The enforcement of a liquidation decision in a simple partnership depends on the judgment stating clearly who must pay what amount to whom, or which item must be delivered. It cannot be said that every liquidation decision must necessarily become final; the provisions on payment, delivery, registration and other matters are examined separately. An appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) or the Court of Cassation (temyiz) does not, as a rule, stop enforcement automatically. Whether finality is required and whether enforcement is postponed (icranın geri bırakılması) are assessed according to the nature of the decision and the statutory conditions.
Winning the liquidation case and actually collecting the money are not the same stage. The calculation in the enforcement file must conform to the judgment rendered by the court. A claim that appears in the report but was not awarded in the judgment cannot be added to the decision by the enforcement office through a retrial. Preparation for collection therefore begins with a careful comparison of the reasoned judgment and the operative part of the judgment.
How Can You Tell Whether a Liquidation Decision Is Suitable for Enforcement?
Under Article 297 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the operative part of the judgment must show the parties’ rights and obligations clearly, without doubt and in an enforceable manner. A general statement that “the liquidation be carried out” or that “the accounts be settled in line with the report” is not, in every case, sufficient for enforcement based on a judgment (ilamlı icra) of a specific monetary claim. The performance to be enforced must appear in the judgment.
For example, a finding only that the partnership has ended is different from a decision that a specific amount be taken from one partner and given to another. That a balance of 500,000 Turkish lira (TL) was calculated in the report does not by itself allow that amount to be made the subject of enforcement if no payment obligation was established in the operative part of the judgment. The enforcement office is not a liquidation court that recalculates the partners’ accounts.
In its decision dated October 2, 2025, E. 2025/795, K. 2025/4520, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) emphasized that the liquidation must be completed and the parties’ rights and obligations determined in the judgment according to the final balance sheet. Being content with only dissolution and the appointment of a liquidator was treated as a ground for reversal. The decision shows the importance of a clear final calculation, which is a precondition of the enforcement stage.
Which Areas of the Operative Part of the Judgment Are Checked before Enforcement?
| Area to check | Point to examine | Risk of error |
|---|---|---|
| Creditor and debtor | In favor of and against which natural person or legal entity was the judgment rendered? | Using the partnership’s name as if it were an independent legal entity |
| Principal claim | What are the amount, the currency and the accepted claim? | Taking the amount in the report instead of the amount in the judgment |
| Form of liability | How is liability written: in shares, separate or joint and several? | Treating one partner as liable for the entire debt |
| Interest | What are the starting date, the type of interest and, if any, the rate? | Interest different from what was requested or awarded |
| Delivery or registration | Are the goods, right and transaction sufficiently specified? | Confusing a judgment on money with a judgment on a right in rem |
| Expenses and attorney’s fee award (vekâlet ücreti) | Who is the creditor of each item and what is its amount? | Adding the same expense to the enforcement twice |
Because a simple partnership has no legal personality, the parties to the judgment must be shown correctly in the enforcement. The partners’ liability toward third parties and the form of liability for the amounts they will pay one another as a result of the liquidation are not the same. If liability in shares was established in the judgment, it cannot be converted into a joint and several debt in the enforcement request.
Is Finality of the Decision Required in Every Case?
Judgments on Monetary Claims
Under HMK Articles 350 and 367, recourse to a legal remedy does not, as a rule, stop the enforcement of the decision. The mere fact that the title of the decision refers to the dissolution or liquidation of a simple partnership does not mean that a payment judgment cannot be enforced before it becomes final. The nature of the judgment to be enforced and, if any, the special finality rule must be identified.
This assessment cannot be made merely by reading the name of the case. The connection of the payment judgment with another constitutive judgment or a judgment on a right in rem, the separability of the operative paragraphs, and the special regulation applicable to the dispute are examined together. Just as the absence of a finality endorsement in the file is not an obstacle for every enforcement, the presence of an endorsement does not make an enforcement directed at the wrong person correct.
Judgments on Immovable Property and Rights in Rem
For decisions concerning rights in rem over immovable property, the condition of finality is important. Changing the title deed of an immovable and collecting a monetary claim arising from the sale of an immovable are not of the same nature. If the judgment contains both registration and payment, the connection and enforceability of each part are assessed separately.
Judgments concerning delivery, eviction, registration or the performance of an act are also handled under their own enforcement procedures. The approach “it is a liquidation decision, so all of it is a monetary claim” can be as misleading as the approach “it is a liquidation, so all of it must become final.” The type of enforcement proceeding must be chosen to match the performance awarded.
Can Company Decisions Be Applied Directly to a Simple Partnership?
The decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) dated March 10, 2026, E. 2026/752, K. 2026/1668, concerns the removal of a shareholder from a joint-stock company through payment of the share value. After explaining the relevant change in case law, the Chamber accepted that finality was not an obstacle with respect to the specific payment judgment. This decision does not concern the liquidation of a simple partnership.
The significance of the decision here is that older decisions on commercial companies should not be transferred unchanged to all partnership disputes. In a simple partnership file, the nature of its own judgment, the statutory exceptions and current practice must still be examined. A decision on another type of company does not replace that examination.
What Steps Start Enforcement Proceedings Based on a Judgment?
First, the copy of the reasoned judgment to be used as the basis for enforcement, any decisions rendered on legal remedies and, for the part that requires finality, the finality record are obtained. The enforcement request is prepared by showing the principal claim and each ancillary item separately. Earlier payments and offsets are reviewed; putting the same debt into enforcement again is prevented.
For judgments concerning the payment of money or the furnishing of security, an enforcement order (icra emri) is issued under Article 32 of Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İİK). The seven-day payment period given to the debtor is not an appeal or cassation appeal period. The routes available to the debtor in enforcement based on a judgment are also not the same as an objection to the payment order in general attachment proceedings. Objections and complaints concerning the performance of the judgment are examined under their own grounds, time limits and document requirements.
If no payment is made and there is no decision requiring enforcement to stop, steps such as attachment, investigation of claims held by third parties and sale may come onto the agenda. Which assets can be pursued is limited by the assets of the person who is the debtor under the judgment and by the rules on attachability. The property of another partner who is not a debtor under the decision cannot be pursued merely by citing the partnership relationship.
If, during the enforcement, payment was made directly to the creditor, it must be documented for which file and debt item the payment was made, and it must be ensured that it is recorded in the enforcement account. The remaining balance is checked separately with respect to the collection fee, expenses, interest and principal. A single bank receipt (dekont) with the note “paid” may not show that the entire liquidation debt has been settled in a relationship in which there are different debts. The steps needed to close the file and, if any, to lift attachments are followed together with whether any debt actually remains.
For judgments on delivery, the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law appropriate to the type of goods apply. Delivery of a piece of equipment and eviction from an immovable are not the same procedure. Identifying the items to be delivered by make, serial number or other distinguishing information reduces uncertainty in practice.
What Is the Difference between an Appeal and Postponement of Enforcement?
An appeal is a review of the first-instance decision through a legal remedy. Postponement of enforcement, on the other hand, is a separate protection under which the enforcement of the decision is stopped on certain conditions. The filing of an appeal petition does not mean that the enforcement file will stop automatically. The same distinction applies to a cassation appeal.
Within the scope of Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, statutory conditions are assessed, such as the debtor who has had recourse to a legal remedy depositing the value of the money or goods awarded, providing acceptable security, or having sufficient attached property. A period is requested from the enforcement office so that a decision on postponement of enforcement can be obtained; the process of obtaining a decision from the competent enforcement court is followed. The scope and effects of the period certificate and of the postponement decision must not be confused.
The amount, scope and acceptance of the security are determined according to the specific file. The submission of a bank letter of guarantee does not mean that acceptable security is automatically deemed to have been provided in every case. Timely notification of the decision to the enforcement file and tracking of the period are important. The effect on the existing stay and security of a decision given later on the application for a legal remedy is also monitored separately.
How Is Interest Applied to a Liquidation Claim?
The Starting Date and Type of Interest Are Read from the Judgment
In the enforcement calculation, the interest provision of the decision is examined first. When the liquidation claim fell due, on what date default occurred and what interest was requested in the case are matters for the trial stage. The enforcement office cannot make a new assessment of default by changing the starting date expressly determined in the judgment.
Where no interest is stated in the judgment or it is left unclear, requests for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest must be separated from each other. It cannot be accepted that pre-action interest that was not awarded may be freely added in the enforcement file. The principles on applying post-judgment interest to a claim arising from the judgment, in turn, are assessed together with the content of the decision and its particular circumstances. If there is an express rejection or limitation of interest, it is not possible to disregard it.
Statutory interest, commercial default interest and contractual interest are not the same concept. The commercial nature of the dispute and which interest the judgment awarded are important. The fact that the business subject to liquidation carries on commercial activity does not allow the highest interest rate to be written into the enforcement request automatically.
Because of the 2026 Amendment, Memorizing a Fixed Rate Should Be Avoided
Article 1 of Law No. 3095 was amended by Article 10 of Law No. 7589. For statutory interest whose rate is not set by contract, the new regulation takes as its basis eighty percent of the rediscount rate that the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) applied to short-term credit transactions on December 31 of the previous year. If the rediscount rate on June 30 differs by at least five percentage points from the rate of the previous December 31, eighty percent of the June 30 rate applies in the second half of the year.
It is therefore not correct to apply a single rate used for past years to the entire enforcement period. The interest calculation must be divided into periods on the basis of the starting date in the judgment, the regulation in force in the relevant period, the rate changes to be applied and interim payments. The new rate system does not mean that all interest relating to past periods will be calculated retroactively at the new rate.
In the technical calculation schedule, at least the start and end dates, the number of days, the principal claim, the annual rate, the interest for the period and the offsetting of payments should be shown separately. In this way the creditor and the debtor can verify between which dates and at what rate the calculation was made. Compound interest, too, can come into question only within the conditions permitted by law; adding accrued interest to the principal arbitrarily is not appropriate.
How Are Time Limits for Legal Remedies and Monetary Thresholds Checked?
HMK Article 345 provides, as a rule, a two-week period from notification for an appeal, and Article 361 for a cassation appeal. Which legal remedy the decision is open to, the appeal threshold, the notification date and, if any, special regulation are examined together. Notification of the enforcement order and notification of the court decision are different acts; the date of one does not determine the time limit of the other.
With regard to monetary thresholds, merely looking at an annual amount table on the internet is not enough. HMK Supplementary Article 1, the applicable temporal rules, the amount of the claim and the nature of the decision must be assessed. In addition, the third paragraph added to HMK Article 362 by Law No. 7589 regulates a special possibility of cassation appeal, and exceptions to it, in certain cases where the regional court of appeal (bölge adliye mahkemesi) accepts the appeal and decides the merits anew. For this reason, in each file a conclusion cannot be reached with the general cassation threshold alone.
What Can Be Done If the Judgment Is Unclear or Incomplete?
A clerical error, an uncertainty that requires clarification and a claim on which no decision was given are different matters. Correction under HMK Article 304, clarification (tavzih) under Article 305 and supplementation of the judgment under Article 305/A may each be considered within their own conditions. Through clarification, the rights and obligations in the judgment cannot be changed, nor can a new claim be created.
For the supplementation of the judgment, the special one-month period from notification of the final decision is important. It should not be assumed that a legal error requiring recourse to a legal remedy will be resolved merely by a request for clarification. Nor should it be accepted that a request for correction or clarification stops the time limit for the legal remedy automatically; the relevant time limit must be protected separately.
If, at the enforcement stage, there is enforcement contrary to the judgment or an incorrect calculation, the appropriate complaint or objection route is considered. The conditions in enforcement based on a judgment for the defenses of payment, release and statute of limitations are examined under Article 33 and the following articles of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. It should not be thought that there is a single time limit for every application or that the enforcement court will hear the liquidation case again.
Related articles: The Liquidator in a Simple Partnership and the Liquidator’s Powers; Objecting to the Expert Report in a Simple Partnership; Debts and Recourse after the Liquidation of a Simple Partnership; Simple Partnership Debts: Liability, Litigation and Enforcement; Liquidation Protocol in a Simple Partnership: Payment, Security and Release.
Conclusion
For a liquidation decision to turn into collection, the judgment must first be clear and suitable for enforcement. The finality requirement must be examined according to the nature of the judgment; appeal, postponement of enforcement and an enforcement complaint must be kept apart from one another. The correct party, the correct amount and an interest calculation divided into periods reduce the risk of a new dispute arising in the enforcement. The success of enforcement measures also depends on the debtor’s assets and the specific enforcement conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Liquidation Decision Be Enforced Before It Becomes Final?
Depending on the nature of the judgment, it may be possible. Payment, judgments concerning rights in rem over immovable property and other performances are examined separately; a single answer cannot be given for all liquidation decisions.
Does Enforcement Stop Automatically When an Appeal Is Filed?
As a rule, it does not. The exceptions in which finality is mandatory and postponement of enforcement under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are assessed separately.
Can the Amount in the Expert Report Be Put Directly into Enforcement?
The basis of enforcement is the performance stated in the judgment. An amount calculated in the report but not awarded in the judgment cannot be added to the decision by the enforcement office on its own.
Is the Seven Days in the Enforcement Order the Appeal Period?
No. The payment period in Article 32 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the time limits for legal remedies against a court decision are different. Notifications and routes of recourse must be tracked separately.
Is It Enough to Use a Single Rate for Statutory Interest?
No. The judgment, the periods and the rate system in force must be examined. After the 2026 amendment, the system tied to the rediscount rate must also be taken into account.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 297, 304–305/A, 341, 345, 350, 361–362, 367 and Supplementary Article 1.
- Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Articles 24, 26, 32–36 and 39.
- Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun), Articles 1–2.
- Law No. 7589, text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), Articles 10, 25–26 and Transitional Article 1.
- 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), October 2, 2025, E. 2025/795, K. 2025/4520, completion of the liquidation and a clear judgment.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), March 10, 2026, E. 2026/752, K. 2026/1668, a limited comparison concerning a decision on a joint-stock company; an access account may be required on the database.