of appeal only in files exceeding the threshold for appeal on points of law. That threshold stands at approximately TRY 682,000 for 2025 and is updated annually by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance. Here too the period is 2 weeks following service of the decision on appeal.
Note: for details on the subject, our note entitled The Remedy of Appeal on Points of Law in Civil Actions may be consulted.
Practical Implications of the Finality Threshold
A judgment that has become final forms the basis for enforcement proceedings on a judgment or for the continuation of the existing enforcement.
If the judgment is final in character, it becomes binding on the parties and no fresh action may be brought on the same matter.
Res judicata establishes not only the existence of the debt but also the unjustified nature of the objection and the propriety of the enforcement operations carried out. It is therefore not possible to bring a second action for annulment of the objection in respect of the same claim.
Independent Legal Assessment
Although the action for annulment of the objection is a powerful instrument that clears the way for enforcement from the creditor’s point of view, it calls for a serious undertaking; for although the action appears to be a claim relating to enforcement law, the court examines the existence of the claim on the merits. The file must therefore be constructed from the outset as though it were an action for a debt. Otherwise the creditor may not only lose the action but may also face compensation for bad faith.
The point most often lost in practice, however, is not the merits of the action but the thresholds standing before it. The one-year period and mandatory mediation as a procedural requirement are each capable in themselves of determining the outcome. In a specific file we recommend that priority be given to the following headings:
- Documenting the date on which the objection was served on the creditor and entering the one-year period in the calendar
- Determining at the outset, according to the source of the claim, whether it falls within the scope of mandatory mediation
- Expressly claiming compensation for wrongful denial of the debt in the statement of claim
- Compiling in full, before the proceedings are commenced, the documents capable of proving the claim
- Correctly identifying the court with subject-matter jurisdiction according to the nature of the claim, bearing in mind that such jurisdiction is considered by the court of its own motion
- Anticipating that an objection as to territorial jurisdiction may be raised again at the trial stage
Independent Legal provides advisory services and conducts litigation at every stage in the collection of commercial and other monetary claims, from the enforcement stage through the conduct of the action for annulment of the objection to the enforcement of the judgment.