Objecting to a debt for unauthorized electricity use, or filing a lawsuit, does not of its own accord stop the disconnection or the enforcement proceedings. Continued use of electricity, the suspension of the enforcement proceedings and the non-payment of the money held at the enforcement office’s cashier to the creditor are different forms of protection. Each of them must be assessed with the correct legal basis and a specific request.
The source check date is October 9, 2026. This guide addresses the provisions of EPTHY, the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) and the Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İİK) together. [1][2][3]
Disconnection and the Collection Process Are Not the Same Thing
A technical disconnection made while unauthorized use is being detected, a disconnection because the irregularity has not been remedied, and a disconnection for an ordinary consumption debt rest on different regulations. The notification conditions and the reconnection conditions may vary accordingly.
EPTHY Article 47/4 provides for a notification, before legal proceedings are initiated to collect the unauthorized-use invoice, that the debt is to be paid within 15 days. Together with the written notification, a durable medium is also used if contact information is available. For proceedings contrary to the conditions in the regulation, there is a provision that the actions are to be terminated and that the costs cannot be demanded from the consumer. There is a special exception for ongoing unauthorized use for which a notification was made within the last year. [1]
This 15-day pre-enforcement notification does not mean that, in every detection of unauthorized use, electricity can be disconnected only after 15 days. The disconnection provisions applicable at the time of detection and the collection notification must not be confused with each other.
Payment, Installment and Reservation-of-Rights (ihtirazi kayıt) Options
When the debt is not paid, late-payment items, disconnection and enforcement risk come onto the agenda depending on the terms of the transaction. Full payment, an installment plan accepted by the company and security options must be distinguished from one another. A general statement of difficulty in paying does not of its own accord remove the debt or the risk of disconnection.
In an installment agreement, the total amount, interest, maturity, security, disconnection and the consequence of missing an installment must be clearly visible. If the document contains an acknowledgment of the debt or a waiver of the objection, its effect is assessed separately. If payment with a reservation of rights is being considered, it should be put in writing which accrued charge and which items are being objected to; the bank receipt (dekont) and the application should be kept together. A reservation of rights does not take the place of filing the appropriate lawsuit or of its time limit. [1, Art. 47][2, Art. 72][4]
Reconnection with Security at the Company
EPTHY Article 47/3 provides that, until the objection to the unauthorized-use invoice is concluded, energy may be connected provided that the amount objected to is secured. This is not an unconditional and automatic reconnection provision. The application, the security conditions and technical suitability should be handled in a documented manner. [1]
A request to the court for an interim injunction, by contrast, is a separate route. Requesting security at the company is not a precondition of a court injunction in every case; on the other hand, the application made and the reply received may show how concrete the dispute is.
Switching disconnected electricity back on by the user may give rise to a new finding of unauthorized use and also to a safety risk. The existence of a dispute does not give authority to interfere with the connection on one’s own. [1, Art. 42/1(ç)]
Under What Conditions Can an Interim Injunction Be Requested?
HMK Articles 389–390 regulate interim protection in situations such as where, because the existing situation changes, obtaining the right would become significantly more difficult or impossible, or where serious harm would arise from delay. The requesting party must establish the right and the ground for the injunction to the standard of prima facie proof. [3]
A statement such as “Electricity is important to me” is not by itself sufficient in every file. With which document the disputed accrued charge is weakened, and what kind and extent of harm the disconnection would cause, should be made concrete.
| Situation | Specific document that can be submitted | Clarity of the protection requested |
|---|---|---|
| Life with a medical device | Current medical report, device and company records | Energy continuity of the relevant installation |
| Cold chain / perishable goods | Stock, temperature and technical storage records | Prevention of documented product loss |
| Production stoppage | Production plan, orders and technical process | Continuation of a specific business activity |
| Irrigation season | Crop, season, irrigation need and well documents | Prevention of concrete agricultural loss |
| Charge to the wrong person | Transfer, handover and start-of-use records | Prevention of disconnection on account of the debt in question |
The court assesses the interests of the parties and the conditions for a safe connection. An injunction is not a ruling of non-indebtedness that decides the main action in advance. Conditions such as payment of current and undisputed consumption charges may also be set separately in the decision.
Is the Security Always 15 Percent?
No. For the HMK injunction concerning the prevention of electricity disconnection, security is assessed within the framework of HMK Article 392. Statutory situations such as the request being based on an official document or other conclusive evidence, the circumstances and conditions, or legal aid are important; a justification is also required for not taking security. [3]
The security of not less than 15 percent of the receivable, provided for protection relating to the enforcement proceedings in a negative declaratory action under Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, is a separate regulation. Applying this rate automatically to all electricity disconnection injunctions confuses two different institutions. [2]
Time Limits After the Injunction Decision
The granting of the decision alone does not complete all the steps. Under HMK Article 393, a request for the injunction to be enforced must be made within one week of the pronouncement or notification of the injunction decision to the requesting party; otherwise the injunction lapses of its own accord. [3]
For an injunction granted before the filing of the action, under HMK Article 397 there is an obligation to file the main action within two weeks of the date on which its enforcement was requested and to submit the relevant documents to the necessary place. The effect of mediation as a condition precedent to litigation on this period is calculated together with the special provision in Law No. 6325. The other complementary steps must not be forgotten on the pretext of “I went to mediation.” [3][5]
The installation number, the parties, the scope and, if any, the security in the decision must be correct. A decision concerning an incorrect installation is difficult to enforce in the field. It should be followed that the decision reaches the other party and the unit that will implement it, that the connection is made technically, and that the conditions are complied with.
If an Enforcement Payment Order Arrives
In enforcement without a judgment through general attachment proceedings, an objection to the payment order is, as a rule, made to the enforcement office within seven days of notification. A timely objection stops the proceedings with regard to the part objected to in this type of proceeding. A petition sent to the company or to the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) does not take the place of the objection that must be made to the enforcement file. [2, Art. 62, 66]
The type of proceeding must be checked without fail. The same method does not apply in enforcement based on a judgment or in another special enforcement route. An allegation that the notification was irregular is also raised within its own procedure; objecting to the notice does not of its own accord prevent the period from running.
Following the objection, the creditor may, depending on the conditions, resort to the route of annulment or removal of the objection. Enforcement-denial compensation (icra inkâr tazminatı) does not arise automatically in every lost lawsuit; the request, the nature of the receivable and the statutory conditions are assessed. In amounts requiring a technical expert calculation, whether the receivable is determinate is also important. [2, Art. 67–68]
Negative Declaratory Action Before and After the Enforcement Proceedings
| Time of the action | Basic difference with respect to Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law |
|---|---|
| Before the proceedings begin | An injunction aimed at stopping the proceedings may be considered, subject to its conditions and with security of at least 15 percent |
| After the proceedings have begun | An injunction to stop the proceedings cannot be granted on the basis of this article; if the conditions are met, it may be requested that the money held at the enforcement office’s cashier not be paid to the creditor |
This distinction directly affects the request in the petition. A general request in the form of “Let every enforcement action stop” does not remove the statutory limitation in a negative declaratory action filed after the proceedings. The HMK injunction concerning electricity disconnection is likewise not identical to a request for the enforcement proceedings to stop. [2][3]
If payment has been made under enforcement, the recovery provisions of Article 72 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law may come onto the agenda. The date on which the debt was fully paid, the reason for payment and the special one-year period are assessed separately. The details of the types of action are in the objection and lawsuit guide.
Consumers Dependent on Life-Support Devices
EPTHY Article 52 introduces special protection for consumers who depend on a life-support device that is documented by a medical report and registered. The provision is assessed with respect to disconnection on account of a debt arising from consumption in accordance with the rules. The registration, report and notification obligations are important; it should not be interpreted as a general and unlimited exemption for unauthorized connections. [1]
The health condition should not be stated only in the petition; the registration status with the relevant supplier and distribution company must also be documented. Special information provisions concerning planned or unplanned interruptions should also be followed separately. Meeting an urgent health need and resolving the debt dispute are simultaneous but different processes.
Compensation for Wrongful Disconnection
The wrongfulness of the disconnection, the damage, and the adequate causal link between the disconnection and the damage must be shown. Breach of contract and tort liability may affect the assessment of fault and proof. [4, Art. 49–52, 112]
For spoiled products, stock, purchase invoices, temperature records and destruction documents are important; for production loss, capacity, orders, downtime and accounting records are important. Turnover and profit are not the same. If a business claims its entire daily turnover as damage without deducting any expense, the calculation may become contestable.
The obligation to reasonably prevent the damage from growing is also assessed. The temporary solutions that could be used, their cost and the reasons they could not be applied should be documented. Non-pecuniary damages are not the automatic result of every disconnection; the violation of a personality right and the gravity of the specific case are also required. [4, Art. 52, 58]
Frequently Asked Questions
If I notify the company that I have filed a lawsuit, will the electricity stay on?
Notification of the lawsuit alone is not sufficient. An enforceable court decision, a valid security transaction at the company, or the conditions of the relevant special protection is required.
Does an injunction decision mean the debt has been erased?
No. An injunction is interim protection; the merits of the debt are examined in the lawsuit. The conditions of the decision must be complied with.
After an objection to the enforcement proceedings, does the disconnection also stop?
The stopping of the enforcement proceedings and the prevention of electricity disconnection are not the same result. A separate legal assessment is made with respect to the disconnection.
If the electricity is cut, can I switch it back on myself?
No; switching it on without permission may give rise to a new finding of unauthorized use. Reconnection must be carried out through the relevant company’s procedure or on the basis of an enforceable decision.
Conclusion: Describe the Protection You Need Clearly
In one file the aim may be the continuation of electricity, in another the stopping of collection, in another the remedying of damages. The right protection is built with the right request and the right documents. When disconnection and enforcement risks are monitored separately, meeting the urgent need and examining the merits of the debt complement one another.
For the general framework, see the main guide; for the technical context of agricultural and commercial damage, see the guide for businesses.
Sources and legal bases
- Electricity Market Consumer Services Regulation (Elektrik Piyasası Tüketici Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği). EPDK / Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi). May 30, 2018 / 30436; in particular Articles 42–49 and 52, including the amendments of January 14, 2025 / 32782.
- Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu). Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı). Articles 62, 66–68, 72.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 190, 199, 266–293, 389–400 and following.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. Articles 49–61, 72, 74, 77–82, 112, 146–147, 195–202.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu). Ministry of Justice. In particular Article 18/A; mediation as a condition precedent to litigation and its effect on the period for completing the injunction.