Action for Annulment of Objection and Removal of Objection: Conditions, Time Limits and Differences

When enforcement proceedings started because a debt was not paid are stayed by the debtor's timely objection, the matter for the creditor goes beyond knowing which court to apply to. The creditor must assess which evidence can prove the claim, which time limit is running and what kind of decision the chosen route will produce. For the debtor, the fact that an objection stops enforcement does not mean that the court has accepted that no debt exists.

An action for annulment of objection is the action in which the claim is examined under the general provisions, in accordance with Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law; as a rule it is brought within one year from notice of the objection to the creditor. Removal of objection is the application, governed by Articles 68 and 68/a of the same Law, conducted before the enforcement court with a limited review; the basic application period is six months. These two periods are not periods within which the proceedings must be concluded.

This guide explains the routes that may be followed after an objection to the debt or to the signature in summary enforcement proceedings based on general attachment. Enforcement based on negotiable instruments, enforcement based on a judgment, bankruptcy, and the summary eviction of a tenant are assessed separately. The explanations acquire meaning only together with the documents of the specific file and the service records.

What happens when an objection is made to enforcement proceedings?

In summary enforcement proceedings based on general attachment, the debtor may, as a rule, object to the enforcement office within seven days from service of the payment order. A valid objection made within the period stops the proceedings. If a valid objection is made to only a specific part of the debt, enforcement may continue for the part that is accepted. For this reason, seeing only the note "objection made" in the file is not enough; the period of the objection, its scope and the claim items to which it is directed must be examined. The legal basis is Articles 62 and 66 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

The enforcement office does not decide, on an objection, who is right by assessing the whole contract between the parties. The creditor must remove the obstacle to enforcement by an appropriate application. On the other hand, in proceedings stayed by an objection that is out of time, bringing an action for annulment of objection directly may create a problem of legal interest. Special situations, such as defective service and a late objection, must be resolved first.

An objection that is directed only at the jurisdiction of the enforcement office is also different. In such a file, where the substance of the debt is not disputed, the procedural resolution of the objection to jurisdiction within enforcement law is assessed, rather than bringing an action for annulment of objection to have the existence of the claim decided. A file in which an objection to the debt and an objection to jurisdiction are both present is not the same as a file with only an objection to jurisdiction. For a broader framework, the article How Can a Receivable Be Collected in Türkiye? may be read.

Differences between annulment of objection and removal of objection

Both routes serve to remove the obstacle in the same enforcement proceedings, but they are not renamed versions of one another. In the annulment action, the court examines the substantive legal relationship. In the removal application, the enforcement court determines, by the limited review permitted by the law, whether enforcement may continue.

A creditor who holds a document suitable for removal may also choose the annulment action, if its conditions are met. On the other hand, carrying to the enforcement court a claim that is not suitable for limited review merely because a faster result is expected creates a serious procedural and cost risk. The content of the document matters as much as its name, as do the debtor's objection and the statutory period.

The choice of route does not mean that the two applications may be pursued without limit at the same time. As explained in the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation no. 2019/218, examined below, a creditor who first seeks removal may give up that route and bring an annulment action within the time limit. However, while an annulment action is pending, the removal route cannot be used for the same dispute while leaving the action as it is. For this reason, the time and procedure for changing route later must be planned as carefully as the initial application.

What are the conditions for an action for annulment of objection?

A valid enforcement, a valid objection and legal interest

An annulment action is connected with an existing enforcement proceeding stayed by an objection. The application for enforcement, the payment order, the service record, the objection petition and, where present, the decisions of the enforcement office are assessed together. If no enforcement was started, a direct claim action may be considered; there is then no objection to annul.

Amounts collected before the action was filed must also be taken into account. Seeking annulment of a claim as if it were unpaid, where it has been paid in full, creates problems for legal interest, the value of the action, litigation costs and good faith. Where there has been a partial payment, it must be documented to which debt and which claim item it was credited.

Parties, the arising of the claim and maturity

As a rule, the claimant is the enforcement creditor and the defendant is the debtor who objected. Changes such as assignment of the claim, inheritance or a corporate merger must be explained with documents showing the holder of the right. Taking over a claim does not restart by itself a time limit for suit that has already begun to run.

The creditor must show the source and amount of the debt that is the subject of enforcement, and that it was due at the date of enforcement. In a contract containing reciprocal performance, the mere signing of the contract may not be sufficient; delivery of goods, performance of a service, approval of a progress payment or the occurrence of the agreed payment condition are also part of the dispute. In connection with this, the subject Recovering a Claim from a Company in Liquidation should also be considered together.

Consistency between the claim sought in enforcement and the claim in the action

An annulment of objection is connected with the amount and source of the claim in the enforcement proceedings. In an enforcement based on specific invoices, relying on a general account balance that also includes debts for other periods may change the outcome. The start of interest, the type of interest, the principal and the payment offsets must also be compared with the enforcement application.

In its decision dated March 29, 2022, E.2020/7376, K.2022/2537 of the Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), the Court did not consider it sufficient to resolve the dispute by the general current-account balance in enforcement based on invoices. Stating that the invoices on which enforcement was based, the return invoices and the payment defense must be examined concretely, it quashed the judgment of the regional court of appeal. The practical effect of the decision is that the assertion "there is a total debt" does not replace proof of the specific debt sought in enforcement. The assertion that a total debt exists does not replace proof of the specific debt sought in enforcement.

When do the one-year and six-month periods begin?

The decisive date is notice of the objection to the creditor

Service of the payment order on the debtor, the date on which the debtor objects, and the notice of the objection to the creditor are three separate events. As a rule, the periods under Articles 67 and 68 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law begin with the last of these. In a file conducted through a lawyer, it is also examined whether service was made to the correct recipient.

For electronic notification, the date on which the message is opened and the legal date of notification must not be confused. Under Article 7/a of the Notification Law No. 7201, electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which the message reached the recipient's electronic address. The UETS evidence record must therefore be added to the time schedule. For defective service, the rule on learning of the document under Article 32 of the same Law is assessed separately.

If service was not made, does every act of learning start the period?

A single-word answer to this question would be misleading. In resolving a conflict between regional courts of appeal, the Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated September 16, 2024, E.2024/3074, K.2024/6421 did not treat the signing of a mediation minutes recording a failure to agree as the start of the one-year period in a file in which service had not been made. The decision relied on notice of the objection to the creditor or his or her counsel.

On the other hand, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, dated February 28, 2019, E.2018/602, K.2019/218 accepted, as equivalent to notice, an application to the enforcement court for removal of the objection, and decided that the one-year period would begin with that application. The rejection based on time limit was upheld by majority vote. In the dissenting opinion it was argued that the clear requirement of notice in the law could not be departed from; this view was not adopted by the majority.

The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, decision dated April 22, 2025, E.2024/1528, K.2025/2349 also applied a time assessment based on the earlier removal application. Read together, these decisions show that the final mediation minutes, informal learning of the file and an application for removal to the enforcement court are not to be evaluated with the same legal consequence.

Academic writing debates this distinction. The 2026 study by Bilgehan Yeşilova questions the distinction between notice, informal learning and mediation, particularly in terms of the principle of honest dealing and methods of interpretation. This criticism must be kept separate from the result of the decision above; the time limit of a file cannot be managed on the assumption that academic criticism will be accepted. Access to the study.

How do mediation and an application for removal affect the period?

In mediation as a condition precedent to suit, from the application to the mediator until the final minutes are drawn up, the statute of limitations is suspended and the preclusive period does not run. This rule is in Article 18/A–15 of Law No. 6325. As regards time, the result is that the period already running does not run in the relevant interval; a new one-year period does not arise in every case from the final minutes. An application made after the period has expired does not restore the past period.

An application for removal of objection does not by itself stop the period for bringing an annulment action. It is possible for the one-year period to pass while the outcome of the removal file is awaited. The time calculation must be made on the separate timelines of the two routes and any statutory grounds for suspension.

If the six-month period has passed but the one-year period has not yet expired, the annulment action is not barred. If the one-year period is also exceeded, Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law preserves the right to bring a claim action under the general provisions; the statute of limitations of the claim itself is examined separately. It must not be assumed that an annulment action that is out of time will automatically become a claim action. Procedural possibilities such as changing the claim and amendment of the claim (ıslah) depend on the stage of the file.

Article 68 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law also provides that, if removal is not sought within six months, a new summary enforcement may not be commenced. For this reason, opening a new enforcement file for the same claim is not a reliable way to overcome an expired application period. The existing annulment period and the possibility of a general claim action must be examined within their own conditions.

How are the competent court, jurisdiction and mediation determined?

The court is determined by the legal relationship on which the claim is based

An action for annulment of objection is not brought in the enforcement court merely because it originates in an enforcement file. Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the legal relationship underlying the claim. Likewise, the fact that the enforcement office has jurisdiction does not make it unnecessary to examine separately the jurisdiction of the court that will hear the annulment action.

In determining territorial jurisdiction, the defendant's place of residence, the place of performance of the contract, a valid jurisdiction agreement and, where they exist, special statutory provisions are assessed together. An objection to the jurisdiction of the enforcement office and an objection to the jurisdiction of the court are separate procedural acts. The bases include Articles 2, 4, 6, 10 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), Article 50 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the relevant special laws.

Mediation is not limited to commercial actions

Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) expressly lists annulment actions of objection for commercial monetary disputes within its scope. Article 3 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 also regulates annulment actions relating to employee and employer claims within its scope. Consumer and lease disputes have their own rules. Therefore the approach "if it is not commercial, mediation is not required" is not correct.

The exception allowing eviction by summary enforcement in a lease relationship cannot be extended to all lease claims. The annulment action of objection to a lease claim to be brought in the civil court of peace must be distinguished from the special eviction route in the enforcement court. Not having applied to mediation at all, and not attaching the final minutes of an application made to the petition, are also different procedural problems; the subsequent submission of a document does not mean that a condition precedent that was never fulfilled can be completed in every case.

How does the limit of the Consumer Arbitration Committee affect the annulment action?

Article 68 of the Consumer Protection Law (TKHK), in the provision on application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee, reserves the parties' rights under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. For this reason, seeing the amount of a dispute is not enough to conclude that the Committee will decide the request for annulment of objection and continuation of enforcement.

In its decision dated April 22, 2020, E.2020/1155, K.2020/3580, the Thirteenth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 13. Hukuk Dairesi) quashed the dismissal of an annulment action, on the ground that the Committee had not been applied to, in an enforcement arising from a consumer transaction. The decision explains that the Consumer Arbitration Committee is not the court that will decide the request for annulment of objection and continuation of enforcement. The former monetary amounts in that decision may not be used as current thresholds. The decision was also given before the later legislation introducing mediation as a condition precedent to consumer disputes; today's mediation assessment must be made separately under Article 73/A and its exceptions.

With which documents can final removal of objection be requested?

Not every signed or notarized document is sufficient

Article 68 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is based on instruments containing an acknowledgment of debt whose signature has been admitted or certified by a notary, and on specific documents duly drawn up by competent authorities. In the review, it is assessed whether the document establishes the concrete claim within this special regime of proof.

For example, a contract may have made the payment obligation depend on a future delivery or the performance of another obligation. In that case, the signing of the contract does not by itself show that the creditor performed his or her obligation. Notarial certification also does not make all the material conditions of the document indisputable. An express link must be established between the content of the document and the debt sought in enforcement.

A unilaterally issued invoice, an account statement, or a bank receipt whose explanation is unclear is not a document under Article 68 merely because it bears that name. However, it cannot be said that these have no evidential value at all in an annulment action. Suitability for removal and the evidential value before the general court are different questions. The special regime of Article 68/b in banking and credit relationships is also examined together with the type of contract, the sending of the account summary and the conditions of objection; it does not apply automatically to every bank document.

What changes if the debt is admitted and only payment is asserted?

The content of the debtor's objection may affect the review of the document. In its decision dated February 7, 2017, E.2016/9784, K.2017/1338, the Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) stated that, for a debtor who admits the relationship giving rise to the debt and relies on a defense of payment, the admitted debt does not need to be separately proved by a document under Article 68.

The Chamber quashed the rejection on the ground that the payment documents submitted by the debtor and the relevant enforcement file must be examined within Article 68. The decision does not say that every invoice is suitable for removal. What is decisive is whether the concrete objection denies the debt or relies on the defense that the admitted debt has been paid. Which debt the payment document covers is also assessed separately.

Objection to the signature and provisional removal: the seven-day period for discharge from the debt

If the signature on a private instrument has been expressly and separately denied by the debtor during the objection, Article 68/a of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may come into play. The enforcement court examines the signature by the methods set out in the law and may use an expert where necessary. For this reason, it cannot be said that an expert may under no circumstances be used in a removal examination.

Provisional removal of an objection does not produce the same results as final removal. Under Article 69 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, where its conditions are met, a provisional attachment may be imposed. The debtor may bring an action for discharge from the debt within seven days from the pronouncement or notice of the decision on provisional removal. For this action to be heard, security of 15 percent of the amount of the claim in dispute must be provided, by one of the forms set out in the law, by the first hearing day.

Two points here are particularly important. The seven-day period is not a general one-year annulment period, and the 15 percent security is not required by the law to be deposited at the moment the petition is filed. Failure to bring the action in time, or dismissal of the action, leads to the finality of the provisional removal and of any provisional attachment. After the period, a general action for negative declaration may be considered, but it cannot be assumed that the special effects of the action for discharge from the debt are preserved.

Where the signature belongs to the debtor and he or she does not appear at the hearing despite a duly issued summons, the 10 percent fine under Article 68/a may come into play; subject to the claim and the relevant conditions, compensation of not less than 20 percent may also arise. The fine, the compensation and the security are different institutions. A separate legal condition is required for each.

Burden of proof and evidence in an action for annulment of objection

What must the creditor and the debtor prove?

As a general rule, the creditor proves the events giving rise to the claim, and the debtor proves events such as payment, which he or she asserts has ended the debt. The burden of proof is determined not only by whether a party is claimant or defendant, but by the legal consequence of the fact asserted. Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) is the basis of this distinction.

The evidential value of commercial books depends on the conditions of Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that a claim appears in one party's accounting record is not conclusive proof that the other party is in every case a debtor. Electronic correspondence may constitute a document within the meaning of Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure; its origin, integrity, context and lawful obtaining are assessed.

Can a witness, a message or an expert report alone be sufficient?

The fact that an annulment action is subject to the general provisions does not mean that every claim may be proved by witnesses without limit. The obligation to prove by a written instrument, the rule on proof against a written instrument and the statutory exceptions are taken into account under Articles 200 to 203 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that a message is a document does not, of itself, mean that it has the status of conclusive evidence.

An expert gives an assessment on matters requiring special or technical knowledge; the expert does not create facts that a party has not asserted, nor take over from the court the task of legal classification. The decision of the Eleventh Civil Chamber of 2022, which shows that in an enforcement based on invoices a general balance calculation should not be relied upon, is important in this respect too.

Can a document not submitted in enforcement be used in the action?

The connection of the claim to the source relied on in enforcement and the scope of evidence that may be used to prove that claim are not the same question. Court decisions emphasize a close connection with the documents relied on in enforcement, while academic writing criticizes applying this in a way that excludes all new documents.

Meltem Ercan Özler's 2025 study examines whether a document not relied on in the enforcement application may be raised in an action for annulment of objection, within the right to prove, the equality of arms and the general rules of procedure. The author argues that binding a party to the cause of the debt should not amount to an absolute prohibition in terms of means of proof. Article and full text.

In preparing a file, the safe approach is to show the source of the claim clearly in the enforcement, to organize the documents at the outset, and to state in good time in the action which fact each document proves. Whether a new document supports the existing claim or brings another ground of claim into the action must be discussed separately. It cannot be said that all new documents are absolutely prohibited, nor that every new document will necessarily be accepted.

In what circumstances are compensation for denial in enforcement and compensation for bad faith awarded?

A 20 percent compensation for denial in enforcement is not an automatic result

Under Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a request for compensation for denial in enforcement in favor of the creditor is important, together with the unjustified nature of the objection and the requirement of liquidity applied in practice. A liquid claim is one whose amount the debtor knows or can calculate from the necessary elements. The fact that a claim is not liquid does not mean that the annulment action will necessarily be dismissed; the acceptance of the claim and the conditions for compensation are assessed separately.

It is not generally required to prove that the debtor acted in bad faith. However, the law lays down a special bad-faith condition for an objector who is a guardian, trustee or heir. This exception should not be overlooked. The basis of the compensation, the scope of acceptance or rejection and the statutory method of calculation must be specified in the judgment; the same percentage is not automatically applied to every item written in the enforcement.

Hypothetical example: For a principal of 200,000 Turkish lira, the whole of which is the subject of the action, which is liquid and which is accepted to have been subject to an unjustified objection, a 20 percent floor would be 40,000 Turkish lira, provided the other conditions and the request are also met. This example does not mean that interest and costs are added to the same base in every case, or that this compensation will be awarded in every file.

Does an expert examination remove the liquidity of the claim?

Not by itself. In its decision dated January 29, 2016, E.2014/444, K.2016/120, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation assessed a claim whose amount could be determined within a contract and progress-payment relationship, and did not find appropriate the rejection of compensation on the ground that the claim was not liquid. The decision of the reversing court was quashed.

The criterion shown by the decision is not whether an expert is present in the file, but the possibility of objectively determining the amount of the debtor's payment obligation. On the other hand, where the price arises from extensive discretionary assessment or an uncertain assessment of loss, a different result may be reached. The 40 percent requests in the facts of older decisions should not be presented as the current rate; the statutory minimum now applied is 20 percent.

If the creditor loses the action, does he or she pay compensation for bad faith?

The dismissal of an annulment action alone is not sufficient for compensation for bad faith. Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law requires that the creditor's enforcement be seen as both unjustified and in bad faith, and that the other party request it. Failure to prove the claim is different from enforcing when it is known that no debt exists. Partial payment, a release, or records that the same debt was previously collected may be important in this examination.

For compensation in a removal application, the regulation of Article 68 itself applies: the grant or rejection of the request on the substantive grounds and the request of the opposing party are important. The bad-faith criterion from an annulment action cannot be carried over as it is to a removal application. Bringing the subsequent actions specified in the law may lead to a deferral of the collection of the compensation awarded, and a decision in favor of the relevant party may lead to the compensation being lifted.

How should the action and the application petition be prepared?

The relief sought, the enforcement file and the account must match

In the annulment petition the court, the parties, the enforcement file, the scope of the objection, the dates of service, the origin of the claim and the evidence must be clear. It must be understood to what extent the annulment of the objection is sought, and on what conditions the enforcement is to continue. Claims for compensation, interest and litigation costs must be kept separate from one another.

In the removal petition, it is explained whether the document is an instrument under Article 68 or Article 68/a, whether the objection is directed at the debt or the signature, and whether the application seeks final or provisional removal. Writing "annulment" or "removal" in the heading of the petition does not by itself remedy a defect in the legal content of the request.

• Chronology: The enforcement, service of the payment order, the objection, notice of the objection to the creditor, mediation and any earlier court applications.
• Account of the claim: Principal, interest before enforcement, claim after enforcement, returns, payments and offsets.
• Link to evidence: Against each important assertion, the date, number and relevant part of the document supporting it.
• Limit of the claim: Separation of amounts not objected to, amounts collected, and amounts never claimed in enforcement.

What should the debtor watch for when responding?

An objection petition to the enforcement does not replace the defense petition in an annulment action brought. The debtor must raise defenses of payment, non-existence of the debt, partial performance, offset, limitation, or lack of jurisdiction or competence, in the form required by the applicable procedure. In an annulment action, although the same binding to the grounds of objection as in enforcement does not apply, the petition periods of the Code of Civil Procedure, the duty to submit evidence and the prohibition on extending the defense remain in force.

In removal review, Article 63 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law limits new grounds of objection to those apparent from the text of the instrument on which the creditor relies. For this reason, the description in the first objection petition acquires significance later. Using a ready-made sample without comparing it with the specific file may, in particular, misstate the scope of the payment defense.

If there is a precautionary attachment, why should the one-year period not be waited for?

A precautionary attachment is a provisional protection aimed at securing collection of the claim; it does not finally determine the existence of the claim. The conditions under Article 257 and following of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law must be assessed separately. Bringing an action for annulment of objection does not by itself mean that a precautionary attachment order has been made.

The periods set to protect a precautionary attachment differ from the general six-month and one-year periods. Under Article 264 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, in enforcement connected with a precautionary attachment, a removal application or an action must be brought within seven days from notice of the objection to the creditor; if the removal application is rejected, an action must be brought within seven days from the pronouncement or notice of the decision. Failure to observe the relevant periods may cause the precautionary attachment to be without effect.

Article 6325, Articles 18/A–15 and 16 must be read together in relation to mediation. Paragraph 16 governs in particular the period for bringing an action under paragraph 1 of Article 264 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. This provision cannot be interpreted as meaning that all enforcement acts in the file stop automatically. In a file with a precautionary attachment, the time plan must be built around all stages, including the execution of the attachment and its service.

Enforcement, legal remedies and costs after the decision

How does acceptance or dismissal of the action have effect?

If the annulment action is accepted, the existing enforcement may be continued within the scope of the decision. In partial acceptance, only the accepted part is taken into account. A decision does not mean that collection has been made; filing the decision with the enforcement file, attachment and, where necessary, sale are carried out separately. The period for requesting attachment under Article 78 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the periods that are not counted in calculating it must also be followed.

A dismissal on the merits that becomes final may create a bar of res judicata between the same parties on the same claim. It cannot be said that where the creditor loses the annulment action, he or she can in every case bring a new claim action. A dismissal on the ground of time, a dismissal on the ground of jurisdiction or other procedural reasons, and a dismissal on the merits on the ground that no debt exists must be distinguished.

A decision of the enforcement court to remove the objection does not, as a rule, resolve the substantive legal dispute with final effect. Depending on its conditions, a claim, a negative declaratory action or an action for recovery of payment may come into question. The bringing of these actions does not automatically stop all the consequences of the enforcement and of the compensation in the same way; the special provisions of each institution apply.

Appeal and continuation of enforcement

In an annulment action in the general court, the period for appeal is, as a rule, two weeks from notice under Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for decisions open to appeal. In decisions of the enforcement court, the current Article 363 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law also provides for a period of two weeks from notice. Different periods at the end of older decisions must not be transferred directly to current files; transitional provisions, the date of the decision and the applicable monetary limit must be checked together.

On an appeal against an annulment decision, the existence of a remedy does not, as a rule, automatically stop enforcement; the deferral of enforcement may be considered separately under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. Against decisions of the enforcement court, the special rule of Article 363 that actions other than the sale will not be stopped is taken into account on appeal. This matter must not be confused with the seven-day period for discharge from the debt that follows provisional removal.

Fees and how long does the proceeding take?

An action for annulment of objection is subject, as a rule, to an ad valorem fee based on the monetary claim, while a removal application is, as a rule, subject to a fixed fee. Exemptions, the scope of the request and the applicable tariff are assessed separately. Service, expert fees, evidence costs and the risk of paying the opposing party's counsel fees are included in the overall assessment. The Law on Fees and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on litigation costs must be taken as the basis together.

The length of a file depends on the evidence, the need for an expert, the services, the court's workload and the remedies available. The more limited nature of the removal review does not guarantee that each application will be concluded within a set number of months. Choosing the wrong route may eliminate the expected time advantage.

How should the file be assessed before an application?

The legal strength of a file is not measured by the amount claimed alone. The document, the time limit, the competent court, mediation and the ability to collect must be considered together. A contract that appears strong for the creditor may be inadequate because of a lack of proof of performance. A valid payment defense for the debtor may become open to dispute because the bank receipt is linked to another debt.

The file to be submitted for review should contain a complete copy of the enforcement papers, all service records, the contract and its annexes, delivery or service documents, invoices and returns, payment records, mediation papers and any earlier court decisions. Arranging the documents in chronological order helps prevent the same debt from being calculated again under different names.

Where a legal opinion is requested from Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on the present stage of a file, the appropriateness of the route of application, missing evidence, time limits, the opposing party's defenses and cost risks may be assessed together. A legal opinion is ordinarily reported within seven business days at the latest, counted from the agreement on the scope of the review and complete delivery of the file. Cases requiring longer because of special expertise, additional documents or a comprehensive review of accounts, and the expected delivery date, are notified separately. Approaching deadlines for an action or objection are given priority independently of this reporting schedule. The contact page may be used to make a request. Information and documents shared are handled within the framework of attorney professional secrecy and the protection of personal data for the purpose of legal assessment; the sending of initial documents alone does not amount to acceptance of the matter. UYAP documents should be shared by a secure method, and personal e-Government passwords or verification codes must not be provided.

Conclusion

The choice between an action for annulment of objection and removal of objection determines more than the first step in collecting a claim. It also determines which evidence can be used, how the debtor's defense will be examined, which time limit must be protected and how the decision will affect later actions.

The correct route is the one consistent with the document structure and the time limits of the file. The existence of a wide review in an annulment of objection does not remove the burden of proof. The fact that the removal route rests on a limited review also does not mean that the debt and the defense of payment will be assessed superficially. In both routes, a consistent link must be established between the source of the claim, the claim in enforcement and the evidence.

In particular, the effect of an earlier removal application on the one-year period, the period in which mediation does not run, the seven days after provisional removal and the special periods that protect a precautionary attachment must each be followed separately. Compensation should not be regarded as an item automatically added to winning a case. Legal assessment achieves its purpose when it protects both the creditor's access to a legitimate claim and the debtor's protection against unfounded or excessive demands.

Frequently Asked Questions

Within how many days is an action for annulment of objection brought?

The basic period is set not in days but as one year from notice of the objection to the creditor. Special reasons, such as an earlier removal application, mediation, the status of service and a precautionary attachment, must be examined separately.

If six months have passed for removal of an objection, does the claim come to an end?

No. If the one-year period is still running, an annulment action may be considered; if that has also passed, a general claim action may be considered, provided the statute of limitations of the claim and the other conditions allow. It must not be assumed that a new summary enforcement for the same claim will overcome the time barrier.

Does the one-year period start when the final mediation minutes are signed?

For a file in which service has not been made, the decision of the Eleventh Civil Chamber, no. 2024/6421, did not treat the signing of the minutes recording a failure to agree as the start of the period. Whether a period that started earlier stops running during mediation is a different question.

Can removal be requested first and an annulment action brought afterwards?

This transition may be possible if its conditions and time limits are preserved. However, a removal file does not stop the one-year period by itself. While an annulment action is pending, returning to the removal route for the same dispute should also not be regarded as a free choice.

Is an invoice alone sufficient for removal of an objection?

As a rule, a unilaterally issued invoice is not a document under Article 68 merely by reason of its nature. Special situations, such as the debtor admitting the debt and relying only on a defense of payment, may affect the result. Invoices and delivery documents are assessed in an annulment action under the general rules of proof.

If I do not have a negotiable instrument, can I bring an action for annulment of objection?

The absence of an instrument within the meaning of Article 68 does not on its own prevent an annulment action. However, the claim must be proved by legally usable evidence; where the rule requiring proof by a written instrument applies, one should not rely on witness testimony alone.

Is an action for annulment of objection brought in the enforcement court?

No. The competent court is determined according to the source of the claim, and may be a civil court of first instance, a commercial court of first instance, a consumer court, a labor court or a civil court of peace. An application for removal of an objection is directed to the enforcement court.

Does a creditor who wins the action necessarily receive 20 percent compensation?

No. The request and the related statutory conditions, and in an annulment action the liquidity of the claim, are assessed separately. An expert examination does not by itself remove liquidity, and acceptance of the claim does not automatically make compensation available.

If the creditor's action is dismissed, does the debtor automatically receive compensation?

Compensation for bad faith under Article 67 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law requires a finding that the enforcement was unjustified and in bad faith, in addition to a request. Losing the action alone is not sufficient. The compensation conditions for a removal application are separately regulated.

What is the period for an action for discharge from the debt after provisional removal?

It is seven days from the pronouncement or notice of the decision. The security of 15 percent of the amount of the disputed claim, in the form set out in the law, must be provided by the first hearing day. This period is separate from the appeal period.

Can I wait for the one-year action period when a precautionary attachment is in place?

The periods protecting a precautionary attachment under Article 264 apply separately. After notice of the objection, a seven-day application obligation may arise. The fact that the general one-year period has not yet expired does not show that the precautionary attachment is protected.

Does rejection of a removal request mean that the absence of a debt has become final?

As a rule, no; a decision given at the end of a limited review does not create res judicata in substance. However, the finality of a dismissal on the merits in an annulment action is different, and may prevent the same claim from being sued again.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Arts. 36, 50, 62–70, 78, 257–264 and 363.
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2, 4, 6, 10, 17, 114–115, 119, 129, 141, 190, 199–203, 222, 266, 303, 323–326 and 345.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Arts. 18/A and 18/B.
• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), Arts. 4, 5 and 5/A.
• Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 68, 73 and 73/A.
• Labor Courts Law No. 7036 (İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu), Arts. 3, 5 and 6.
• Notification Law No. 7201 (Tebligat Kanunu), Arts. 7/a, 11 and 32.
• Law No. 492 on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu) and Tariff No. 1.

Court decisions

• Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, September 16, 2024, E.2024/3074, K.2024/6421 — Notice of the objection and the effect of the final mediation minutes on the one-year period.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, February 28, 2019, E.2018/602, K.2019/218 — Treatment of an earlier application for removal of objection as the start of the period.
• Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 22, 2025, E.2024/1528, K.2025/2349 — Period in an annulment action brought after an application for removal.
• Eleventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 29, 2022, E.2020/7376, K.2022/2537 — Examination of the invoices, return invoices and payment defense on which enforcement is based.
• Twelfth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, February 7, 2017, E.2016/9784, K.2017/1338 — Effect on removal review of admitting the debt and asserting a defense of payment.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, January 29, 2016, E.2014/444, K.2016/120 — Determinability of the claim and compensation for denial in enforcement.
• Thirteenth Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 22, 2020, E.2020/1155, K.2020/3580 — Annulment action in a dispute within the limit of the Consumer Arbitration Committee.

Academic works

• Ercan Özler, Meltem. "Takip Talebinde Dayanılmayan Belgenin İtirazın İptali Davasında İleri Sürülüp Sürülemeyeceği Üzerine" (On Whether a Document Not Relied On in the Enforcement Application May Be Raised in an Action for Annulment of Objection). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 2025, pp. 387–421. DOI and open-access full text.
• Yeşilova, Bilgehan. "İtirazın İptali Davası İçin Geçerli Hak Düşürücü Sürenin İşlemesi İçin Ödeme Emrine İtirazın Takip Alacaklısına Tebliği Şart Mıdır? (Y. 11. HD., T. 16.9.2024, E.2024/3074, K.2024/6421)" (Is Notice of an Objection to a Payment Order to the Enforcement Creditor a Requirement for the Preclusive Period in an Action for Annulment of Objection to Run? (11th CCC, 16.9.2024, E.2024/3074, K.2024/6421)). Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9, 2026, pp. 137–191. DOI and open-access full text.