Effect of a Negative Declaratory Action Filed After Enforcement Proceedings on Attachment and Sale

Short answer: A negative declaratory action filed after enforcement proceedings have begun does not, as a rule, stop the payment order, the attachment or the sale by itself. Security of at least 15 percent under Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, İİK) is, on its own, a guarantee only of the measure preventing payment of the cash held at the enforcement office to the creditor. If additional protection is sought for attachment and sale, the full current debt on the file must also be secured, the enforcement office must be asked to lift the attachments on the ground that they have become excessive and, if necessary, a complaint must be made to the enforcement court. A proceeding started after a mediation application and a third-party action based on Art. 89(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are subject to special rules.

Category: Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law / Action for Negative Declaratory Judgment

Legal information: This study provides general legal information. No conclusion about a concrete file can be drawn without seeing the type of enforcement file, the basis of the proceedings, the service documents, the stage of sale, the wording of the security and the underlying debt relationship. Procedures subject to time limits require a file-specific legal review.

What Is a Negative Declaratory Action Filed After Enforcement Proceedings?

A negative declaratory action filed after enforcement proceedings is a general court action in which a person against whom compulsory enforcement has been started seeks a determination against the enforcement creditor that the debt never arose, is invalid, has come to an end, or does not exist in the amount demanded in the proceedings. Its statutory basis is Art. 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

This action distinguishes between the formal finality of the enforcement proceedings and the actual state of the debt under substantive law. If no objection is made to the payment order within the time limit, or if an objection is withdrawn, the enforcement proceedings may continue; however, this does not always determine with the force of res judicata that the debt actually existed in the sense of substantive law. As long as a legal interest exists, the debtor may assert before the general court that he or she does not owe the debt.

The negative declaratory action should not be confused with the following applications:

• Objection to the payment order: Aims to stop the proceedings within the short period set by law and in terms of enforcement law.
• Complaint to the enforcement court: Requires the enforcement office's act, contrary to law or the facts, to be reviewed; as a rule, it does not resolve in substance whether the debt exists under substantive law.
• Objection to the debt or to a signature: In particular, subject to the special time limits and evidentiary rules of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law in proceedings specific to negotiable instruments.
• Action for recovery of payment: Seeks the return of money paid under the threat of compulsory enforcement which was in fact not owed.
• Annulment of an auction: Ensures that irregularities in the auction of attached property are reviewed under Art. 134 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. A negative declaratory action does not replace the route of annulment of the auction.

Basic Rule: The Action Does Not Automatically Stop Attachment and Sale

Under the general rule of Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a court cannot order the complete stopping of enforcement proceedings by way of an interim injunction in a negative declaratory action brought after enforcement proceedings. For this reason, the mere filing of the action, or the submission of the petition to the enforcement file:

• does not invalidate the payment order;
• does not stop enforcement proceedings that have become final;
• does not automatically remove the power to request attachment and to carry out attachment;
• does not automatically stop the valuation of property, the request for sale or the electronic auction;
• does not automatically render a completed auction void.

The İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 45th Civil Chamber, in its decision of March 26, 2025, E.2025/444, K.2025/363, applied this distinction in a current dispute. The Chamber lifted the order stopping a sale that had been granted on the basis of Art. 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure after enforcement proceedings had begun, and, taking account of the narrower protection requested, decided under Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law that the cash held at the enforcement office should not be paid to the creditor. This decision is not a binding precedent across the country; it is, however, a current example of how the relationship between the special provision and the general provision works in practice.

Effect of a Negative Declaratory Action by Stage of the Enforcement Proceedings

What Exactly Does the Art. 72(3) Measure Protect?

The special temporary legal protection allowed by the law after enforcement proceedings has begun is that the cash held at the enforcement office is not handed over to the creditor. The debtor must secure the losses that may arise from the delay and must show security, in an amount not less than 15 percent of the debt subject to the proceedings, as determined by the court.

This protection aims not at every stage of compulsory enforcement but at the stage at which the money collected is transferred to the creditor. The attached property may be sold and the sale price may enter the enforcement file; however, where a measure has been properly granted and implemented, the money is not paid to the creditor until the action is concluded.

Is 15 percent a fixed rate?

No. Fifteen percent is the statutory minimum. In the concrete case the court may set a higher security, after assessing the probable loss from delay and the effect of the temporary protection. The decision of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 45th Civil Chamber, E.2025/444, K.2025/363, in which security equal to twenty percent of the exit value of the enforcement was set, is a current example of this.

Must a measure be granted once security is shown?

No. Security is not the sole condition of the measure. Within the framework of Arts. 389 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the risk worth protecting and the assessment of prima facie evidence as to the substance of the action must be considered. In its decision of April 10, 2025, E.2025/510, K.2025/452, the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 43rd Civil Chamber, accepted that the exception in Art. 18/A(16) of the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes (HUAK) may apply, but found proper the rejection of the request for a measure on the ground that no new evidence had been submitted and prima facie proof had not been established.

Why is implementation of the measure separately important?

A court decision alone does not secure the outcome in practice. Under Art. 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the implementation of an interim injunction must be requested within one week of the decision being pronounced or served on the party seeking the measure; otherwise the legal consequence arises. Payment of the security, sending of the decision to the enforcement file, recording of it by the enforcement office and actual application of the payment prohibition must each be monitored separately.

A Full Security for the Current File Debt Is Not the Same as 15 Percent Security

In practice, the expression "115 percent security" is used to present two separate measures as a single practical total rate. This shorthand is misleading in most files, because the amounts, the authorities to which the security is provided and the legal consequences are different.

For this reason, the petition, the request for a measure, the security decision, the current closing calculation and the request to the enforcement office should not be confused with one another.

How Do Full File Security and Attachments Affect Each Other?

Under Art. 85 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, property and rights of the debtor may be attached only in an amount sufficient to cover the creditor's whole claim, including principal, interest and expenses. The purpose of attachment is to secure the receivable; the continuation of attachments clearly exceeding the receivable and not necessary for compulsory enforcement raises a problem of proportionality.

The common line in the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber decisions E.2016/31340, K.2018/4251; E.2018/1429, K.2018/5995; and E.2017/6835, K.2018/801 is as follows: where, separately from the Art. 72(3) security set by the court, a definite bank letter of guarantee covering the full file debt with its accessories, and capable of being converted into money at any time, has been submitted to the enforcement file, the attachments on other property and rights become excessive; in that event the creditor no longer has a legal interest worth protecting in their continuation.

These decisions must be read carefully. The result is not that "the negative declaratory action lifts the attachment." The result arises from the following elements existing together:

• a negative declaratory action brought after enforcement proceedings have begun;
• a payment prohibition measure granted and implemented under Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law;
• security in the amount set by the court for delay loss being provided;
• separately from this, the full current debt on the file being secured in the enforcement file;
• the claim, under Art. 85 of the Law, that the other attachments are no longer necessary to secure the receivable.

Can cash deposits and bank letters of guarantee produce the same result?

Within the line of precedent, both methods have been accepted. The Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber decision of February 26, 2015, E.2014/32823, K.2015/4058, examined a cash deposit; its decisions of 2018 examined a qualified bank letter of guarantee.

At least the following features of a bank letter of guarantee should be verified in the concrete file:

• that the addressee and the enforcement file are correctly identified;
• that it covers the principal and all accessories in the current closing calculation;
• that it is definite and collectable on first demand;
• that it is not subject to a condition, an objection based on the underlying relationship, or a reservation delaying collection;
• that, as regards time, it does not create a collection risk during the enforcement and the action;
• that the bank has confirmed it and its validity has been verified.

The expression "definite and unlimited" is commonly used in practice, but reading the heading alone is not sufficient; the whole text, the amount, the extension mechanism and the condition for conversion into money must be examined.

Does full security mean the debt has been paid?

No. A deposit of cash or a provision of security made within a reservation and within the measure system does not, in every case, mean performance under substantive law, an acknowledgment of the debt or a waiver of the action. However, if the money is actually paid to the creditor, the claim becomes a request for recovery of payment under Art. 72(6) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The receipt, the letter of guarantee, the reservation, the closing calculation and the statements in the enforcement office minutes are therefore important.

Practical Steps for Lifting Attachments

Identify the current enforcement file and the stage of sale

The first step is not merely to take a screenshot from UYAP. A closing calculation of the enforcement office dated to a specific date, a list of existing attachments, the valuation, sale request, notice and auction dates, the money already entered in the file, and the distribution table or distribution status must be determined together.

The following items in the closing calculation should be checked in particular:

• the principal of the enforcement claim;
• interest before and after the enforcement;
• type and starting date of interest;
• enforcement attorney's fee;
• fee items such as application, collection and prison fees;
• service, attachment, valuation, sale and custody costs;
• partial recoveries and set-offs entered in the file.

Request a measure of the correct scope from the merits court

As a general rule, the request should not be framed as "suspension of enforcement proceedings or of the sale"; it should be framed under Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law as a prohibition on paying to the creditor the money that has entered or will enter the enforcement cashier. The petition should clearly show the enforcement file, the factual basis of the objection to the debt, the evidence supporting a prima facie case, the risk of delay and the measure requested.

Where the conditions of Art. 18/A(16) of the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes (HUAK) apply, these should be stated specifically; the date of the mediation application, the date of the enforcement, the date of the last report and the proof that the action was filed within two weeks should be documented.

Pay the court-set security on time and have the decision enforced

The security set by the court must be paid, and the measure must be requested for implementation within the one-week period under Art. 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It must then be monitored that the decision has reached the enforcement file and that the payment prohibition has been recorded. Merely being told "the court has granted a measure" does not remove the risk that the money will be paid to the creditor in the meantime.

Separately secure the full current debt on the file

Separately from the security set by the court, the total amount of the current closing calculation obtained from the enforcement office must be secured by an accepted method. In files where interest and expenses continue to accrue, the security margin and the need for updating should be assessed together with the bank and the enforcement office.

Ask the enforcement office for a reasoned lifting of attachments

The application should not state only that "the debt has been deposited"; the principle of proportionality under Art. 85 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the implementation of the Art. 72(3) measure, the document evidencing full security and the relevant Court of Cassation decisions must all be presented together. It must be specified individually which attachment on which movable property, immovable property, bank account, wage or third-party receivable is requested to be lifted.

If refused or delayed, complain to the enforcement court

Where the enforcement office gives an express reasoned refusal, the complaint should, as a general rule, be made to the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted within seven days of learning of the refusal. Although there is a possibility of an unlimited complaint for failure to perform a right or unjustified delay, one should not rely on this exception; the request must be made as soon as the refusal is learned of.

A complaint does not stop enforcement by itself. Where the sale date is close, a clear and reasoned request for interim protection that the enforcement be stayed until the complaint is decided should be separately assessed.

Make sure the release of attachments has been recorded with all institutions

Removal of attachments at the land registry, the bank, employers, the vehicle registry and other third parties may require separate correspondence and records. The process should not be regarded as complete without checking whether the decision in the enforcement file has been entered in these external registers.

Effect on Sale Procedures: Different Results by Stage

Where sale has not yet been requested

Once full security and the Art. 72(3) measure have been provided, the request to lift the existing attachments should be made without delay. If the attachments are lifted, there is no longer a basis for a new sale process relying on them.

Where sale has been requested, property has been valued or a notice has been published

A negative declaratory action and 15 percent security alone do not stop the sale. A request to lift the attachments after full security and a request that the sale not proceed should be submitted to the enforcement office at the same time. If the request is refused, the complaint and the request for interim protection must be pursued before the sale date. The closeness of the process and the dates of service and of the sale notice are critical.

Where an electronic auction has begun or a sale has taken place

A negative declaratory action or later-provided security does not by itself remove an auction that has been completed. The conditions for annulment of the auction, the status of the parties, the method of learning and of notice, the sale price and the time limits in the law must be separately examined. A debt objection in the negative declaratory file is not, on its own, a ground for annulment of the auction in the sense of Art. 134 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

Where the sale price has entered the enforcement cashier but has not been paid to the creditor

This is the stage in which the Art. 72(3) measure has the most direct effect. Where the measure was properly granted and recorded in the enforcement file, the sale price should not be paid to the creditor. Whether the money is held, to whom and when it will be distributed are different questions where there are other creditors, pledges, public attachments or a distribution table; each file must be examined by its own distribution structure.

Where the money has been paid to the creditor

The negative declaratory action does not end merely because of payment. Under Art. 72(6) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, it continues as an action for recovery of payment. The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (HGK), in its decision of January 25, 2022, E.2019/(13)3-536, K.2022/43, held that payments made after the filing of the action, such as salary deductions, should also be taken into account.

Mediation Application and a Proceeding Started After It: An Important Exception

The provision in Art. 18/A(16) of the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes (HUAK), which entered into force on September 1, 2023, introduces an important exception to the rule that "where the action was filed after enforcement proceedings have begun, only Art. 72(3) applies."

Where the following conditions exist together, Art. 72(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may apply and a stop of the enforcement proceedings may be requested:

• the parties must first have applied to a mediation bureau for the dispute;
• after the mediation application, the opposing party must have started enforcement proceedings on the same dispute;
• the negative declaratory action under Art. 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be filed within two weeks from the date of the final mediation report;
• the petition must expressly request that the protection of Art. 72(2) be applied;
• the approximate proof and security conditions required by the court must be satisfied.

This provision aims to protect a party who applied to mediation first in the same way as if the action had been brought before the enforcement proceedings, even though the action was technically filed after the enforcement proceedings. The decision of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 43rd Civil Chamber, of April 10, 2025 accepted that the provision may be applied but showed that the measure is not automatic and that prima facie proof is still required.

Third-Party Negative Declaratory Action Under Art. 89(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Is Different

The action brought under Art. 89(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law by a third party who received a notice of attachment, against a debt deemed to be owed because the third party did not object within the time limit, is not the same as the Art. 72 action brought by the debtor against the enforcement proceedings.

Under Art. 89(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a third party to whom the third notice of attachment is sent after not objecting in time to the second notice of attachment is informed that within fifteen days from service of the notice he or she may pay the money, deliver the goods or bring a negative declaratory action. If the third party delivers to the relevant enforcement office, within twenty days from the date of the notice, the document evidencing that he or she has brought the action in time, the compulsory enforcement against the third party is suspended until the decision becomes final, and the periods in Art. 106 of the Law do not run during that time. The decision of the Court of Cassation's 12th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5588, K.2021/1514, confirms this special consequence.

This exception cannot be carried over to the general rule of the Art. 72 action. The time limit, the party status and the subject of the action must be correctly characterized.

Does a Criminal Complaint or Investigation of Forgery Stop Enforcement?

As a rule, no. Under the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation of March 30, 2021, E.2017/12-364, K.2021/384, a claim that the writing or content of the instrument on which enforcement is based is forged does not by itself stop enforcement proceedings that have become final, by reason of Art. 209 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office or a criminal action likewise does not, on its own, produce an automatic stay of the enforcement.

In enforcement based on negotiable instruments, the objection to signature and the objection to the debt must be raised within the special provisions and short periods of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. In a negative declaratory action, the examination of a signature may be carried out under the evidentiary provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; this does not, however, mean that the enforcement proceedings stop automatically.

Where a competent authority has separately granted interim protection in a criminal investigation or prosecution, the scope and implementation of that decision must be assessed separately.

Which Types of Enforcement Does This Guide Apply To?

General attachment enforcement without a judgment

Even where the debtor has missed the time limit to object to the payment order or the objection has been withdrawn, the debtor may bring an Art. 72 action if he or she has a legal interest. The Art. 72(3) distinction in this article applies to the effect on enforcement.

Enforcement based on negotiable instruments through attachment

In enforcement based on a promissory note, cheque or bill of exchange, the objections to signature and debt before the enforcement court and the negative declaratory action before the general court are different. The abstract character of the negotiable instrument, the chain of endorsements, the absolute and personal defenses and the burden of proof must be assessed separately. Some of the Court of Cassation's 2018 decisions on full security arose from enforcement on negotiable instruments.

Enforcement through realization of a pledge or mortgage

Depending on the nature of the credit, pledge or mortgage relationship on which the proceedings are based, a negative declaratory action may arise. However, the stopping of the sale, the account termination notice, the mortgage limit, the scope of the pledge and the special enforcement provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be separately examined. The results of a general attachment enforcement must not be transferred automatically.

Enforcement based on a judgment

An existing debt established by final judgment cannot, as a rule, be re-examined in a new negative declaratory action between the same parties. Reasons arising after the judgment, such as discharge, grace or limitation, are assessed under Art. 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the related complaint provisions. A negative declaratory action may not be used instead of a legal remedy against the content of a judgment.

Public receivables under Law No. 6183

Compulsory collection of taxes and other public receivables is subject to Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables and the relevant tax and administrative litigation routes. The Art. 72 regime of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law does not apply to public receivables automatically. Details are available in the section on removal of electronic attachment for tax debt.

How Is the Competent and Territorially Competent Court Determined?

Although the negative declaratory action is regulated in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, it concerns the existence of the debt under substantive law. The competent court is determined by the nature of the underlying legal relationship rather than by the route of enforcement:

• in a commercial dispute relating to the commercial enterprise of both parties, the commercial court of first instance;
• in a dispute that is a consumer transaction, the consumer court;
• in a dispute concerning an employee's or employer's receivable, the labor court;
• in a general private-law dispute with no special jurisdictional rule, the civil court of first instance.

Under the special venue rule of Art. 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the action may be brought in the court of the place where the enforcement proceedings were conducted or in the court of the residence of the defendant creditor. This rule is not of exclusive jurisdiction; the objection to venue under the Code of Civil Procedure and the effect of a valid jurisdiction agreement must be examined separately in the concrete case.

In a third-party negative declaratory action under Art. 89(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the Court of Cassation's 11th Civil Chamber, in its jurisdictional dispute resolution decision E.2023/5228, K.2023/6468 of November 6, 2023, held that the competent court is the civil court of first instance, and that the fact that the parties are merchants, that the underlying relationship is commercial or that the debt arises from a negotiable instrument does not change this result. This special consequence should not be generalized to the Art. 72 action of a debtor based on the underlying relationship.

When Is Mediation Required as a Condition Precedent to Litigation?

For actions brought on or after September 1, 2023:

• for negative declaratory and recovery actions in commercial matters under Art. 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK), an application to a mediator before filing the action is a condition precedent;
• for negative declaratory and recovery actions relating to a worker's or employer's receivable and severance pay under Art. 3 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036, mediation is a condition precedent;
• for consumer, lease and other special types of relationship, the relevant special condition precedent and its exceptions must be checked separately;
• disputes expressly excluded from mediation by law, and cases where arbitration or another mandatory dispute-resolution method exists, are assessed separately.

Failure to attach the final mediation report to the petition, or failure to apply to mediation at all, may create a risk of the defect being cured or of dismissal on procedural grounds. Moreover, where enforcement proceedings have started after the mediation application, the two-week special period under Art. 18/A(16) of the Law No. 6325 (HUAK) must not be overlooked.

Legal Interest, Value of the Action, Fees and Security

Legal interest

Where enforcement proceedings create a current threat of payment, attachment or sale against the debtor, legal interest generally exists. However, where the debt has been entirely paid and only the return of the money is sought, the action must be framed as an action for recovery of payment. Where a final judgment exists on the same debt, or another more specific and effective remedy is available, the legal interest must be separately examined.

Value of the action and fees

A negative declaratory action in respect of an enforcement debt measurable in money is subject to ad valorem fees. The value of the action is the amount whose owing is denied; in a partial negative declaratory action, only the disputed part is taken into account. Court fees, advance on costs, expert fees and the risk of the opposing party's attorney's fee should be calculated before the action is filed. Because annual tariffs change, the official tariff on the day of publication and the UYAP calculation should be used rather than fixed Turkish lira amounts.

Court fees and security are not the same

Court fees are the financial obligation for the judicial service. The Art. 72(3) security protects the creditor against the loss of delay; the full file security protects the enforcement receivable. Neither replaces the other.

How Is the Burden of Proof Distributed?

The statements "in a negative declaratory action the burden of proof always lies with the creditor" and "it always lies with the debtor" are both incomplete.

The general framework is as follows:

• Where the plaintiff merely denies that the debt relationship asserted by the defendant ever arose, the creditor asserting the existence of the debt must prove the basic facts.
• Where the plaintiff accepts that the debt arose but relies on payment, release, set-off, renewal, limitation or another cause of extinction, the plaintiff must as a rule prove that fact.
• Where a lack of consideration, a security note, unauthorized representation or a personal defense is raised in relation to a negotiable instrument, the parties to the instrument, the chain of endorsements and the system of proof and defenses under the Turkish Commercial Code apply separately.
• The prohibition on proving against a written document by a counter-document or witness testimony and the exceptions in Arts. 200 to 203 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be assessed.

The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, in its decision of November 8, 2023, E.2023/(19)11-795, K.2023/1062, shows how the burden of proof may change where the record of a note has been annulled and the opposing party has accepted that explanation. The result of that decision should not be applied abstractly to every negative declaratory action; the admissions and defenses of the parties must be read together.

Documents to Prepare and Preserve

Enforcement file documents

• The enforcement request, payment or enforcement order and the service report.
• The contract, invoice, account statement, promissory note, cheque, bill of exchange or mortgage document on which enforcement is based.
• The objection, complaint, withdrawal of objection and earlier court decisions.
• The current closing calculation and all records of collection and set-off.
• Attachment records, bank replies, title deed and vehicle encumbrance records.
• The valuation, sale request, sale notice, electronic auction and auction documents.
• Money entering the file, the distribution table and payment documents.

Debt relationship documents

• Bank receipts and payment explanations.
• Receipts, release, settlement, protocol and account reconciliations.
• Delivery, defect, termination, rescission or default notices.
• Commercial books and electronic records.
• E-mail, registered electronic mail (KEP), records from the National Electronic Notification System (UETS) and verifiable message records.
• Signature circular, authority decisions and representation documents.
• Written documents linking the note to its purpose as security.

Measure and full security documents

• The interim decision of the court.
• The receipt for the security deposit or the security document accepted by the court.
• A record showing that implementation of the measure was requested in time.
• A qualified bank letter of guarantee addressed to the enforcement office and the bank's confirmation.
• A request to lift the attachment, the enforcement office's decision and a document showing the date of learning.

What Happens to the Enforcement When the Action Is Decided?

If the action is accepted in the debtor's favor

Under Art. 72(5) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, once the judgment in the debtor's favor on the negative declaratory action is given, the enforcement proceedings stop immediately; it is not necessary to wait for the judgment of acceptance to become final. However, the restoration of the enforcement to its former state, wholly or partly according to the content of the judgment, takes place upon the finality of the decision.

In a partial acceptance, the result arises only as regards the part where it is found that no debt is owed. Which attachment will be lifted, to whom the money in the file will be paid and the effect of any sale already completed are determined by the scope of the judgment and the stage of enforcement.

If the action is dismissed in the creditor's favor

Under Art. 72(4) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the interim measure lapses. Upon the rejection judgment becoming final, the creditor may recover from the security the loss incurred from delay in receiving the money because of the measure, which is determined in the same action. The statutory minimum for loss is 20 percent. For the award of damages to arise, it is important that the measure delayed the creditor's collection and that the judgment contains the necessary assessment.

If money is paid to the creditor during the action

The action continues by operation of Art. 72(6) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law as an action for recovery of payment. The court must determine the amounts and dates of the payments and deductions and give a ruling on restitution. According to the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation E.2017/8-1873, K.2021/230, a judgment for recovery converted from a negative declaratory action must be final before it can be enforced.

If the whole debt was paid before the action was filed

A person who, having failed to object to the enforcement or having had the objection withdrawn, has been obliged to pay in full a sum that was in fact not owed must bring an action for recovery under Art. 72(7) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law within one year from the date of payment. This period is treated as a preclusive period; the circumstances of the payment and the threat of compulsory enforcement must be examined without delay.

Bad-Faith Compensation and Losses from Wrongful Attachment

Acceptance of a negative declaratory action does not, by itself, show that the creditor acted in bad faith. For compensation in favor of the debtor under Art. 72(5) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law to be awarded:

• there must be an enforcement proceeding that forced the debtor to bring the action;
• the enforcement must be unlawful;
• the creditor must have acted in bad faith;
• the debtor must expressly claim compensation;
• the circumstances must be established by concrete evidence.

The statutory compensation may not be less than 20 percent of the amount of the enforcement claim found to be unlawful. However, where a creditor initially had a valid claim and continued the enforcement after the debt was later paid, this may not, in every case, give rise to compensation under Art. 72(5). In its decision E.2018/19-374, K.2018/943 of April 25, 2018, the majority of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation took as the basis, for Art. 72(5), the validity of the claim on the date of the enforcement.

The same decision also accepted that repeated unlawful attachment and custody measures in the home, after the debt had been fully paid, may give rise to non-pecuniary damages under the general provisions by violating personality rights. Accordingly, the compensation under Art. 72(5) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the damages for wrongful attachment based on Arts. 49 and 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) are subject to different conditions.

Strategic Risks for the Debtor and the Creditor

For the debtor

• Assuming that filing the action alone stops the sale.
• Regarding 15 percent security as full file security.
• Failing to implement the security decision within one week.
• Providing insufficient security on the basis of an old closing calculation.
• Not examining the time limits or terms of a bank letter of guarantee.
• Missing the time limit for complaining against the enforcement office's refusal.
• Relying solely on the negative declaratory file during the sale and auction process.
• Missing the compulsory mediation or the two-week period under HUAK Art. 18/A(16).
• Not updating the request for recovery of payment and the payment items when payment is made.

For the creditor

• Leaving the file entirely inactive on the mistaken basis that the scope of the Art. 72(3) measure amounts to a stop of the whole process.
• Continuing unnecessary attachments despite full security, thereby creating a risk of excessive attachment and liability for wrongful acts.
• Not notifying the enforcement file of a payment made outside the file.
• Not documenting the delay loss caused by the measure and the claim for compensation.
• Failing to monitor the judgment's finality and its content when the action is dismissed, so that recovery from the security is not pursued.
• Carrying out new enforcement steps in a proceeding that stopped immediately after a judgment of acceptance.

Decision Matrix: What Happens in Which Case?

Frequently Asked Critical Questions

If I file a negative declaratory action today, will tomorrow's attachment stop?

No. Filing the action alone does not stop the attachment. The objection to the payment order, the special objection in negotiable-instrument enforcement, the Art. 72(3) measure and the complaint routes appropriate to the sale stage must each be assessed separately.

If I deposit 15 percent security, can the attached real estate not be sold?

No. Security of not less than 15 percent generally secures only the loss that may arise from late payment of the money to the creditor. It does not stop the sale by itself.

Is it correct that "if 115 percent is deposited, the enforcement stops"?

It is technically incomplete. The court-set security and the securing of the current file debt are different steps, and the amounts may not be fixed. The line of precedent is based on the other attachments becoming excessive, and their being lifted, when the conditions are met.

If I deposit the whole file debt, am I admitting the debt?

In every case, no. A deposit made under a measure and with a reservation is not the same as acknowledgment of the debt under substantive law. However, the wording used in the documents and whether the money is paid to the creditor may affect the result.

Is a bank letter of guarantee a substitute for cash?

In the precedents mentioned, a qualified bank letter of guarantee that covers the current file debt with its accessories, is collectable at any time, and is valid and definite has been accepted. The text of the letter and its acceptance by the enforcement office must be checked in the concrete file.

What should be done if the enforcement office does not lift the attachment?

A reasoned refusal should, as a general rule, be the subject of a complaint to the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted within seven days of learning of it. If the sale date is close, a request for interim protection should also be set up.

Can the court stop the sale under Art. 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

In an ordinary Art. 72 action brought after enforcement proceedings have begun, the limit set by the special provision of Art. 72(3) cannot be exceeded. The İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 45th Civil Chamber, in its 2025 decision, accordingly lifted the interim measure directly stopping the sale. The exception in Art. 18/A(16) of HUAK must be assessed separately.

What happens if an enforcement starts during mediation?

Where, after a mediation application, enforcement has been started on the same dispute, a party who files the action within two weeks from the final mediation report and expressly requests it may benefit from the protection of Art. 72(2). Approximate proof and security conditions still apply.

Does saying the instrument is forged stop the enforcement?

No. A claim that the instrument is forged, or a criminal investigation, does not by itself create an automatic stop. The special objection periods in enforcement based on negotiable instruments and any appropriate interim protection order must be assessed separately.

If I win the negative declaratory action after the sale, is the auction annulled?

Not automatically. Annulment of an auction is a separate legal route. The effect of the negative declaratory judgment on the restoration of enforcement, the finality of the auction and the place to which the sale price was paid are examined together.

If salary deductions are made while the action is pending, must I file a new action?

As a rule, no. The existing negative declaratory action continues as an action for recovery of payment under Art. 72(6) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, and the deduction amounts and dates should be notified to the court.

If I win the negative declaratory action, will I automatically receive 20 percent compensation?

No. Compensation in favor of the debtor requires that the enforcement was both unlawful and in bad faith, that the claimant asks for it and that the other statutory conditions are met. An acceptance judgment alone does not prove bad faith.

Conclusion

In a negative declaratory action brought after enforcement proceedings have begun, the most important distinction is between the claim of non-indebtedness on the merits and the temporary protective instruments in the enforcement file, which must not be confused. The security under Art. 72(3) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, as a rule, prevents the money held in the enforcement cashier from being paid to the creditor; it does not stop the attachment and the sale by itself. Securing the whole current file debt separately and fully may, in line with the precedent of the Court of Cassation, make the other attachments excessive. This result is not automatic; an application to the enforcement office, a complaint within the time limit where necessary, and separate protective steps according to the sale stage are required.

When a case strategy is set up, the date of the action, the date of the mediation application, the type of enforcement, the current closing calculation, the text of the bank letter of guarantee, the scope of the attachments, the sale calendar and whether the money has been paid to the creditor should all be reviewed together.

Relevant legislation and decisions

• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 – Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes – Ministry of Justice UYAP Legislation
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 – Legislation Information System
• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 – Legislation Information System
• Labor Courts Law No. 7036 – Legislation Information System
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, E.2016/31340, K.2018/4251, May 4, 2018
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, E.2018/1429, K.2018/5995, June 7, 2018
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, E.2017/6835, K.2018/801, February 6, 2018
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, E.2014/32823, K.2015/4058, February 26, 2015
• İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal 45th Civil Chamber, E.2025/444, K.2025/363, March 26, 2025
• İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal 43rd Civil Chamber, E.2025/510, K.2025/452, April 10, 2025
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2017/12-364, K.2021/384, March 30, 2021
• Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5588, K.2021/1514, February 15, 2021
• Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, E.2023/5228, K.2023/6468, November 6, 2023
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2019/(13)3-536, K.2022/43, January 25, 2022
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2017/8-1873, K.2021/230, March 9, 2021
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2023/(19)11-795, K.2023/1062, November 8, 2023
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2018/19-374, K.2018/943, April 25, 2018

---