Competent Court In Valuation Objection Cases
Republic of Turkey Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2017/9857 Decision No: 2017/9650 Decision Date: 20.11.2017
OBJECTION TO VALUATION – COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY BY THE EXECUTION OFFICE WHERE IT IS LOCATED
BY THE EXECUTION OFFICE WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED
COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE SEIZURE BY THE EXECUTION OFFICE CONDUCTING THE SEIZURE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE EXECUTION COURT TO WHICH THE EXECUTION OFFICE CONDUCTING THE SEIZURE IS AFFILIATED MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
SUMMARY: If the goods to be seized are located elsewhere, complaints regarding the seizure of goods by the enforcement directorate where the goods are located by order shall be examined by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that carried out the seizure is affiliated. Therefore, since the valuation is made by instruction, objections regarding the valuation must be determined by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that carried out the seizure is affiliated.
(2004 Code, Art. 4, 79, 128/A)
(2004 S. K. m. 4, 79, 128/A)
In the case between the parties … Enforcement Law and … 11. Enforcement Law Courts separately ruled that they lacked jurisdiction
, and the final decision in the case was rendered after the Regional Courts of Appeal commenced operations, but since courts within the jurisdictions of two different Regional Courts of Appeal
mutually rendered decisions of lack of jurisdiction, and pursuant to Article 36/3 of Law No. 5235, the duty of the legal chambers of the Regional Courts of Justice is to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction and duties between the first-instance civil courts within their jurisdiction,
all documents in the file sent for the determination of the place of jurisdiction were examined, and the necessary considerations were made:
The case concerns an objection to the valuation.
… The Enforcement Court; … In its instruction letter dated 12/07/2016 to the … Enforcement Office, the … Enforcement Office requested that the valuation be carried out for the purpose of selling the vehicle kept exclusively in the … District.
The … Enforcement Office carried out the procedure in accordance with the instruction and that the request was not of a general nature seeking the seizure of the debtor’s movable and immovable property and the rights and receivables of third parties, but was written in the form of a specific seizure requesting the seizure of a specific item,
and therefore ruled that it lacked jurisdiction.
… The 11th Enforcement Court of Justice, however, ruled that, pursuant to Article 128/a-1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code, the complaint regarding the valuation and that the valuation was made based on file no. 2016/89 of the Enforcement Office,
it was ruled that the competent court was the enforcement court to which the Enforcement Directorate was affiliated,
and a decision of lack of jurisdiction was issued.
Article 4/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 states that “… complaints and objections against the proceedings of the enforcement and bankruptcy offices shall be examined by the enforcement court judge or the judge assigned to this task by law…”
Article 79 of the same Law states that “The enforcement office shall carry out the seizure within three days of the request.
If the property to be seized is located elsewhere, the seizure shall be carried out immediately by the enforcement office where the property is located.
If the property to be seized is located elsewhere, the enforcement office shall immediately notify the enforcement office where the property is located to carry out the seizure.
In this case, complaints regarding the seizure shall be resolved by the enforcement court to which the requested enforcement office is subject…”
As understood from the aforementioned legal regulations, whichever enforcement office conducts the enforcement proceedings,
objections and complaints related to these proceedings shall be resolved by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office conducting the proceedings is affiliated. However, if the property to be seized is located elsewhere, complaints regarding the seizure carried out by the enforcement office where the property is located, upon instruction, shall be examined by the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that carried out the seizure is affiliated.
In the present case, since the valuation was made by the Enforcement Directorate by way of an instruction, the authority to examine objections related to the valuation belongs to the 11th Enforcement Court.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained above; pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100; it was unanimously decided on 20/11/2017 that the 11th Enforcement Court
be DETERMINED AS THE JURISDICTION.