The Enforcement Directorate May Request The Debtor’s Account Transactions From The Bank Supreme Court Decision
Summary:
Following the enforcement proceedings initiated by the creditor against the debtor through attachment specific to bills of exchange, the complainant third party bank representative requested the debtor’s account movements from the client bank in the enforcement proceedings against the debtor. The court accepted the complaint, ruling that the requests sent by the enforcement office to obtain the account movements belonging to the debtor from the client bank constituted customer confidentiality under Article 73 of the Banking Law and Article 367 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.
Pursuant to Article 367 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, all real and legal persons are obliged to immediately provide all information requested by the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices regarding the debtor’s assets and, upon request, to deliver the assets to these offices.
Pursuant to Article 73 of the Banking Law, “The chairman and members of the Board and the staff of the Institution, as well as the chairman and members of the Fund Board and the staff of the Fund, may not disclose the secrets of banks and their affiliated companies, subsidiaries, jointly controlled companies, and customers that they learn in the course of their duties to anyone other than those authorized by this Law and special laws, nor may they use such secrets for their own or others’ benefit. Persons and organizations providing external support services to the Institution and their employees are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues even after leaving office.”
These restrictions in the Law prevent bank employees and other officials from voluntarily and arbitrarily disclosing secrets they have learned in their capacity as such, relating to banks and their customers. Since the aforementioned article does not contain a restriction affecting compulsory enforcement, it does not cover compulsory enforcement.
T.C.
Supreme Court
12th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2015/33017
Decision No: 2016/10595
Date: 11.4.2016
COURT: Hanak Enforcement Court
PLAINTIFF: Third Party: Yapı ve Kredi Bank A.Ş.
Upon the creditor’s request for an appeal review of the court decision dated and numbered above within the specified time limit, the relevant file was sent from the local court to the chamber. After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge for the case file and reading and examining all the documents in the file, the matter was discussed and considered:
Upon the creditor initiating enforcement proceedings against the debtor through attachment specific to bills of exchange, the complainant third party, the bank’s representative, requested the client bank to disclose the debtor’s account movements. belonging to the debtor from the client bank constitutes customer confidentiality under Article 73 of the Banking Law and Article 367 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and requested the cancellation of the letters sent by the enforcement office. It is understood that the court decided to accept the complaint.
Pursuant to Article 367 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, all real and legal persons are obliged to immediately provide all information requested by the Enforcement or Bankruptcy offices regarding the debtor’s assets and, upon request, to deliver the assets to these offices.
Pursuant to Article 73 of the Banking Law, “The chairman and members of the Board and the staff of the Institution, as well as the chairman and members of the Fund Board and the staff of the Fund, may not disclose the secrets of banks and their affiliated companies, subsidiaries, jointly controlled companies, and customers that they learn in the course of their duties to anyone other than those authorized by this Law and special laws, nor may they use such secrets for their own or others’ benefit. Persons and organizations providing external support services to the Institution and their employees are also subject to this provision. This obligation continues even after leaving office.”
These restrictions in the Law prevent bank employees and other officials from voluntarily and arbitrarily disclosing secrets they have learned in their capacity as such, relating to banks and their customers. Since the aforementioned article does not contain a restriction affecting compulsory enforcement, it does not cover compulsory enforcement.
Therefore, while the court should have decided to reject the complainant bank’s request, it was inappropriate to establish a ruling in favor of acceptance with a written justification.
CONCLUSION: The creditor’s appeal is accepted, and the court’s decision is REVERSED in accordance with Articles 366 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons stated above. the advance fee shall be refunded upon request, and the right to appeal the decision within 10 days from the date of notification of the judgment is reserved. The decision was made unanimously on April 11, 2016.