Court Of Cassation Decision On Auction Specifications
T.C Supreme Court 12th Civil Chamber Main: 2010/ 33354 Decision: 2011 / 15606 Date of Decision: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT : Küçükçekmece 1st Execution Law Court
HISTORY : 24/06/2010
NUMBER : 2009/580-2010/737
Upon the request of the debtor to examine the above-dated and numbered court decision on appeal within the due date, the file related to this matter has been sent to the department from its neighborhood, and it has been read and discussed and considered accordingly:
Pursuant to Article 124/3 of the EBL, it is written in the specifications that those who will participate in the auction must deposit a deposit equal to twenty percent of the estimated value of the immovable or a letter of guarantee from a national bank. According to Article 124/4 of the same law, if the receivable of the creditor who has a right on the immovable property put up for sale is in the proportion written in the paragraph above, no additional bid or collateral is required in case of participation in the auction.
In the concrete case, the value of the immovable subject to sale was determined as 180.000 YTL according to the expert report dated 15.08.2008, and in the real estate auction announcement and specifications, it was determined that the security to be taken for participation in the auction was 36.000 YTL. In this case, it is obligatory to deposit the collateral determined in order to participate in the auction. If the amount of the file creditor’s receivable is sufficient to cover the collateral, no additional collateral is required. If the amount of the receivable is insufficient to cover the collateral, then the missing part shall be completed and the tender shall be accepted.
In that case, the court should examine the complaint in this respect and make a decision according to the result to be formed after determining whether the receivable of the file creditor on the date of the tender meets the amount of collateral, but it was not deemed correct to reach a conclusion in writing with incomplete examination.
CONCLUSION :With the acceptance of the debtor’s appeal objections, it was unanimously decided on 07/07/2011 to (DISMISSAL) the court decision in accordance with Articles 366 of the BEC and 428 of the HUMK for the reasons written above.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.