In enforcement based on a promissory note, merely requesting “renewal of the file” does not interrupt the statute of limitations. For a claim against the maker of the note arising from the negotiable instrument, a three-year period running from maturity generally applies. The period may also continue to run after the enforcement has begun. Whether there is a valid ground of interruption, a statutory suspension or the special effect of a final certificate of insolvency should be examined on the basis of the documents in the file. That a file appears open does not mean the claim has not become time-barred. [K1, K2]
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated April 15, 2026, E. 2025/349, K. 2026/253, shows how important this distinction is in practice. Besides the renewal request, the decision also addresses the conditions under which an attachment record is treated as a certificate of insolvency and the contradiction between the judgment and the reasoning in an earlier court decision. Keeping to the limits of the decision, this review explains which documents, time limits and routes of application are decisive for debtors and creditors. [K1]
How many years is the statute of limitations on a promissory note?
Three years against the maker; not the same period for every signatory
Article 778 of Law No. 6102, the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), applies Articles 749–751, which govern the statute of limitations for bills of exchange, to promissory notes as well. Under Article 779 of the TTK, the person who makes a promissory note is liable in the same way as the acceptor of a bill of exchange. For a claim arising from the note against the maker, therefore, the basic period is three years from the date on which maturity arrived. Maturity and the date on which the instrument was issued must not be confused. [K2]
Different periods and starting points apply to recourse against endorsers and to recourse between endorsers. The liability of a person who has given an aval is likewise assessed together with the person in whose favor the aval was given. Accordingly, the sentence “a note becomes time-barred in three years” cannot be applied to all signatories without first determining the debtor’s status. [K2, Arts. 702, 749, 778–779]
| Legal situation | Basic period and starting point | Decisive point in the review |
|---|---|---|
| Negotiable-instrument claim against the maker of the note | Generally three years from maturity | The nature of the instrument, maturity, and grounds of interruption or suspension |
| Holder’s recourse against endorsers | One year, generally from a protest drawn within the time limit or, where there is an appropriate “return without expense” notation, from maturity | Whether the right of recourse has been preserved |
| Recourse claims between endorsers | Six months, according to the starting point in the statute | The date of payment or of assertion by lawsuit |
| Debt tied to a final certificate of insolvency | Twenty years against the debtor from the date the certificate is issued | Whether the certificate is genuinely a final certificate of insolvency |
This table focuses on the promissory note. The periods for checks, bills of exchange, enforcement based on a court judgment and ordinary contract claims must not be generalized under the same heading. In addition, for notes with no stated maturity or payable at a fixed time after sight, the provisions on determining maturity and on presentment are examined separately. [K2, K3]
Why was the former Turkish Commercial Code applied in the 2026 decision?
The Civil General Assembly based its decision on the relevant provisions of Law No. 6762, the former TTK, which was in force on the date on which the instrument under enforcement was issued. The corresponding provisions in the current text are Articles 749–751, 778 and 779 of Law No. 6102. That the decision was rendered in 2026 does not necessarily mean that the new law applies to an instrument issued earlier. [K1, K2]
The decision states that the payment order was notified on April 24, 2017. This information does not show that the instrument was also issued in 2017 or that the enforcement was necessarily initiated on that date. The dates of issue, maturity, enforcement request and notification should be recorded separately.
Why does renewing the enforcement file not interrupt the statute of limitations?
Removal of a file from processing and its being taken up again relate to enforcement procedure. Whether a claim has become time-barred, on the other hand, is assessed separately, as a matter of whether the right can still be asserted. Submitting a petition to renew the file, or making a fee or expense payment, does not by itself replace a legal request that advances the enforcement. [K1, K3, Art. 78]
The statement in the Civil General Assembly’s decision is as follows:
“since a request to renew the enforcement file is not an enforcement act aimed at ensuring the continuation of the enforcement, it does not interrupt the statute-of-limitations period.”
This quotation is from paragraph 14 of Section VI/D/2 of the decision. The criterion is not that a petition has entered the file but the legal nature of the act it contains. [K1]
What if the renewal petition also requested attachment?
A petition that merely requests renewal is not the same as a petition that also contains a concrete request for attachment alongside renewal. In the second case, the scope, addressee, procedural regularity and date of the attachment request are assessed separately. That the petition is headed “renewal” does not make it unnecessary to examine the other requests within it.
The Civil General Assembly stresses the significance, for interruption, of the creditor’s having done what falls to it, such as a properly made attachment request; it is not expected in every case that the enforcement officer additionally carried out an actual act on that basis. However, not every dispatch of papers and not every receipt for expenses automatically produces this result. [K1, VI/D/2, §5]
Is a UYAP asset query sufficient on its own?
Obtaining information about assets and requesting attachment of those assets must be kept apart. Article 78 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) provides that an electronic query may be made without an attachment request and that attachment may separately be requested following the query. [K3, K4]
The request dated August 28, 2018 in the decision under review is not merely a query: it also includes bank attachment notices and official letters requesting entry of an attachment annotation. The decision therefore cannot support the conclusion that “every UYAP query interrupts the statute of limitations.” In the specific file, the query record and the attachment request must be viewed separately. [K1, VI/D/2, §10]
Which acts interrupt the statute of limitations?
Article 750 of the TTK provides for the filing of a lawsuit, an enforcement request, notice of the action to a third party and lodging of the claim with the bankruptcy estate. The interruption takes effect with respect to the person against whom the act was directed; under Article 751 of the TTK, a new period of the same length begins to run. It cannot be assumed that an act directed at one debtor automatically affects all debtors on the instrument. [K2]
| Act or record | How is it assessed? |
|---|---|
| A request solely for renewal of the file | According to the Civil General Assembly decision under review, it does not interrupt the statute of limitations. |
| A concrete and procedurally proper attachment request | May have an interrupting effect as an act advancing the enforcement; the content of the request and the debtor concerned are determined. |
| Request for sale | Examined together with its validity, the necessary expenses and which attached asset it covers. |
| Mere electronic query or viewing of the file | Not equated with an attachment request; reliance should not be placed solely on activity appearing in the system. |
| Request for issuance of a final certificate of insolvency | The decision took the request of September 26, 2018 as its basis; the request does not produce the same consequences as issuance of the certificate. |
| Action for annulment of disposition, third-party ownership claim (istihkak), dissolution of co-ownership, objection to valuation, or action for cancellation of the instrument | The Civil General Assembly did not count these among the actions for performance that interrupt the negotiable-instrument statute of limitations. |
Not every lawsuit restarts the period
In the Civil General Assembly’s explanation, an action for performance aimed at collecting a negotiable-instrument claim is distinguished from actions with another legal purpose. For example, the filing of an action for annulment of disposition on the allegation that assets were diverted does not remove the need to check the period in enforcement based on the promissory note. The decision also records the defense that such an action had been filed. [K1]
On the other hand, the Civil General Assembly also assessed, as regards interruption, the creditor’s submitting its defenses in an action for negative declaratory judgment filed by the debtor. Accordingly, an incomplete formula such as “only an action filed by the creditor matters” cannot be constructed. Which request was asserted against which person, and the acts within the lawsuit, must be examined together. [K1, VI/D/2, §4]
How is the three-year period calculated?
For a sound review, the front and back of the instrument and the entire transaction history of the enforcement file are assessed together. Looking only at the latest movement date on the UYAP screen is not sufficient.
- First, the debtor’s status on the instrument and the applicable law are determined.
- Maturity, the enforcement request, notification of the payment order and the stage at which the enforcement became final are recorded separately.
- The date, content and addressee of each request claimed to have interrupting effect are examined.
- The time between the acts is calculated, taking into account any statutory suspension periods.
- If there is a final certificate of insolvency or a record taking its place, the conditions of that document are checked separately.
Interruption and suspension are different: With interruption, the earlier period is removed from the calculation and a new period begins; with suspension, time does not run during the suspension ground and the remaining portion continues to run afterwards. For example, temporary statutory suspension provisions such as the 2020 pandemic regulations must be separately researched in files covering that period. Merely adding three calendar years to an old act date therefore does not produce the correct result in every file. [K2, K5]
Hypothetically, a file with a three-year interval containing only renewal requests may produce a different result from a file in which a properly made attachment request exists in the same interval. However, the result of the example depends on the assumption that there is no ground of suspension, no particular status of the debtor and no special document. Calculating the period is not listing the names of acts but determining the legal effect of each act.
What happened in the Civil General Assembly’s 2026 decision?
The sequence of acts in the decision shows why the dispute was not only a matter of an “old file”:
| Date | Event in the file |
|---|---|
| April 24, 2017 | The payment order was notified to the debtor. |
| August 28, 2018 | Bank attachment notices, asset queries and official letters for attachment were requested. |
| September 25, 2018 | In the attachment carried out at the address, the items were recorded as necessary items. |
| September 26–27, 2018 | A final certificate of insolvency was requested; the request was rejected because of an attached but unsold vehicle and immovable. |
| May 10, 2019 | The complaint against the rejection was dismissed; the reasoning contained a contradictory statement that the record was a final certificate of insolvency. |
| December 15, 2020 | Renewal of the file was requested. |
| April 10, 2023 | The statute-of-limitations application was accepted and postponement of enforcement was ordered. |
| May 1, 2023 | The decision dismissing the 2019 complaint became final because no appeal was filed. |
| March 25, 2024 | The regional court of appeal, accepting a twenty-year period, dismissed the debtor’s application. |
| October 16, 2024 | The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) issued a reversal decision, E. 2024/3101, K. 2024/8666. |
| April 15, 2026 | The Civil General Assembly unanimously reversed the regional court of appeal’s decision to insist on its earlier ruling, E. 2024/2213, K. 2025/76. |
In its assessment, the Civil General Assembly took the creditor’s request of September 26, 2018 as its basis. The rejection decision issued by the enforcement office the next day and the creditor’s request date are not the same act. The decision concluded that, after this request, there was no act that interrupted the three-year period and showed an intention to continue the enforcement. [K1]
The result of the reversal is that the file is sent to the regional court of appeal for a new decision. This decision is not a general ruling that all debts are automatically erased or that every old file will be closed.
When does a final certificate of insolvency extend the statute of limitations to twenty years?
A final certificate and a request for a certificate are not the same thing
A debt tied to a final certificate of insolvency under Article 143 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is subject to a twenty-year statute of limitations against the debtor from the date the certificate is issued. However, a mere request for the certificate, or the appearance of the word “insolvency” in an enforcement file, does not give rise to this period. First, there must be a legally valid final certificate of insolvency or a record that takes its place. [K1, K3]
A final certificate of insolvency may be issued for the claim that remains unpaid after the attached assets have been sold and the proceeds distributed. Under Article 105/1 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, an attachment record that properly establishes that the debtor has no attachable assets at all may also have the effect of a final certificate of insolvency. [K1, K3]
Not finding goods at the address is not enough on its own
The decision stresses that the review cannot be limited to the address at which the door was knocked. If the debtor has other attachable assets, the fact that the items at home could not be attached does not by itself show final insolvency. If the debtor has left that address, the debtor’s connection to the address and the real scope of the asset search must also be determined. [K1]
In the specific file, there were an attached vehicle and immovable in the debtor’s name; the sale had not been completed. The record was therefore not treated as a final certificate of insolvency. The statement in the decision that the immovable was registered as a family cemetery, on the other hand, cannot be generalized to mean that all cemeteries can be attached; the subject of the review is the nature of the document in this file.
The consequence of a provisional certificate of insolvency is different
Where attachable assets exist but their appraised values are found insufficient for the claim, the relevant record may have the nature of a provisional certificate of insolvency. This document is particularly important for an action for annulment of disposition. A provisional certificate of insolvency does not automatically bring the twenty-year period tied to the final certificate into play. [K1, K3, Art. 105]
If the judgment and its reasoning conflict, which is taken as the basis?
In the case reviewed, the earlier court decision had dismissed the complaint; in part of its reasoning, however, it attributed the nature of a final certificate of insolvency to the attachment record. Starting from this contradictory explanation, the Civil General Assembly did not accept the application of the twenty-year period. [K1]
It also cannot be concluded from this that “the reasoning of a court has no binding force at all.” The effect of the earlier decision on the same enforcement and the same issue is examined through the operative paragraph of the judgment, its connection to the reasoning and the status of finality. A sentence of reasoning that conflicts with the result of the judgment cannot be substituted for a final certificate of insolvency that was never issued.
Where and when is a statute-of-limitations objection made?
Period that expired before the enforcement: the five-day application matters
In negotiable-instrument enforcement (kambiyo takibi) based on a promissory note, an objection concerning a statute of limitations that had already run before the enforcement must be submitted to the enforcement court within five days of notification of the payment order. Confusing this period with the seven-day objection period in the ordinary attachment route can lead to loss of rights. Article 168/5 and Article 169/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are assessed together. [K3, K6]
Period that expired after the enforcement became final: postponement of enforcement
For a statute of limitations that ran after the enforcement became final, postponement of enforcement (icranın geri bırakılması) is requested from the enforcement court under Articles 170/b, 71/2 and 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The Civil General Assembly stated that this application is not tied to a separate complaint period. This avenue is not a means of making up, in every case, for a missed five-day objection concerning a period that expired before the enforcement. [K1, K3]
The application should clearly identify the debtor concerned, the instrument and the enforcement; it should specify the request claimed to be the last interrupting act and the period after it. Having the entire file brought in should be requested so that the intervals between the acts can be examined.
Does the application stop enforcement automatically?
An objection to the debt in the payment order does not automatically stop enforcement acts other than sale, within the framework of Article 169 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Nor is the making of a post-enforcement statute-of-limitations application, on its own, treated as having stopped all acts. The necessary interim protection must be requested separately, and the scope of the court’s decision should be monitored in the enforcement file. [K3, K7]
For the creditor too there is an important period: Article 33/a/2 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides for an action to be filed in a court of general jurisdiction, in order to prove that the statute of limitations had not run, within seven days after the creditor is notified that the decision to postpone enforcement has become final. The starting point in the statute is not only the date on which the decision was rendered. This route must not be confused with appeal to the regional court of appeal or to the Court of Cassation. [K3]
If a promissory note becomes time-barred, does the underlying claim also end?
That the negotiable-instrument claim has become time-barred does not mean that the relationship that gave rise to the issue of the instrument ends in every case. The underlying claim arising from a sale, a loan or another contract may be assessed separately in terms of the parties to that relationship, the conditions of proof and its own statute of limitations. The conclusion “a new ten-year period begins in every case” cannot be drawn. [K8]
In addition, if its conditions are met, the special unjust enrichment claim in Article 732, to which Article 778/1-d of the TTK refers, may be examined. The one-year period here begins from the date following the date on which the negotiable-instrument statute of limitations expired. The persons against whom the claim may be directed and the conditions of enrichment are limited; it is not a general additional period that can be used against all signatories of the instrument. [K2, K8]
The effect of res judicata that may arise under Article 33/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is also taken into account in this assessment. Whether a new action can be filed after a statute-of-limitations decision should therefore not be answered without seeing the scope of the earlier decision.
Document-based file review for debtor and creditor
| Document or record | Question it answers |
|---|---|
| Front and back of the promissory note | What are the maturity, the date of issue, and the endorsement and aval statuses? |
| Enforcement request and payment order | Against whom, and for which claim, was the enforcement directed? |
| Notification documents | What are the starting point of the application periods and the stage of finalization? |
| Dated creditor requests and enforcement office decisions | Which act actually has an interrupting effect? |
| Attachment record, land registry and vehicle records | Is there any other attachable asset? |
| Valuation, sale and distribution records | Have the conditions of a final certificate of insolvency been met? |
| Full text of earlier decisions and finality records | What did the judgment decide; is there a conflict with the reasoning? |
| Related actions and stay orders | Is there any other act affecting the assessment of interruption or suspension? |
For the debtor, the aim is not merely to say “three years have passed” but to show from the file that no legally effective act took place in that interval. For the creditor, instead of relying on the file being open in the system, it is necessary to track the period and the requests that advance the enforcement through documents.
For the general framework of enforcement routes, you may also see our article titled How Is a Receivable Put into Enforcement in Türkiye? This article’s special statute-of-limitations distinctions should be assessed together with the general enforcement information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an enforcement file close automatically if no act is taken for three years?
No. First, the period applicable to the claim and the debtor is determined. Even if the relevant period for a promissory note has run, closure of the file in the system and a statute-of-limitations defense are not the same thing; an appropriate application and judicial assessment are needed.
Does receiving a renewal order start a new three-year period?
No such consequence can be stated for a mere renewal act. It is examined whether the file contains, in addition, a request of a nature that interrupts the statute of limitations.
Is finding no goods to attach at home enough for the twenty-year period?
Not on its own. The record, the asset search and whether there are other attachable assets are assessed together.
Can the statute of limitations on a promissory note run while an action for annulment of disposition is pending?
Yes. The Civil General Assembly did not treat a mere action for annulment of disposition as an action that interrupts the negotiable-instrument statute of limitations. Other acts in the enforcement and any grounds of suspension must be examined separately.
Is an action for negative declaratory judgment filed by the debtor unimportant?
No. The Civil General Assembly assessed the creditor’s submitting its defenses in this action as relevant to interruption. The acts in the file matter as much as the type of action.
Is 20 percent compensation automatically obtained when the statute of limitations is accepted?
No. Acceptance of a statute-of-limitations defense does not by itself automatically give rise to 20 percent compensation. The conditions of the provision relied on for compensation are assessed separately. [K7]
Conclusion: The legal effect of the act, not the movement in the file, is decisive
The Civil General Assembly’s decision of April 15, 2026 shows that the differences among the renewal request, the attachment act, the certificate of insolvency and the earlier court decision directly affect the result. A mere renewal request does not restart the three-year period; nor does a record that is not a final certificate of insolvency give rise to the twenty-year period.
Effective legal review is possible by correctly determining the nature of the instrument, separating the status of the debtor concerned, assessing all requests in date order and using the correct application route. For the creditor, the act that protects the period matters; for the debtor, the document that shows the period. The result should be reached not through the age of the file or its status on the screen but through the legal meaning of these documents.
Information and confidentiality: This article is for general legal information purposes. Evaluating a specific file requires examining the instrument and the enforcement records together. The information and documents you send to Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used only for legal assessment and the authorized service, within the framework of personal data protection and professional secrecy obligations. Contact.
Sources and legal bases
[K1] Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly — April 15, 2026, E. 2025/349, K. 2026/253. VI/D/2 §§1–15; in particular §§4–5, 10 and 14; judgment.
[K2] Republic of Türkiye / Ministry of Trade — Law No. 6102, the Turkish Commercial Code. Arts. 702, 732, 749–751, 778–779; ministry PDF pp. 168–173.
[K3] Republic of Türkiye / Ministry of Justice — Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy. Arts. 33/a, 71, 78, 105, 143, 168–170/b; two-column table, left column the current law, PDF pp. 89, 151, 234–235, 304, 395.
[K4] Grand National Assembly of Türkiye — Law No. 7251, Article 49. Art. 49 and the amendment to Article 78 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.
[K5] Grand National Assembly of Türkiye — Law No. 7226, Provisional Article 1. Provisional Art. 1.
[K6] Constitutional Court — Article 168/5 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law as quoted in Application No. 2020/32945. Quotation of Art. 168/5; §28.
[K7] Aziz Serkan Arslan — Objection to the Payment Order on the Ground of the Statute of Limitations in Enforcement Based on Negotiable Instruments (Kambiyo Senedine Bağlı Takiplerde Ödeme Emrine Zamanaşımı Nedeniyle İtiraz). Çukurova University Journal of Legal Research (Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi), 2025/8, pp. 1–14; in particular pp. 7–12.
[K8] Ministry of Justice Department of Mediation — Specialized Mediation in Commercial Law (Ticaret Hukukunda Uzman Arabuluculuk). Printed p. 186; PDF p. 201, XIV. Unjust Enrichment.
[K9] Attorney Mete Çelik — Three Years, Twenty Years, and a “Renew the File” Request: A Lesson in Statute of Limitations in Negotiable-Instrument Enforcement from the Civil General Assembly (Üç Yıl, Yirmi Yıl, Bir de “Dosya Yenilensin” Talebi: Hukuk Genel Kurulu’ndan Kambiyo Takibinde Zamanaşımı Dersi). Sections I–VII and bibliography.
Note on the use of sources: Attorney Mete Çelik’s article is cited as the starting point of the review. The explanations concerning the Civil General Assembly decision were prepared by comparing published full-text reproductions. The relevant statutory provisions and academic sources were assessed separately.