An action for negative declaratory judgment secures a court determination that an alleged debt does not exist. An action for recovery of payment seeks the return of money that was not owed but was paid under enforcement pressure, on the conditions set out in the law. The basic questions that determine which route to use are: has enforcement begun, has payment been made, and was the action brought earlier?
Receiving a payment order does not show that the debt is necessarily justified. Conversely, saying "I owe nothing" or bringing an action does not, of itself, stop enforcement proceedings. Protecting rights requires that the date of service, the type of enforcement, the payment transactions and the available evidence be assessed together.
This guide addresses private law debts within the framework of Article 72 in particular of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004. Recovery of taxes and other public receivables under Law No. 6183 is subject to different rules. Date of review of the legislation and sources: October 11, 2026. For details, see the section objection to a tax payment order.
What is the difference between an action for negative declaratory judgment and an action for recovery of payment?
In a negative declaratory action the court is asked to determine that a specified debt does not exist, in whole or in part. In an action for recovery of payment, a ruling on the return of money already paid is also required. For this reason, selecting the type of action merely from the heading of the petition is not sufficient; the date of payment must be compared with the date of the action.
| Situation | Legal route | Point requiring attention |
|---|---|---|
| A concrete debt is alleged, enforcement has not begun | Negative declaratory action where there is a legal interest | Conditions for interim measures before enforcement may be assessed. |
| Enforcement has begun, the debt has not yet been paid | Negative declaratory action | The action does not replace an objection to the payment order. |
| Payment is made while the negative declaratory action is pending | Action continues as an action for recovery of payment | The amount paid and its connection with the debt in dispute must be notified. |
| Payment is completed under compulsory enforcement pressure before an action is brought | Direct recovery of payment where the conditions are met | The one-year preclusive period must be checked. |
A finality of enforcement proceedings and a finality of a court judgment are not the same thing. Enforcement becoming final because no objection was made does not establish, by a judgment with the force of res judicata, that the debt exists in substantive law. The possibility of a negative declaratory action may still exist at this stage. Conversely, where there is a substantive res judicata judgment on the same debt, the effect of that judgment cannot be removed by a new negative declaratory action; the scope of the judgment and any statutory remedies are examined.
In which circumstances is an action for negative declaratory judgment brought?
The debt never arose, has been extinguished or is overstated
The alleged debt may never have arisen: there may be no contract, the goods may not have been delivered, or the signature may not belong to the person concerned. Where a debt originally existed, it may have been extinguished by payment, release, or set-off where its conditions are met. The action may concern not only the principal debt but also interest or other ancillary claims that have been overstated. The amount, period and documents covered by the declaration sought must be clearly stated.
For example, if an invoice that is said to have been paid by bank transfer has been placed in enforcement again, the recipient and description information in the receipt is matched against the invoice. The possibility of the creditor's defence that "this payment belonged to another debt" is also assessed. The mere fact that money left a bank account does not in every case prove that the debt in dispute was paid.
Legal interest and the correct defendant
Under Articles 106 and 114 of HMK, there must be a current interest worthy of legal protection. Where there is as yet no enforcement, concrete facts such as a demand for payment, correspondence asserting the debt, or the retention of a document capable of founding enforcement become important. The thought that a dispute may arise one day is not, on its own, sufficient.
The action is brought against the person who asserts the debt and who is the correct adversary according to the nature of the dispute. Where the claim has been assigned, the promissory note endorsed, or there are several debtors or guarantors, the status of the parties is examined separately. The person who issued a note, the person who gave an aval and the party to the underlying contract may not occupy the same legal position.
Where the creditor has already brought an action for the claim or for annulment of the objection, the defences concerning the debt may be assessed in that file. The legal interest in bringing a separate negative declaratory action for the same dispute is determined by the dates of the actions, the claims and the scope of the existing file. Bringing a separate action or joining the files is not, in every event, the correct solution.
Limitation is not the same as the absence of a debt
Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law does not state a general period for bringing an ordinary negative declaratory action. This does not mean that all defences may be used without limit. The source of the debt, the stage at which the defence of limitation is raised, and developments after the enforcement has become final are assessed separately.
Limitation does not extinguish the debt of its own accord. Indeed, Article 78(2) of the Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK) provides that enrichment arising from the performance of a debt that has become time-barred cannot be recovered. For this reason the approach "limitation had run, so I can recover every sum I paid" is not correct.
Which periods must be checked when a payment order arrives?
First, it must be determined whether the document is a payment order, an enforcement order or a notice of attachment. In general enforcement by attachment in enforcement proceedings without a title, the period for objecting to the debt is, as a rule, seven days from notification, and the objection is made to the enforcement office. In the attachment route specific to bills of exchange, there is, as a rule, a five-day period for objection to the debt and to the signature, with an application to the enforcement court. The grounds are Articles 62 and 168 of Law No. 2004; special provisions for the types of enforcement are reserved.
In the general attachment route, a timely objection suspends enforcement, whereas the effect of an objection in bill-of-exchange enforcement is different. Where it is alleged that service was irregular, the date of learning, the service documents and the appropriate route of complaint are examined separately. Preparing an action, mediation, or discussions with the other party does not mean that the period relating to the payment order stops of its own accord.
Following finality of the enforcement, and developments such as payment or the granting of a period, the route of annulment or suspension under Article 71 of Law No. 2004 may also be considered where the documents required by the law exist. A complaint for unlawfulness in the act of the enforcement office, a negative declaratory action on the merits of the debt, and an action for annulment of the objection that the creditor may bring are distinct legal remedies.
Release from a debt and a third party's action are separate institutions
The seven-day period for the action for release from a debt under Article 69 of Law No. 2004, which arises after a temporary lifting of the objection, and the special security requirement, must be observed. This action should not be confused with the ordinary negative declaratory action.
Notices of attachment under Article 89 of Law No. 2004 sent to a third party who is alleged to owe the debtor also fall under a separate regime. For the first and second notices the period for objection is seven days; for a third-party declaration, it is important to bring an action within fifteen days and to submit the action document to the enforcement office within twenty days of notification of that declaration. Where the conditions are met, compulsory enforcement against the third party is suspended until the decision becomes final. Because of the special burden of proof, the risk of compensation of at least twenty percent and the rule on fixed fees, this route is not identical to the ordinary action under Article 72.
Does an action for negative declaratory judgment stop enforcement proceedings?
An action brought before enforcement begins
Under Article 72(2) of Law No. 2004, on application and upon provision of security of not less than fifteen percent of the claim, the court may grant an interim injunction suspending enforcement. The bringing of an action or the preparation of the security is not sufficient by itself; a court order is required. The necessity of the measure and the evidence supporting the claim of non-indebtedness must be made concrete.
The security is neither the court fee nor the attorney's fee. It is a guarantee against the loss that the opposing party may suffer on account of the measure. The court may fix a higher amount without being bound by the statutory minimum. For example, if the claim underlying the measure is accepted as 1,000,000 TL, fifteen percent is 150,000 TL; this calculation shows only the minimum and does not indicate the total cost of the action.
An action brought after enforcement has begun
The general rule is that, in a negative declaratory action brought after enforcement has begun, enforcement cannot be stopped by an interim injunction under Article 72(3) of Law No. 2004. By contrast, the payment of money in the enforcement office may be prevented from being handed over to the creditor, on condition of security that covers the default interest and is not less than fifteen percent of the claim.
The prevention of transfer of the money to the creditor and the stopping of attachment and sale proceedings have different consequences. The petition must establish this distinction and the stage at which the file stands. It should not be assumed that the deposit of fifteen percent security will lift all attachments, or that the enforcement debt will be treated as paid. The file debt, ancillary claims, the money in the office and the interim-measure security are separate items.
An important exception for enforcement commenced during mediation
Article 18/A(16) of Law No. 6325 provides special protection during the mediation that is a condition precedent to litigation. Where enforcement is begun against the applicant for the same dispute after an application has been made to a mediation office, Article 72(2) of Law No. 2004 applies if a negative declaratory action is brought and the request is made within two weeks from the drawing up of the final minutes.
Accordingly, the absolute statement that "no suspension measure may be taken under any circumstances once enforcement has begun" is incomplete. In this exception, the mediation application, the date of commencement of enforcement and the dates of the final minutes must be documented together. Where enforcement began before the mediation application, the mere fact that a mediator was later approached does not secure this protection. The two-week condition also does not replace the ordinary objection periods.
Who bears the burden of proof and which documents are important?
Denying the debt relationship and saying it has been paid
The fact that the person named as debtor brings the negative declaratory action does not mean that the entire burden of proof necessarily rests on that person. Under Article 190 of HMK, the probative force of the facts relied on by the parties and of the documents is the basis. Where the debt relationship is denied entirely, the creditor must prove the facts giving rise to the claim. Where it is accepted that the debt originally existed and payment, release or set-off is asserted, the proof of that ground of extinction falls on the debtor.
| Claim or defence | Evidence to be examined first | Possible counter-defence |
|---|---|---|
| The debt has been paid | Receipt, voucher, account reconciliation | The payment belonged to another debt. |
| The signature is not mine | Original of the document, comparison signatures | Attribution of the signature and method of examination |
| Goods or services were not supplied | Delivery, dispatch, acceptance and service records | Proof of delivery through other records |
| The note was given as security | Contract, written record connected with the note | The note contains an independent debt |
| The debt was overstated | Contract, statement of account, payment dates | Basis of the method of calculating interest and set-off |
Where defences are raised against a promissory note, the written-evidence rules and exceptions in Articles 200–202 of HMK are important. "I have witnesses" does not always suffice to prove that a debt bound by a note has been extinguished. The source, integrity and lawful obtaining of electronic correspondence are also assessed; a single screenshot may not explain the entire dispute.
Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: the defence of the aval giver is assessed separately
In its decision of March 1, 2023, E.2022/221, K.2023/134, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) addressed the liability of a person who gave an aval on a bill issued in connection with a credit relationship. The claimant relied on defences that the note had a security function and that the claimant's relationship with the company had ended. The Assembly, stressing the independent character of the aval and that the principal debtor's personal defences based on the underlying relationship do not automatically pass to the aval giver, quashed the decision of the lower court's accepting resistance.
The decision shows that the statement "I left the company" or "this was a security note" does not produce the same result for every signatory. The capacity in which the signature was given, Article 702 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) and the defences belonging to the aval giver must be examined separately. This result does not mean that the aval giver has no defence rights. Official full text of the decision.
If payment has been made, how does an action for recovery of payment arise?
Conversion of a pending action into an action for recovery of payment
Where the debt in dispute is paid under enforcement pressure while a negative declaratory action is pending, the action continues as an action for recovery of payment under Article 72(6) of Law No. 2004. For this statutory conversion, there is no need to bring a new action or to make an amendment merely to change the type of action. However, the payment must not remain hidden from the court; it must be notified with the receipt, the collection document and the file account.
Where there has been partial payment, the refund is assessed for the part paid and the negative declaration is assessed for the remainder. In the conversion of the existing action in this way, the one-year period provided for direct recovery does not itself create a requirement to bring a new action. Where there are new amounts, different debts or claims for interest, the scope of the claim and the procedural rules are separately observed.
The academic study specific to this topic by İbrahim Aşık and Ömer Faruk Demir explains that the conversion arises from the law, and that the distinctions between partial payment and the execution of the judgment should be assessed separately. The practical consequence of this distinction is that one should not stop at a finding "there is no debt"; if payment has been made, the amount to be returned must also be assessed in the judgment. Aşık/Demir, 2021, especially pp. 349–352.
One-year period for direct recovery of payment
Article 72(7) of Law No. 2004 gives a person who, because of not having objected to enforcement or because the objection was removed, has had to pay in full money that was not actually owed, the right to bring an action for recovery within one year from the date of payment. The period is preclusive; it is taken into account by the court even where the opposing party does not raise it.
For the starting point, the day on which the file was closed or the day of transfer to the creditor's bank account alone should not be taken as the basis. The date on which the debt was fully paid to the enforcement office, or directly to the creditor under enforcement pressure, is important. Where there are instalments and recoveries by sale, the chronology of payments must be drawn up. The fact that the preclusive period does not run from the application to mediation to the final minutes in a condition precedent to litigation is also taken into account under Article 18/A(15) of Law No. 6325; mediation does not restart a period that has already expired.
Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: the date of payment to the enforcement office is decisive
In its decision of April 11, 2007, E.2007/3-164, K.2007/204, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation shows the importance of the one-year period in a claim for recovery based on an alleged overpayment of interest. The Assembly distinguished between a payment made to the enforcement office and transfer to the creditor, and stated that in instalment payments the period runs from the last instalment. In the concrete case, because the action against the payment of December 11, 2003 was brought on March 29, 2005, it confirmed the rejection.
The aspect of this decision used here is not the historical calculation of expropriation interest, but the start of the period and its consideration by the court on its own motion. The one-year provision is also found in the current text of Article 72 of Law No. 2004. Official full text of the decision.
Where another debtor has paid, legal interest may continue
In its decision of May 2, 2019, E.2017/7853, K.2019/4067, the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) examined the effect, on another claimant, of a payment made by the sale of one claimant's immovable property in an enforcement based on a promissory note. The Chamber held that a claimant who had not himself paid had a legal interest in a negative declaration in view of the possibility of recourse, and quashed the rejection.
Accordingly, the decision cannot be read as meaning that "if anyone has paid, the negative declaratory right of all debtors ends". Who paid, who brought the action, and against whom recourse may be taken are assessed together. A claim for refund by the person who paid and a declaration of non-indebtedness by another person are not in the same legal position. Official full text of the decision.
Not every claim for refund falls within Article 72 of Law No. 2004
Voluntary payment made without any enforcement, the liquidation of a contract or a calculation error may raise other grounds for refund. In such cases the provisions of the contract and the conditions for unjust enrichment under Articles 77–82 of TBK are examined separately. Missing the one-year period under the enforcement law does not automatically mean that "no right remains" or that the sum must be recovered under the TBK; the conditions of the alternative claim and the limitation must be made concrete.
The restitution of enforcement under Article 40 of Law No. 2004 following the setting aside or quashing of a judgment, and recovery under Article 361 of HMK where the enforcement office has mistakenly made an overpayment, are also different routes. It should not be assumed that a new action for recovery of payment must be brought for every refund of money.
How are the competent court and mandatory mediation determined?
The fact that the title of an action contains the word "enforcement" does not mean that the substantive dispute will necessarily be heard by the enforcement court. The competent court is determined by reference to the nature of the underlying relationship and to special provisions.
| Nature of the dispute | General framework of jurisdiction | Mediation as a condition precedent to litigation |
|---|---|---|
| General debt relationship | Civil court of first instance | No general obligation arises merely because the action is called a negative declaratory action. |
| Commercial action | Commercial court of first instance | Mandatory in monetary disputes falling under Article 5/A of the TTK. |
| Consumer transaction | Consumer court and division of jurisdiction with the Consumer Arbitration Committee | The scope and exceptions in Article 73/A of Law No. 6502 apply. |
| Rental relationship | As a rule, civil court of peace | Article 18/B of Law No. 6325; the exception for eviction without a judgment is examined separately. |
| Employee or employer claim | Labour court | The scope and exceptions of Article 3 of Law No. 7036 apply. |
Negative declaratory and recovery actions of a commercial nature, the subject of which is a sum of money, are expressly listed in Article 5/A of the TTK. For this reason, older statements that "mediation is not required for a commercial negative declaratory action" cannot be used directly for today's action. Negative declaratory and recovery actions linked with a wage or employer claim and with compensation are also expressly regulated in Article 3 of Law No. 7036; exceptions such as occupational accidents and occupational diseases are preserved.
In consumer disputes, the current monetary threshold, the nature of the claim, the competence of the arbitration committee and the need for interim measures are examined together. There is an exception to mediation for disputes within the competence of the arbitration committee and for objections to the committee's decisions. A negative declaratory action arising from a rent-related money dispute should also not be treated as the same as the procedure for eviction without a judgment.
Territorial jurisdiction and the mediation minutes
Article 72(8) of Law No. 2004 identifies the place of the enforcement office that conducts the enforcement and the court of the defendant's place of residence. Where enforcement has not begun, a place of enforcement that does not exist cannot be taken as the basis. Special territorial provisions, such as the consumer's place of residence, the special regime in employment actions and the effect of a valid jurisdiction agreement, are checked separately. Subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction are different questions: the type of court is determined first and then its geographical location.
Where mediation is a condition precedent to litigation and an action is brought without any application having been made, there is a risk of dismissal on procedural grounds. Where an application has been made but the parties did not agree and the final minutes have not been attached to the petition, the one-week fixed period under the law for submitting the minutes arises. The parties and scope of the dispute must be consistent between the mediation application form and the petition.
How does winning or losing the action affect enforcement?
A decision in the debtor's favour and restitution of enforcement
Under Article 72(5) of Law No. 2004, where the action is decided in favour of the debtor, enforcement stops immediately. Restitution of enforcement in whole or in part depends on the judgment becoming final. The amount won, the scope of the judgment and the collections must be compared, and the decision should be submitted to the relevant enforcement file with a request for its implementation.
Enforcement of a negative declaratory judgment together with its ancillary claims is not the same as enforcement of a direct judgment for recovery of payment as a money claim. In recovery files that have converted from a negative declaratory action, the nature of the judgment and the condition of finality must also be separately assessed. The expectation that "on the day I win the case all the money automatically returns to my account" is therefore not realistic.
Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: termination of the measure by a rejection decision
In its decision of September 29, 2021, E.2021/3099, K.2021/8182, the Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) considered whether the measure continues after the request for a negative declaration has been rejected. The Chamber accepted that Article 72(4) of Law No. 2004 is a special provision, and that, where the action is decided in the creditor's favour, it is not necessary to wait for the judgment to become final for the measure to be lifted.
Accordingly, having recourse to a legal remedy against a rejection does not mean that the earlier measure necessarily continues. The outcome of the judgment, the content of new decisions and the transactions in the enforcement file must be monitored together. This is particularly important for the transfer of the money in the office to the creditor. Official full text of the decision.
In what circumstances is twenty percent compensation claimed?
Compensation for bad faith in favour of the debtor
For the purposes of Article 72(5) of Law No. 2004, the enforcement that compelled the debtor to bring the action must be both unjustified and in bad faith, and compensation must be claimed. The lower limit is twenty percent of the amount of the enforced claim whose unjustified character is established. Winning the action alone does not in itself prove the opposing party's bad faith.
Notification of the payment information to the creditor, the creditor's express acceptance, release and reconciliation records may be important in the concrete case. By contrast, the fact that the claim could only be determined by litigation, whether or not it actually exists, may weaken the allegation of bad faith. This compensation is not subject to the same conditions as the compensation for denial of enforcement that the creditor may claim in an action for annulment of the objection.
Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: unlawfulness alone is not bad faith
In its decision of March 24, 2022, E.2019/472, K.2022/386, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation considered compensation for bad faith in a dispute concerning a rental receivable. The Assembly explained that unlawfulness is not sufficient on its own and that the burden of proving bad faith falls on the claimant who alleges it. Because the existence of the concrete rent receivable could only be determined through litigation, it concluded that the creditor could not be regarded as acting in bad faith.
The decision shows that it is not enough to write only "twenty percent compensation" in the claim. The facts and evidence showing that the creditor knew, or ought to have known, that the claim did not exist must also be explained. Official full text of the decision.
Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation: continuing an enforcement that was initially justified
In its decision of June 7, 2022, E.2020/297, K.2022/835, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation discussed a situation in which enforcement was initially justified, but enforcement steps were continued despite later payment and release. The majority affirmed the rejection of the compensation claim, assessing bad faith for the purposes of Article 72(5) of Law No. 2004 by reference to the beginning of the enforcement.
In a dissenting opinion, however, it was argued that enforcement is a process, and that steps taken after payment and release must also be taken into account in assessing bad faith. The majority outcome and the dissent must not be confused. This example shows the importance, in a claim of bad faith, of explaining not only the last step but the whole chronology from the beginning of the enforcement. Where other claims of legal liability are made, the conditions for them are separately assessed. Official full text of the decision.
Compensation arising from a measure in favour of the creditor
The counter-risk under Article 72(4) of Law No. 2004 is different: where the action is decided in favour of the creditor and an interim injunction has delayed the collection of the claim, the loss arising from the measure is assessed in the same action; the statutory minimum is twenty percent. The proof of the debtor's bad faith is not a condition here, as it is under Article 72(5). The implementation of the measure, the connection between delay and loss are examined; the recovery from the security becomes possible after finality.
Fifteen percent security is not the ceiling of liability. Compensation under Article 72(5) also does not apply automatically in a direct action for recovery of payment. Where a negative declaratory action has converted into an action for recovery, the position of the compensation claim already made must be assessed with its original conditions.
Court fees, interest, the time for an action and preparation of the file
Costs and the risk of collection
In ordinary negative declaratory and recovery actions the monetary value of the dispute affects the court fee; the application fee, the advance on costs, and the expert and notification costs are calculated separately. Security, litigation costs and attorney's fees are not the same item. Special fee provisions, such as Article 89(3) of Law No. 2004, and exemptions in consumer legislation are reserved. For this reason there is no single "total action fee" applicable to every file.
When claiming a refund, the type and starting point of interest must also be justified. An automatic rate of interest should not be stated without examining the commercial character, default, the date of payment and the basis of the claim. Obtaining a judgment does not mean that actual collection from the opposing party is certain; the ability to pay and the appropriate interim protection are also assessed.
No reliable general period can be given for how many months a negative declaratory action will take. Service, expert examination, handwriting investigation and the stages of legal remedy affect the duration. In general civil litigation, the two-week periods for appeal and cassation and the monetary finality thresholds should be checked by reference to the type of decision and the special provisions; not every decision is open to cassation.
Which documents should be prepared for review?
- The enforcement request, the payment or enforcement order, the service documents and the current account of the file.
- The contract, the front and back of the note, and the endorsement and aval records; information on the original of the document where available.
- Bank receipts showing date, amount, recipient and description, receipts, releases and reconciliations.
- Invoices, delivery and service records, commercial books and related correspondence.
- The mediation application and the final minutes; earlier court decisions, remedies and information on finality.
- Documents showing the attachment, sale and payment stages; concrete records explaining the need for urgent protection.
The documents should be placed in chronological order and each claim matched with the evidence supporting it. The petition should separately set out the amount whose non-indebtedness is sought, the amounts paid and unpaid, and the claims for interim measures, interest and compensation. A general petition seeking the complete stoppage of enforcement without the conditions under Article 72(3) of Law No. 2004 may not meet the needs of the file.
File assessment from Güneş & Güneş Law Firm
For an enforcement or action in progress, an independent legal opinion evaluating the present legal position and the options may be requested. The review focuses on time limits, the sufficiency of the evidence, the possibility of interim protection, the payment and refund calculation, the defences of the opposing party and the financial risks.
Once the scope of the request has been determined, a complete copy of the file is obtained. The legal opinion is planned to be delivered within seven business days at most from delivery of the complete file; in special cases requiring a comprehensive technical review or additional documents, the additional time needed is notified separately. This review period does not suspend running objection or action periods; urgent steps are identified first.
File documents obtained from UYAP may be shared securely, and the lawyer's access to the file is also provided within the necessary authority and power of attorney. There is no need to share an e-Devlet password, a UYAP login password or a one-time verification code. Contact and request for a consultation.
Shared documents are handled for the purpose of legal assessment within the obligations relating to professional secrecy and the protection of personal data. The first communication or the sending of a document does not by itself mean that the matter has been taken on; the scope of the service is determined separately.
Conclusion
Effective legal protection against unfounded enforcement proceedings requires more than choosing the correct name for an action. First the type of enforcement and the date of service must be determined; then the state of payment, the source of the debt, the evidence and the protection that may be requested from the court must be assessed together. A negative declaratory action concretises the fact that no debt exists; a recovery action concretises why the money paid should be returned.
The most important distinction is which step was taken and when. An action brought before enforcement affects the availability of interim measures; a payment made during the action affects the nature of the claim; waiting after payment has been completed affects the one-year period. The special protection for enforcement that begins during mediation is also part of this chronology.
Judicial decisions require that the justification of a claim be supported by evidence and by the correct procedure. Determining non-indebtedness, the return of money, the stopping of enforcement and compensation for bad faith each depend on different conditions. Protecting a right begins with preparing a file that clearly states the basis of each claim and does not miss running time limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an action for negative declaratory judgment?
It is an action brought to obtain a court determination that a specified debt does not exist, in whole or in part. Under Article 72 of Law No. 2004 it may be brought before or during enforcement; current legal interest and a concrete debt claim are required.
Does enforcement by attachment stop when a negative declaratory action is brought?
Not automatically. The conditions for interim measures differ before and after enforcement begins. After enforcement, the principal protection is that the money in the enforcement office is not handed over to the creditor. The special conditions of Article 18/A(16) are examined separately for enforcement that begins after a mediation application.
Can a person who missed the time limit for objection bring an action?
The finality of enforcement by a non-judgment-based procedure does not by itself remove the right to a negative declaratory action. However, an action does not automatically correct all the consequences of a missed objection. Where payment has been made, the conditions for recovery, limitation and the special periods are assessed separately.
Is depositing fifteen percent security sufficient?
No. This rate is the statutory minimum; a court decision and the conditions for the measure are required. The payment of the enforcement debt into the enforcement file is a different matter from interim-measure security. The court may fix a higher security; liability is not limited to the amount of the security.
Within what period must an action for recovery of payment be brought?
A direct action for recovery under Article 72(7) of Law No. 2004 must be brought within one year from the date on which the money that was not owed was fully paid. The effect of instalment payments and of mandatory mediation on the period is calculated separately.
If the debt is paid while a negative declaratory action is pending, is a new action necessary?
Where the conditions of Article 72(6) arise in respect of the debt in dispute, the existing action continues as an action for recovery of payment. A new action or an amendment is not required merely for the conversion. The payment document, the amount and the date must be submitted to the court and the petition must cover the refund claim.
Is it compulsory to make a protest reservation when paying the debt?
A protest reservation is not an independent statutory condition for recovery under Article 72 of Law No. 2004. The essential point is that money not owed was paid under enforcement pressure on the conditions set by the law. The statement made on payment and its connection with the file remain important for proof; any settlement or release made is examined separately.
Does the burden of proof always rest on the claimant debtor?
No. A total denial of the debt relationship and an assertion that the existing debt has been paid are different. Who asserts the facts giving rise to the claim, the nature of the note, and defences such as payment, release and set-off determine the burden of proof.
Is mediation mandatory for negative declaratory and recovery actions?
Not in every file. The scope and exceptions of the relevant laws are examined in relation to commercial monetary disputes, employee or employer claims, rent and consumer relationships. No single answer can be given from the title of the action.
If I win the action, is twenty percent compensation necessarily awarded?
No. For the debtor's benefit under Article 72(5), the claim requires unjustified and bad-faith enforcement. For the creditor's benefit under Article 72(4), the compensation relates to the loss of delay caused by the measure. The conditions of the two compensation claims are not the same.
Do the same rules apply to a third party who receives a notice of attachment?
No. Article 89(3) of Law No. 2004 contains special provisions on time limits, proof, fees and compensation. The number of the notice and the date of service must be determined immediately; the fifteen-day and twenty-day periods for the third-party declaration must be observed together.
Can the action be brought without a lawyer?
As a rule a person may conduct his or her own case. However, short enforcement periods, the choice of court, the written-evidence rules and the financial risks of a measure require file-specific assessment. Requesting a legal opinion also does not suspend running time limits.
Sources
Legislation
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, in particular Arts. 16, 40, 62, 69, 71, 72, 89, 168 and 361.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, in particular Arts. 2, 4, 106, 114, 190, 200–202, 303, 345, 361 and 389 et seq.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 18/A and 18/B.
- Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Arts. 4, 5, 5/A and 702.
- Law No. 6502 on the Protection of the Consumer, Arts. 68, 73 and 73/A.
- Labour Courts Law No. 7036, Arts. 3, 5 and 6.
- Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Arts. 77–82.
- Law No. 492 on Fees and the tariff (1) on judicial fees.
Judicial decisions
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, March 1, 2023, E.2022/221, K.2023/134 — Liability under an aval and proof in a negative declaratory action.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, April 11, 2007, E.2007/3-164, K.2007/204 — The one-year preclusive period in an action for recovery of payment.
- Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 2, 2019, E.2017/7853, K.2019/4067 — Legal interest in view of the possibility of recourse by a claimant who did not pay.
- Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, September 29, 2021, E.2021/3099, K.2021/8182 — Lifting of the measure following rejection of a negative declaratory action.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, March 24, 2022, E.2019/472, K.2022/386 — Conditions and proof of compensation for bad faith.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, June 7, 2022, E.2020/297, K.2022/835 — The time for assessing bad faith; majority and dissent.
Academic work
- Aşık, İbrahim / Demir, Ömer Faruk, "The Conversion of an Action for Negative Declaratory Judgment into an Action for Recovery of Payment", Dicle University Faculty of Law Journal, Vol. 26, Issue 45, 2021, pp. 341–362.
This text is for general legal information. The route to be applied in a concrete dispute is determined by the file documents, the dates and the scope of the request.