Suspension of enforcement, known in practice as tehiri icra, provides temporary legal protection against the enforcement of a decision that has been brought to an appellate remedy. Applying to the regional court of appeal or to the Court of Cassation in a civil case does not, as a rule, stop enforcement proceedings by itself. A separate decision must be obtained by meeting the conditions of Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, İİK). Under the current regulation, this decision is given by the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted. [1–2]
For this reason, the statements "I appealed the decision," "I deposited the security" and "I obtained a decision suspending enforcement" do not describe the same legal result. Preparing the application, the enforcement office granting a period for it, and the court's decision being implemented in the enforcement file are separate stages. In a file where there is a risk of attachment or eviction, this distinction determines when and how the application should be made.
This guide deals with enforcement proceedings linked to civil litigation in Türkiye. The postponement of the execution of a criminal sentence and the suspension of execution in administrative proceedings are different institutions. The date of the review of legislation and sources is October 11, 2026; in a concrete file, the type of decision, service, the stage of the proceedings and the special provisions of the law must be assessed separately.
What need does suspension of enforcement meet?
When a court orders the payment of money, the debtor may take an appeal, considering the decision to be wrong. However, the creditor may, as a rule, request enforcement of the judgment without waiting for it to become final. Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law aims, on the one hand, to protect the debtor from the consequences of compulsory enforcement while the appellate review is pending, and on the other, to secure the creditor's ability to collect by means of security.
For example, while a receivable decision against a company has been brought to appeal, an attachment may be placed on the company's bank accounts. The presence of the appeal petition in the file does not, by itself, stop the bank from carrying out the attachment. The debtor must document the appeal, provide the necessary security or show the exception, and complete the process of suspension of enforcement. This protection is not a final decision that the debt does not exist.
How are Articles 33, 36 and 40 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law distinguished?
The expression "suspension of enforcement" is used in more than one legal provision. The correct route is chosen not by the name of the enforcement file but by the ground invoked. [1]
| Legal route | Core issue | Main result |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | Requesting protection against enforcement while the judgment is under appellate review | Temporary stay under the statutory conditions; the correctness of the judgment is examined before the appellate authority. |
| Arts. 33 and 33(a) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | Grounds regulated in the law, such as discharge, grace or limitation | Suspension of enforcement is assessed according to the ground, the time and the conditions of proof. |
| Art. 40 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | Annulment or reversal of the judgment, followed by a final finding of no debt | First, the stopping of enforcement acts where they stand; separately, restoration of the enforcement if its conditions are met. |
Discharge (itfa) means the ending of the debt; grace period (imhal) means a period given by the creditor for payment. Under Article 33 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the time limits and documentary conditions differ for events before and after the enforcement order. For grounds arising before the enforcement order was served, the provision sets a seven-day period for application; grounds arising after service may be raised at any time within the conditions set by the law. This route is not a tool for re-trying a dispute that has been decided by judgment.
For this reason, while examining the claim that "I paid the debt after the judgment," the date and nature of the payment document is reviewed; the claim that "the court evaluated the evidence wrongly" is the subject of appellate review. Protection under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law also arises in the second case. Confusing the bases of these two claims may cause the necessary document or time limit to be overlooked.
In which decisions does suspension of enforcement arise?
Why are appeal and cassation not enough on their own?
Under Articles 350 and 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), an appeal and an appeal to the Court of Cassation do not, as a rule, stop enforcement of the decision; Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is reserved. The fact that an appeal has been filed and the fact that a decision is not yet final may exist in the same file together; even so, the decision may be enforced. A decision that is not final is not necessarily a decision that cannot be enforced. [2]
First it must be determined whether the decision is open to ordinary appeal, the time limit for the application, and which part of the operative provisions is the subject of the application. For a decision against which the ordinary remedy is closed, saying only "I request suspension of enforcement" does not create a new right of appeal or cassation. In partial applications, the connection between the amount challenged and the scope for which suspension of enforcement is requested must be clearly shown.
Decisions that cannot be enforced before becoming final are different
The Code of Civil Procedure requires finality in decisions concerning the law of persons, family law and rights in rem over immovable property. However, the subject of the decision and its operative parts must be examined separately. For example, a decision affecting property rights is not assessed in the same group as an eviction decision based on a lease relationship. There is also a separate rule for maintenance. [2]
If an operative provision that must become final has been put into enforcement before it became final, the starting question is not whether to deposit security, but whether enforcement can lawfully proceed at that stage. The complaint about the enforcement act and the necessary request for suspension are assessed accordingly. It should also not be forgotten that a complaint does not stop enforcement by itself. For the general framework of the subject, see the study Enforceable Judgments That May Be Enforced Before Becoming Final and Their Exceptions.
Does every enforcement file fall within Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law?
No. The provision is centered on a judgment brought to a legal remedy. The fact that enforcement can be carried out on a document of the nature of a judgment does not mean that there is an appellate remedy against that document. For example, an Article 36 procedure cannot automatically be set up for every notarial deed. The scope of Article 38 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the conditions of Article 36 are assessed separately. [1]
On the other hand, the matter cannot be resolved simply by describing the file as "enforcement based on a judgment" or "enforcement without a judgment" at the time it was opened. Article 36 may arise in enforcement continuing after a decision annulling an objection to the enforcement, where the judgment on which it is based has been brought to a legal remedy. The Court of Cassation's decision of November 3, 2022, which examines the function of different securities, also concerns such a process. [7] In eviction under a lease, Article 269(c) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law expressly provides a route to Article 36.
Which court gives the decision suspending enforcement?
The competent authority is the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted. Statements that the decision is obtained directly from the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation, based on the regulation before the 2021 amendment by Law No. 7343, may send the current application to the wrong place. The authority that reviews the appeal and the authority that decides on suspension of enforcement are separate. [1]
The enforcement office, where the necessary conditions exist, grants a suitable period for obtaining a decision from the court and implements the decision in the enforcement file. The office cannot create a suspension of uncertain duration not provided for in the law on the basis that "the debtor will soon obtain a decision."
The Constitutional Court and the debate in legal scholarship
In its decision of June 3, 2025, E. 2025/92, K. 2025/127, the Constitutional Court (AYM) did not find unconstitutional the phrase that designates the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted as the decision-making authority. The majority considered the legislator's power to regulate procedure and the specific nature of the legal conditions. In the dissenting opinion, different objections were set out from the standpoint of the right to property and judicial protection. [4]
The scope of this decision must be read correctly: the application directed at the phrase on notification in the third paragraph of Article 36 was rejected on procedural grounds at the initial review. It cannot be said that both phrases were examined on their merits and found appropriate.
In legal scholarship, Muhammet Özekes criticizes the transfer of the power to decide from the appellate authority to the enforcement court, in relation to the relationship of temporary protection with the authority that examines the main dispute. This view does not change the existing rule on jurisdiction; it explains why the regulation has been debated. In practice, the application must still be made under the law as it currently stands. [9]
How is an application for suspension of enforcement made?
First, the legal and financial position of the file is determined
The reasoned decision, the service documents, the appeal or cassation petition and the current proceedings of the enforcement file are examined together. Has an attachment been placed, has the money reached the enforcement cashier, has a sale or eviction date been set? The same request carries a different urgency when the proceedings have just begun and when the money is about to be paid to the creditor.
The legal remedy relied on as the basis of the application must be real and capable of being documented. In practice, the record known as the "derkenar" (marginal annotation) shows that the decision has been brought to a legal remedy. Writing "application for suspension of enforcement" in the heading of an appeal petition does not by itself provide protection. Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law contains no provision treating these words as an independent condition. What matters is the existence of the application and the other conditions. Scholarship also criticizes this understanding of formal requirements. [1, 9]
Security, time limit and the court request are planned together
In ordinary practice, the following steps are coordinated according to the conditions of the file. Each stage must be checked against the document that shows its completion.
| Stage | Action to be taken | Result to be checked |
|---|---|---|
| Legal remedy | Filing of the application and receipt of its record | Consistency of the decision, date, scope and application details |
| Account of the file | Determination of the current debt and the need for security | Principal sum, interest, expenses, payments and existing attachments |
| Security | Provision of appropriate security or documentation of an exemption | Type, amount, validity and, where necessary, acceptance decision |
| Grace period | Obtaining a period from the enforcement office to obtain a decision | Start date, end date and any need for extension |
| Court | Application under Article 36 to the competent enforcement court | Which decision, stage and amount the decision covers |
| Implementation | Monitoring that the decision has reached the enforcement file | Recording of the suspension and prevention of contrary acts |
This table does not mean that six separate applications must in every file be made separately. The acceptance of security and the request for suspension may be considered together, provided the required conditions are explained. A certificate of grace is also a tool providing protection until a court decision is reached; scholarship emphasizes that it should not be regarded as a mandatory precondition for an application to the court. [9]
What information should the application petition contain?
The petition should set out the details of the debtor and creditor, the enforcement file, the court whose judgment is relied on together with the case and decision numbers, and the date and scope of the appeal or cassation application. The type and amount of the security, or the ground for exemption from security, should be made concrete. Where there is a certificate of grace and urgent action information, these should be added; it must be clearly stated for which stage and in what scope suspension of enforcement is requested.
The enclosures may include the reasoned decision, the application record, service documents, a current account, the security receipt or bank letter, the relevant acceptance decision and records showing existing attachments. The list changes depending on the needs of the file. Filling in the blanks of a ready-made petition does not by itself resolve whether the decision can be enforced or whether the security is adequate.
What is a certificate of grace, and how long is a suspension of enforcement?
The certificate of grace (mehil vesikası) shows the period the enforcement office has granted for obtaining a decision suspending enforcement. Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides for an appropriate period; it does not set a fixed period of 60 or 90 days for all files. An extension is also not a right arising automatically; the law makes an extension dependent on the existence of necessity. [1]
Granting an appropriate period under the procedure stops enforcement in the place where the proceedings are conducted during that interval. However, merely requesting a period, before a grace decision has been made, does not produce the same result. Failure to submit the necessary decision to the file by the end of the period creates a risk that the proceedings will continue. For this reason, the end date, the application to the court and the transmission of the decision should be monitored together. [8]
Do not treat different time limits as a single timetable
| Procedure | Basic time limit or starting point | Important distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal and cassation under the Code of Civil Procedure | General rule: two weeks from proper service | Special provisions and the appealability of the decision are examined separately. |
| Enforcement order for a money judgment | Seven-day payment period under Art. 32 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | This period does not mean that an Article 36 application must be exhausted within seven days in every case. |
| Grace period under Art. 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | An appropriate period granted by the enforcement director in the concrete file | There is no automatic 90-day period or automatic extension. |
| Complaint against an enforcement office act | As a rule, seven days from learning of the act under Art. 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | A special rule applies to failure to perform a right or unjustified delay. |
| Eviction under Art. 269(c) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | Ten days from pronouncement or service | This special enforcement waiting period is not generalized to all eviction decisions. |
A missed enforcement order period may lead the proceedings to move to the compulsory enforcement stage. However, it is not correct to reject, on that ground alone, an Article 36 application that still meets its conditions. Acts carried out during the delay do not disappear automatically on the basis of a decision obtained later. [1–2, 8]
The law does not provide a delivery guarantee for the time the court will take to decide. Article 18 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulates the urgency and procedure of matters submitted to the enforcement court. Even so, one should not act on the assumption that "I have made the application, so nothing can be done until then."
How is the security for suspension of enforcement determined?
Cash, bank letters of guarantee and other securities
Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulates the deposit of the money or property adjudged with an official authority; the financial securities and pledges accepted by the enforcement court as listed in the law; a valid bank surety; or the existence of attached property sufficient to secure the debt. Apart from cash, the bank letter of guarantee and a mortgage over immovable property are prominent in practice. [1]
What matters is not only the amount of a bank letter but also the debt for which it is given, its scope, the period and the payment conditions. For immovable property, the valuation, priority rights and existing encumbrances must be assessed. It cannot be assumed that the net amount obtained from a sale will equal the title-deed value. If the debtor's property is already sufficiently attached, it is not a correct starting point to require a second cash security without first examining this option under the law.
Closing calculation and the three-month interest practice
"Closing calculation" (kapak hesabı) is the practical term used for the account showing the financial position of an enforcement file as at a given date. The principal receivable, accrued interest, the relevant expenses, the payments made to the file and the purpose of the security are considered together. The total figure should not be relied on without checking the type of interest, the starting date and the item from which payments were deducted.
In practice, an additional calculation of interest accruing in the future for three months may be encountered. However, Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law does not write one and the same three-month interest formula for every file. This practice should not be presented as a universal rule of law without examining the type of security and the file account. The reason why the amount is needed and the value of the existing securities must be made concrete.
The amount of the security and the service fee are also different. Court and enforcement costs, the bank's commission if any, and the attorney's fee under the contract are separate financial items. A commission paid to a bank does not count as a payment reducing the debt or as part of the security in the enforcement file.
Who is not required to provide security?
The law removes the requirement of security where the debtor is the State or a person benefiting from legal aid. In respect of legal aid, a mere assertion of insufficient income is not enough; the entitlement and its scope must be documented. Nor can it be assumed that every public legal person is automatically exempt as part of "the State"; the specific regulation of the institution is examined. [1]
Exemption from security does not mean that no application is needed. The other conditions for the legal remedy and the request for suspension of enforcement are still assessed. Likewise, the adequacy of existing attached property may leave no need for separate security; however, it does not by itself complete the steps necessary for protection.
How does suspension of enforcement affect interest and existing attachments?
Does depositing security amount to paying the debt?
No. Money deposited for security purposes, or a bank letter of guarantee provided, is not by itself a payment made to the creditor. Suspension of enforcement also does not automatically extinguish interest on the judgment debt. If the debt continues, interest may continue to run under the concrete judgment and the applicable legal framework. For this reason, it should not be assumed that the financial burden is fixed merely because the proceedings have stopped. [1, 5]
Paying a debt, statements that may amount to acknowledging a debt, and providing security are different legal acts. The explanation of the transfer made, the request submitted to the file and the purpose for which the money was recorded are important. Using a payment document and a security receipt interchangeably may later cause a dispute over accounts and refunds.
If there is cash or a bank guarantee, can an attachment be lifted?
A decision suspending enforcement does not automatically lift existing attachments. However, it is also incorrect to say that they "can never be lifted in any circumstances." Article 85 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law prohibits attachment exceeding the amount necessary for the receivable and the relevant items; it requires the interests of the parties to be balanced. [1]
In its decision of February 13, 2019, E. 2018/5463, K. 2019/2032, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation asked whether, on the date the cash or bank guarantee was submitted, it had been examined whether that security was sufficient for all accessory claims of the file debt. Where this sufficiency exists, the existing attachments may become excessive. The Chamber found it inappropriate to reject the request without carrying out this examination in the concrete case and quashed the decision. [5]
The result is not that every letter of guarantee will automatically remove all attachments. The claim for the relevant attachments should be made by setting out the current debt, the amount and validity of the guarantee; if there is a rejection, the appropriate legal route and time limit should be assessed. Whether the security is partial or does not cover all items in the file may change the result.
Why is a different assessment made for immovable property security?
In its decision of March 23, 2023, E. 2022/9066, K. 2023/1984, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation emphasized the uncertainty as to whether the sale price to be obtained when the immovable property offered as security is sold would also be sufficient for the accessory claims of the debt. The Chamber upheld the outcome of not treating an immovable property guarantee as sufficient to lift the existing attachments. [6]
This decision shows the drawback of treating cash security and the nominal value of immovable property as the same thing. Saleability, prior mortgages and the possibility of collection are important. Moreover, where a decision was obtained for an earlier judgment, the scope of protection must be re-examined for the new judgment established after remittal. It cannot be accepted that an earlier decision indefinitely covers every new judgment.
Is the security for precautionary attachment the same as the Article 36 security?
The security given under Article 266 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law for the lifting of precautionary attachment and the security given under Article 36 for suspension of enforcement serve different purposes. The submission of one does not automatically require the return of the other.
In its decision of November 3, 2022, E. 2022/4099, K. 2022/11439, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined this distinction in the context of a precautionary attachment on a vessel and the enforcement process that followed. It intervened in a result that had approved the return of the earlier security on the basis that Article 36 security had later been given; it quashed the regional court of appeal decision and reversed the first-instance decision. [7] When requesting the return of security, not only the total amount but the legal basis of each security must be determined.
Special rules for maintenance, eviction and foreign decisions
Can a suspension of enforcement decision be obtained for maintenance?
Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides that this period cannot be granted for maintenance provisions, and Articles 350 and 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that enforcement of maintenance decisions cannot be suspended. For this reason, the approach that "if enough security is deposited, maintenance also stops" is wrong. The routes to follow for unpaid maintenance are also explained in the article What to do if maintenance is not paid. [1–2]
The presence of maintenance together with other operative provisions in a single decision does not mean that all of them are subject to the same rule. Each section must be assessed separately. The claim that maintenance has been paid or that the enforcement account is wrong is a different matter; the specific bar on suspension of enforcement for maintenance does not remove all remedies against unlawful enforcement acts. A reduction request based on loss of income is examined in the article Reducing and Ending Maintenance.
Does an appeal against an eviction decision stop the eviction?
An appeal against an eviction decision based on a lease, by itself, does not create a guarantee of remaining in the property. Article 36 conditions must be examined according to the type of decision and enforcement in which the decision was given. In eviction decisions of the enforcement court under Article 269(c) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, it is expressly provided that ten days must pass from pronouncement or service, and that the debtor may benefit from Article 36. [1]
These ten days are not a common appeal period for all eviction actions. The eviction judgment of the peace court and the eviction decision of the enforcement court within the special enforcement must not be confused. Security aimed at stopping the eviction does not terminate the obligation to pay rent. Moreover, where a money claim is enforced together with an eviction, the security and the scope of the decision must be clarified for each request.
Is the same route followed for the recognition of a foreign court decision?
Enforcement of a foreign decision in Türkiye also raises the rules on recognition and enforcement (tenfiz). Article 57(2) of the Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK) expressly provides that an appeal against the decision accepting or rejecting a request for recognition will stop the execution of the decision. For this reason, the security procedure described for domestic money judgments cannot be applied automatically to every file concerning a foreign judgment. The stage of recognition and the legal remedy to be pursued must be determined. [3]
If enforcement of the decision is to take place in another country, the procedural and enforcement law of that country must also be examined separately. It should not be assumed that a stay order given under Turkish law automatically halts proceedings in a foreign country. The details of this stage are dealt with separately in the article Enforcement in Türkiye of Foreign Court Money Judgments.
What rights does the creditor have, and how is an erroneous act challenged?
Suspension of enforcement does not give the debtor an unlimited right to delay. The creditor may monitor the adequacy of the security, whether the period granted has expired and the scope of the decision. A complaint may also arise against a holding measure that is not provided for by the law.
Does the reason that suspension proceedings have started prevent payment of the money?
The Court of Cassation's decision of October 22, 2025, E. 2025/4604, K. 2025/6611, draws a clear distinction on this point. In the case examined, the enforcement office did not pay the money held in the cashier to the creditor on the ground that the procedure had started, although there was yet no grace period or suspension decision. A grace period and a court decision were obtained later. [8]
The Chamber held that, on the date the act was carried out, there was no legal basis for a stay. It stated that the fact that the money was still in the cashier did not render the complaint about the earlier payment moot in light of the decisions obtained later; it quashed the regional court of appeal decision and reversed the first-instance decision. This result cannot be generalized to mean that payment may be made where a valid grace or suspension decision exists. The decisive point is the legal situation on the date of the act.
The route for a court decision and for an enforcement office act is different
Article 363 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law excludes from ordinary appealability the decisions suspending enforcement given under Article 36. Therefore, the suggestion that "if a request for suspension of enforcement is refused, an appeal is always brought" is not correct. The nature of the decision, the completion of any missing document, and whether a new request based on changed conditions is possible must be examined in the concrete file. [1]
An act of the enforcement office concerning calculation, time limit, attachment or payment is assessed differently. A complaint under Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is, as a rule, made within seven days from learning of the act; there is a different rule for failure to perform a right and unjustified delay. Under Article 22 of the Law, a complaint application alone does not stop enforcement. If that is needed, a decision to that effect must be requested separately.
What happens to the security and the enforcement when the appeal or cassation is concluded?
Does the protection continue automatically when moving from appeal to cassation?
Where an appeal to the Court of Cassation is open against a decision of the regional court of appeal that rejected the application on the merits, Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law keeps the effect of the existing suspension decision in place until the end of the time limit for the appeal to the Court of Cassation. This limited transitional protection does not mean an automatic stay throughout the whole cassation review. The request and decision needed for the cassation stage must be completed in time. [1]
The filing of the cassation application, the assessment of whether the existing security is adequate, and the arrival in the enforcement file of a decision covering the new stage are monitored together. Whether the same security can still be used is determined from the file; it cannot be stated in advance that a second security of the same amount will be deposited at every transition.
When is the security returned if the application is found to be well-founded?
Under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, where the regional court of appeal finds the application well-founded, it decides whether the security is to be returned. Where the Court of Cassation reverses the decision, the court that examines the merits after the reversal, on the debtor's application and according to the nature of the reversal, finally decides on the return of the security. For this reason, it should not be assumed that the security will be settled automatically after every favorable decision. [1]
Where the regional court of appeal definitively rejects the application on the merits, or the Court of Cassation affirms the judgment, the law provides that, upon the request of the judgment creditor, the money in the security be paid out or the property and rights be converted into money in a manner suited to their nature. The creditor under an enforceable judgment has a priority right (rüçhan) over the security. The basis for the return, payment or conversion must be determined together with the final decision in the file.
Does reversal of the decision immediately bring back the money paid?
No. Stopping of enforcement, return of security and restoration of enforcement are separate consequences. Under Article 40 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the annulment of the judgment by the regional court of appeal or its reversal by the Court of Cassation stops enforcement acts where they stand. However, to recover an amount already paid to the creditor, the conditions for restoration of enforcement under Article 40 must separately be satisfied. [1]
Where it is definitively established by a final judgment that the person pursued owed nothing or less than was claimed, restoration of the enforcement to its former state arises without any need for a new decision. The rights of bona fide third parties are also protected. To assume that, merely by showing the reversal decision, the whole amount paid will be returned on the same day overlooks this distinction.
Final check in the file assessment: which documents should be read together?
An effective application requires the judgment file and the enforcement file to be read together. In particular, the following records should be placed side by side:
- The reasoned decision, the operative provisions and the documents of proper service.
- The appeal or cassation petition, the date of the application and the relevant file records.
- The enforcement order, the service, the current account, the payments and the transaction list of the proceedings.
- The source, type, amount, conditions and, where present, the acceptance decision of the security.
- Existing attachments, valuation records, and sale or eviction information.
- The certificate of grace, the extension procedure and the scope of the decision suspending enforcement.
- The decision of the regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation and the subsequent acts concerning the return of the security or the continuation of the proceedings.
An assessment based on these documents is important not only for the debtor but also for the creditor. The debtor must know which act actually provides protection; the creditor must know until which stage each security continues. The date of the document, the scope of the decision and the consistency of the proceedings account are more explanatory than a general request to "suspend enforcement."
Conclusion
Suspension of enforcement balances the protection of the debtor while the appellate review is pending with the guarantee of the creditor's right to collect. To achieve this balance, the correct application, sufficient security, an appropriate period and an enforceable decision must all be present. Filing an appeal petition, depositing security, or saying that an application is awaited in the file does not, in every case, provide the same protection.
The first step is to determine whether the decision can be enforced before becoming final, the legal remedy to be taken and the current stage of the enforcement file. Then the nature of the security, its effect on attachments, the expiry of time limits and the transition between the stages of the legal remedy should be monitored. If a favorable decision is obtained, the return of the security and the restoration of enforcement already carried out must be kept separate.
Legal protection arises not from the name of the application but from the correct establishment of its basis, its timing and its effect on the file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does enforcement stop when an appeal is filed?
As a rule, it does not. Under Article 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is reserved. Decisions that cannot be enforced before finality and special provisions must also be examined separately. Relevant explanation.
Where is a suspension of enforcement decision obtained?
Under the current Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, it is obtained from the enforcement court of the place where the proceedings are conducted. The regional court of appeal or the Court of Cassation that examines the appeal is not the same authority as the one that makes this decision. Competent authority.
Is a certificate of grace always granted for 90 days?
No. The law provides for an appropriate period and an extension only where necessary. The start and end dates of the document issued in the concrete file are the basis. Periods.
Do all proceedings stop on the day I deposit the security?
Depositing the security does not by itself complete the whole process. The existence and scope of a valid certificate of grace or suspension decision must be checked. Merely making a request without a period having been granted is also not sufficient. Application stages.
Must the security for suspension of enforcement always be cash?
No. The law also provides for other securities, such as a bank surety and suitable pledges. Whether there is sufficient attached property is also assessed separately. The type, amount and conditions of acceptance of the security must suit the file. Security options.
Does a person receiving legal aid have to deposit security?
Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law exempts a person receiving legal aid from the requirement of security. The entitlement to legal aid must be documented; a mere assertion of financial difficulty does not produce the same result. The other conditions of the application continue to apply. Exemption.
When suspension of enforcement is obtained, is the attachment on my bank account lifted?
It is not lifted automatically. However, if the cash or bank guarantee is sufficient for the whole file debt, a request to lift the attachment to the extent it is excessive may be assessed. In the case of immovable property security, the uncertainty of the sale price may produce a different result. Effect on attachments.
Does interest run during suspension of enforcement?
A decision to suspend enforcement does not automatically stop interest. Because the security is not treated as a payment and the debt continues, interest may continue to run under the judgment and the applicable legal framework. Distinction between payment and security.
Can suspension of enforcement be obtained for maintenance by providing security?
No. For maintenance provisions there is a specific bar in Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and in Articles 350 and 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claims of payment or incorrect calculation are assessed under different legal routes. Maintenance rule.
Does appealing an eviction decision allow me to stay in the home?
Not by itself. The protection must be obtained according to the type of decision and enforcement. The ten-day waiting rule under Article 269(c) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is not a common application period for all eviction decisions. Eviction explanation.
Does a suspension decision made at appeal continue on cassation?
Where an appeal to the Court of Cassation is open against a regional court of appeal decision rejecting the application on the merits, the law maintains the protection until the end of the time limit for cassation. Automatic continuation is not accepted for the whole cassation review; the acts for the new stage must be completed. Transition to cassation.
If the Court of Cassation reverses the decision, is the money I paid returned immediately?
Reversal alone does not mean automatic return of a payment already made. Under Article 40 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, restoration of enforcement requires conditions such as a final judgment establishing that there is no debt or that less is owed. The return of the security is considered separately under Article 36. Distinction between return and restoration.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Arts. 16, 18, 22, 32, 33, 33(a), 36, 38, 40, 85, 266, 269(c) and 363. Current text of the law — Legislation Information System.
[2] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 345, 350, 361 and 367. Current text of the law — Legislation Information System.
[3] Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), Art. 57. Current text of the law — Legislation Information System.
[4] Constitutional Court, June 3, 2025, E. 2025/92, K. 2025/127; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), August 8, 2025, no. 32980. Decision — Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank.
[5] 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), February 13, 2019, E. 2018/5463, K. 2019/2032. Decision — Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System.
[6] 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 23, 2023, E. 2022/9066, K. 2023/1984. Decision — Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System.
[7] 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, November 3, 2022, E. 2022/4099, K. 2022/11439. Decision — Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System.
[8] 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 22, 2025, E. 2025/4604, K. 2025/6611. Decision — Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System.
[9] Özekes, Muhammet, “Amendments Made by Law No. 7343 on the Suspension of Enforcement (Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law) and the Problems They Create” (“İcranın Geri Bırakılması Hakkında (İİK m. 36) 7343 S.K. ile Yapılan Değişiklikler ve Ortaya Çıkardığı Sorunlar”), Yıldırım Beyazıt Hukuk Dergisi (Yıldırım Beyazıt Law Journal), 2022, no. 2, pp. 57–78. Record and full text — DergiPark.