A complaint to the enforcement court is, as a rule, the route for challenging an unlawful act of the enforcement office, a duty it failed to perform, or an unjustified delay. The general time limit is seven days from learning of the act. However, there are cases in which no time limit applies and there are special time limits. Filing a complaint does not suspend enforcement unless the court so decides.
When an error is noticed in an enforcement file, the first question should not be only "Where can I file a complaint?" Which act is unlawful, when was it learned of, and what exactly is being requested from the court? Answering these three questions correctly is as important as the legal basis of the application. Choosing the wrong route or setting the start of the time limit incorrectly may prevent a well-founded claim from being examined on its merits.
This guide addresses the supervision of enforcement office acts under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, İİK). The tax office's collection of public receivables, criminal complaints concerning enforcement and appeals against court decisions are subject to different rules. Legislation and sources were checked as of October 11, 2026. For details, see the section on removal of electronic attachment for tax debt.
What does it mean to complain about an enforcement office action?
Known in practice also as a "complaint about the conduct of an enforcement officer" or a "complaint against the enforcement director", this route opens the acts of the enforcement body to judicial review. It is based mainly on Articles 16 to 18 and Article 22 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and on related special provisions. Its purpose is to annul or correct an unlawful act, or to ensure that an act that was not carried out is performed.
A complaint is not an accusation against the official personally. It is not a general requirement for reviewing an act that the enforcement officer acted in bad faith or that damage requiring compensation has arisen. What matters is the lawfulness of the concrete act and the applicant's legally protected interest in that act.
For this reason, not only the debtor but also the creditor, and where the conditions are met, third persons, may file a complaint. The creditor may complain that a properly made attachment request has not been concluded; the debtor may complain of a breach of the rule on non-attachability; and a third person may complain of a defective act that directly affects his or her legal position. It cannot be said that every person may complain about every act.
The enforcement court reviews the enforcement act in this application. It does not conduct a general action for debt that finally resolves the existence of the receivable in all its aspects. The binding effect of a complaint decision within the enforcement and the creation of a substantive res judicata on the debt relationship are different matters.
What is the difference between a complaint, an objection to the debt and an action for negative declaratory judgment?
The arrival of a payment order does not mean that all defenses may be submitted to the same authority. The decisive factors are the event relied on and the legal result sought, not the name of the application. The claim that no debt exists and the claim that the enforcement office acted incorrectly may arise together; in that case, the time limit and the competent authority for each route must be separately protected.
| Route of challenge | Main issue examined | Critical distinction for the application |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint under Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law | Lawfulness of an act performed or not performed by the enforcement body | As a rule, the enforcement court; generally seven days from learning of the act |
| Objection to the debt in enforcement proceedings without a judgment through general attachment | Defense against the debt claimed in the proceedings and the relevant grounds of objection | Seven days from service of the payment order, with the objection filed at the enforcement office; a timely objection suspends the proceedings |
| Objection or special complaint in bill-of-exchange enforcement | Debt, signature, authority or conditions of enforcement specific to bill-of-exchange law | Special rules in Article 168 et seq. of the Law; a five-day time limit applies to the relevant applications |
| Action for negative declaratory judgment and recovery of payment | Determination that no debt is owed or, where the conditions are met, recovery of money paid | An action before the competent court; it is not a general time-limit recovery route replacing a complaint |
| Appeal or Court of Cassation review | Review of a court decision by a higher judicial authority | Directed at the court decision, not at the enforcement office act; the special conditions for appeal apply |
For example, in general attachment proceedings without a judgment, a person who says that he or she paid the debt before enforcement must notify the enforcement office of the objection to the debt within the time limit. If the same person claims that the payment order was served defectively, a complaint to the enforcement court for correction of the date of service may also arise. Waiting for the outcome of a court complaint does not automatically preserve the time limit for an objection to the enforcement office.
A disciplinary administrative application against the enforcement officer, a criminal referral to the prosecutor's office or an application to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) does not replace a complaint under Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. These routes have different aims; the court application needed to annul an unlawful enforcement act must be made separately.
Which enforcement acts may be the subject of a complaint?
Performance of an act contrary to law
Failure to apply a rule of law, or its incorrect application, is a ground for complaint. Erroneous calculation, a payment order contrary to the enforcement request, an enforcement order exceeding the operative part of a judgment, and acts contrary to the attachment rules may be assessed within this scope. Nevertheless, it should first be examined whether the law provides a special action or objection for the particular dispute.
Claiming that a contract was not performed properly and claiming that the enforcement office gave the contract an incorrect legal consequence in the enforcement are not the same. A dispute of substantive law that cannot be resolved within the limited review of the enforcement court is not sufficiently described merely as an "official act".
Failure to exercise discretion in line with the concrete case
Even where the enforcement office may make an assessment under the law, the decision must be reasoned and consistent with the facts. In particular, when the scope of attachment is determined, the debt, interest, costs, the nature of the property, other existing attachments and the interests of the parties are considered together. Discretion is not an unlimited field of choice.
Article 85 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law prohibits attachment exceeding the amount sufficient to cover the receivable. However, the attachment of several assets does not by itself prove that there is an excessive attachment. The realistic sale values of the assets, priority pledges and attachments, and sale costs must also be taken into account. The request must be supported by data showing which attachment is disproportionate and why.
Failure to perform a right or delay of an act
An act that must be performed under the law, or that is held up without a justified reason, may be the subject of a complaint under Article 16(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. It must be shown that a properly made request, the necessary documents and, where required, the costs have been submitted to the file, and that despite this the specific act has not been performed.
For example, the time limit in Article 79 of the Law applies to a request for attachment, and the bank instruction system in Article 9 applies to payment to the right holder. However, a court decision preventing payment, a dispute over ranking or another legal obstacle may exist in the file. For this reason, it is incorrect to treat every waiting period as "unjustified delay" merely by counting the days that have passed.
The dated request submitted to the enforcement office, the receipt record and the reasoned response form the basis of this review. Under Article 8 of the Law, decisions must be recorded in the minutes with reasons. A telephone call does not replace the request and decision records in the file.
How is the time limit for a complaint against the enforcement office calculated?
General rule: seven days from learning of the act
Article 16(1) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law ties a complaint against an act contrary to law or to the facts to seven days from learning of it. In calculating the time limit, the specific act complained of must be identified first. The date on which the existence of enforcement was learned and the date on which a later attachment or accounting act was learned may not be the same.
Under Article 19 of the Law, where the time limit is fixed in days, the first day is not counted. Weekends and public holidays between them count toward the time limit; if the last day falls on a public holiday, the time limit extends to the following day. The rule on the end of the working day for properly made electronic applications also applies. Opening the application screen is not sufficient; a record that the act was completed should be obtained.
Example: If an act subject to the general seven-day complaint is taken to have been learned on Monday, October 12, 2026, the time limit calculated without counting the first day ends on Monday, October 19, 2026. This example shows only the general method of calculation; the validity of service, a special time limit or a different record of learning may change the result.
Applications before the enforcement court are urgent. It should not be expected that the judicial recess will automatically stop or extend the complaint time limit. Requesting re-examination from the enforcement office does not, as a rule, interrupt the time limit for applying to the court, and does not create a new complaint period for the same act.
Is an unlimited complaint available for every unlawful act?
No. Article 16(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law does not tie a failure to perform a right, or its unjustified delay, to a time limit. Judicial practice also accepts an unlimited complaint for certain acts regarded as contrary to public policy. However, not every violation of law is a violation of public policy.
A rejected request does not by itself make all rejection decisions unlimited. The subject of the decision and the provision said to have been breached must be examined. On the other hand, it is also incorrect to treat all applications concerning failure to perform a right as subject to the seven-day limit merely because a written rejection exists. The concrete legal basis of the unlimited nature must be explained.
An unlimited complaint does not mean that every completed enforcement can be challenged in the same way years later. In its decision of March 2, 2022, E.2021/8753, K.2022/2658, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation emphasized this limit in a complaint about a statement of account cut-off notice raised after the auction for the mortgage-enforcement sale had become final. The Chamber quashed the decision accepting the complaint on the ground that the complaint could not be heard after enforcement had been carried out. This decision should not be confused with files in which the erroneous closure act itself is reviewed. Decision text
Special time limits must also be checked separately
| Subject of the application | Time limit and basic start date | Point requiring attention |
|---|---|---|
| General complaint | Seven days from learning of the act | The evidence of learning and the relevant special provision are checked |
| Complaint about defective service | Seven days from learning of the defective service | Non-service is distinguished from defective service |
| Complaint about residence protection (meskeniyet) | Seven days from learning of the attachment | A later notice does not renew a period that began earlier |
| Special complaint on bill-of-exchange status and the right to enforce | Five days from service of the payment order | Articles 168(3) and 170(a) of the Law; not every complaint in a bill-of-exchange file is subject to five days |
| Complaint about valuation of property | Seven days from service of the report | The later deadline for depositing costs and fees under Article 128(a) of the Law is also taken into account |
| Annulment of an auction | As a rule, seven days from the date of the auction | Learning exceptions under Article 134, the right to apply, fees, security and upper-limit provisions are examined separately |
| Failure to perform a right or unjustified delay | Not subject to a time limit under Article 16(2) of the Law | The application must genuinely be of this nature and the applicant must have a legal interest |
This table is meant to help recognize the different institutions. In particular, a complaint about annulment of an auction or about valuation of property should not be regarded as a simple extension of a general complaint petition that can cover all details.
How do defective service and UYAP records affect the time limit?
Non-service and defective service are different
Article 32 of the Law No. 7201 on Notification governs the consequence of a service made contrary to procedure once it is learned of by the addressee. For this provision to apply, there must first be a service, even if defective. It is incorrect to place a complete absence of service in the same legal category as service carried out with missing or incorrect procedure.
In the case of defective service, the date of learning must be clearly stated in the petition; the service report, address information, earlier applications and electronic records must be considered together. Saying only that "the notice never reached my hands" may not be enough to show the unlawfulness of the service method. On the other hand, the existence of a record showing that the file was known earlier does not remove the time-limit problem simply because a later date is reported.
Court of Cassation decision on opening the payment order in UYAP
In its decision of March 11, 2025, E.2025/519, K.2025/2154, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation based its reasoning on the document-processing register entry showing that the payment order was opened by the debtor in UYAP. In the file, the document was opened on April 26, 2023, and the complaint was filed on May 23, 2023. The Chamber quashed the decision accepting the complaint, stating that the complaint should have been rejected because the seven-day period had passed. Decision text
The conclusion to be drawn from the decision is not that any e-Government login replaces all service. What matters is which user, in what capacity, accessed which document and when. Seeing a file number in a tracking list and opening the payment order complained of should not be treated as the same fact.
The academic debate should also not be overlooked. Cansu Korkmaz's 2026 study emphasizes that unlimited expansion of exceptions concerning the investigation of the date of reported learning may lead to loss of rights. For this reason, the existence of a digital record and whether the record actually shows learning of the concrete service must both be assessed. The provisions of the Draft Enforcement Code examined in that study, however, cannot be applied as if they were a law in force. Academic work
Electronic service through UETS is considered separately
For a properly made electronic service under Article 7(a) of the Law No. 7201 on Notification, the notice is deemed made at the end of the fifth day after it reaches the addressee's electronic address. UETS delivery and service records and the UYAP document-viewing record are not the same thing. The fifth-day rule does not mean that five days are automatically added to all complaint time limits that run from learning.
Article 11 of the same law also matters for the addressee of service in files followed by a lawyer. The assessment of the time limit must be made together with the authority status in the file and the nature of the relevant act.
Which route applies to attachment, residence protection and a third party's property?
Non-attachability and excessive attachment rest on different grounds
Non-attachability relates to a property or right enjoying the protection of the law, while excessive attachment relates to the amount exceeding what is sufficient to cover the receivable. One or several of these claims may arise in relation to an asset. A general conclusion that "the attachment is lifted" cannot be drawn without determining the nature of the asset, its use, the origin of the debt and any special provisions of the law.
The protection of household goods under Article 82 of the Law, and the provisions on goods necessary for the debtor to maintain a home suited to his or her condition and to practise his or her profession, are not subject to the same conditions. For example, whether the value of the residence exceeds the amount that would allow the debtor to acquire a home suitable to his or her condition is assessed separately. A family residence record is also not a general shield that automatically prevents all attachments.
A residence protection complaint is not unlimited
In its decision of May 15, 2025, E.2025/2388, K.2025/4014, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that a complaint about residence protection (meskeniyet) is subject to a seven-day time limit from learning of the attachment. Where there is no data on earlier learning, service of the summons under Article 103 of the Law may be taken as the basis for assessing the time limit. In the concrete file, the complaint was filed on the day of service, so there was no problem with the time limit, and the decision accepting the complaint was upheld. Decision text
This decision does not mean that all grounds of non-attachability are subject to the same time limit. The provision from which the relevant protection arises must be determined separately. In relation to residence protection, the approach that "because it is my home, I may complain at any time" carries a serious risk of loss of rights.
If the property belongs to a third person, the third-party ownership claim route must not be overlooked
The claim that an attached asset belongs to a third person rather than the debtor is, as a rule, dealt with within the third-party ownership procedure under Articles 96 to 99 of the Law (istihkak). The enforcement office's incorrect application of the third-party ownership procedure may also be the subject of a complaint. Ownership disputes and procedural errors must be distinguished from one another.
In its decision of April 6, 2023, E.2022/9429, K.2023/2431, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered a case in which a third person claimed that property located at his address had been attached and asked for the attachment record to be annulled. The decision rejecting the claim on the ground that the assertion should have been raised through the third-party ownership procedure was upheld. This decision does not show that a third person can never file a complaint; it shows the importance of the correct route for an ownership claim. Decision text
How are erroneous file accounts, interest and fees reviewed?
In an account in the file, the item objected to must first be identified: the principal receivable, the type and rate of interest, the starting date, the offset of payments, the attorney's fee, the fees or the expenses. Then a comparison is made with the enforcement request, the status of finality, any judgment and payment records. A calculation error and a late objection to an item in an enforcement request that has already become final are not the same thing.
A complaint about the mathematical calculation of interest does not, in every case, allow the interest rate in the enforcement to be debated again. Distinctions between contrariness to a judgment, breach of a mandatory provision, an accounting act and an objection to the debt should be made according to the type of enforcement. Instead of saying "there is excess interest," it should be shown which rate was applied in which period and which payment was not taken into account.
In its decision of May 11, 2023, E.2022/10807, K.2023/3309, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined a dispute over the file account and collection fee. Because a residual claim remained as a result of an erroneous fee deduction, the decision to annul the closure of the enforcement was upheld. The part of the decision that was not reviewed on the interest-rate claim, which was raised on appeal rather than in the complaint petition, is also covered by the affirmation. Decision text
This example shows that an application may also be made by the creditor, and that the claim that the closing record itself is wrong can be reviewed separately. It is not the same as a complaint lodged after the enforcement has been completed concerning earlier acts. The historical amounts and rates in that decision cannot be used as current tariffs.
Can a duplicate enforcement proceeding for the same debt be the subject of a complaint?
Opening a new enforcement proceeding while an existing one is ongoing against the same creditor and the same debtor may give rise to a problem of duplication. The review does not merely compare file numbers; it examines whether the receivables are truly the same, the parties, the status of the proceedings and the special enforcement provisions. Proceedings concerning different debtors, different creditors or separately protected legal relationships cannot automatically be treated as duplicates.
In its decision of May 2, 2023, E.2022/10392, K.2023/2986, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation clearly stated that it was changing its earlier approach, which regarded a claim of duplication in enforcement proceedings without a judgment as an objection to the debt. The Chamber assessed the claim that a new proceeding had been started while an existing proceeding for the same receivable was pending in terms of the condition for enforcement, and accepted that the application should be examined in the enforcement court as an unlimited complaint. The rejection given without examining the merits was quashed. Decision text
Accordingly, the statement in an older article that "duplication in enforcement without a judgment is only an objection to the debt" should not be applied directly to a current file. However, this decision does not remove the time limits for the other grounds of objection to the debt. The petition must clearly set out both proceedings, the documents on which they are based and the connection showing the same receivable.
To which court and against whom is a complaint made?
The general competent authority is the enforcement court. Under Article 4 of the Law, the application is, as a rule, made to the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that performed the act is attached. The court of the debtor's residence does not automatically have jurisdiction over every file merely because of the place of residence.
Where attachment has been carried out on a letter of request, the court to which the enforcement office that carried out the attachment is attached becomes relevant for complaints about its attachment acts under Article 79 of the Law. However, it must be determined whether the complaint is directed at the way the request was carried out or at the decision of the principal enforcement office. Special authority provisions and the division of work between enforcement offices are checked on the basis of the file.
Although the complaint concerns an office act, no damages action is brought against the official personally. It is important that the creditor, the debtor or any other relevant person whose legal position may be affected by the decision is correctly identified in the application, is informed of the petition and is given an opportunity to give an explanation.
Article 18 of the Law also allows the statement to be recorded in the minutes of the court in addition to a written petition. In practice, a written petition clearly containing the act, the date, the evidence and the requested outcome makes the file easier to understand. In an electronic application, the access and signature conditions must be met, and the acknowledgment of the completed application should be kept.
Which information and documents should a complaint petition contain?
The petition should set out the enforcement office and file number, the act complained of, the dates of the act and of learning it, the reason for the unlawfulness and the outcome sought. Where there is more than one act, each should be addressed with its own date and legal reasoning. Instead of piling up documents, it should be stated which evidence proves which claim.
| Issue to be examined | Key document or record | Link that must be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Time limit and learning | Service report, electronic notification record, UYAP document processing register, earlier petition | On what date was which act learned of? |
| Act not performed | Dated request, receipt record, fee receipt, enforcement office response | Which duty was not performed although the conditions were met? |
| Attachment and proportionality | Attachment record, title or register entry, valuation and earlier encumbrance documents | On which concrete data is the claim of protection or excess based? |
| File account | Enforcement request, judgment, account statement, payment and refund receipts | Which item, period or offset is wrong? |
| Duplication | Two enforcement files, contracts and bills, collection records | How is the connection between the same debtor and the same receivable established? |
| Urgent need for suspension | Sale calendar, payment or distribution decision, relevant minutes | Which act will produce what result while the decision is awaited? |
The outcome sought must match the unlawfulness identified. If only one account item needs correction, asking for the annulment of the whole enforcement may blur the real problem in the file. Different requests, such as correction of defective service, lifting of an attachment and suspension of enforcement, should be written separately without being confused with one another.
An example of a request can be framed concretely, for example as "correction of the account for the item of the file dated … because the payment of … was not taken into account". This phrase is not a completed model petition; the parties, the time limit, the basis and the other requests are determined by the file.
Does a complaint suspend enforcement?
Article 22 of the Law is clear: "A complaint does not suspend enforcement unless the enforcement court so decides." Registration of the application or the assignment of a case number does not by itself suspend the attachment, the sale or the payment.
Where suspension is needed, the reason why the particular act should be stayed must also be explained. Concrete facts, such as the imminence of a sale, the existence of disputed money about to be paid, or the difficulty of restoring the previous position even if the complaint is accepted, must be shown by the relevant documents. The court evaluates the matter according to the subject of the complaint and the circumstances of the file.
The request should be proportionate. An abstract suspension request covering every act across the whole file cannot be assessed on the same basis as a request to stay the payment of one specific sum, where that is sufficient. The scope of the decision given, and whether it has reached the enforcement file, should be monitored.
The suspension under Article 22 of the Law is not the same institution as the stay of enforcement pending appeal under Article 36 of the Law or the negative declaratory measure under Article 72, which arise in connection with an appeal against a judgment. The conditions, security arrangements and effects of these institutions must not be transferred to one another.
How does the court examine the matter and what decisions may it give?
Review on the file and the right to be heard
Under Article 18 of the Law, the simplified procedure applies. Unless a special provision says otherwise, the court considers whether a hearing is needed. For matters decided without a hearing, the Law prescribes a ten-day period for the decision; this rule is not a guarantee that all complaints will be finally resolved within ten days.
The fact that a decision is made on the file does not justify failing to inform a party whose outcome is affected of the claims and evidence. In its decision of January 21, 2016, B. No: 2013/4073, in the case of Mehmet Ali Bedir and Tevfik Günay, the Constitutional Court examined a final decision given against creditors without the complaint petitions being notified to them. It found a violation of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings because the opportunity to make statements and submit evidence had not been granted (§§ 33–41). Constitutional Court case record
This decision cannot be read as a provision requiring a hearing in every complaint; the Constitutional Court did not separately examine the claim of a right to a hearing. The decisive problem is that the person concerned was deprived of the opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings. Süleyman Burak Gündoğdu's study also addresses the relationship between the complaint, despite its special private-law character, and constitutional guarantees, as a proceeding that affects people's rights. Academic work
Acceptance, rejection and enforcement of the decision
Under Article 17 of the Law, where the complaint is accepted, the act is annulled or corrected, and performance of the act that was not performed or was delayed is ordered. If conditions such as the time limit or legal interest are missing, a rejection on procedural grounds may arise; if the claim is not well-founded, a rejection on the merits may arise. Where the requested act has been performed during the proceedings, it is assessed whether the application has become moot.
An accepted decision does not always end the entire enforcement. The annulment of a particular attachment, the correction of an account or the change of the date of service have different consequences. The operative part of the decision should be compared with the later records in the enforcement file. In particular, the sending of a letter lifting an attachment to a bank and its implementation by the bank are different stages.
How are fees, litigation costs and appeals assessed?
No single fixed amount can be given for the costs of a complaint. The type of application, the fee exemption, the need for service and expert examination, the representation of the opposing party and the tariffs in force are all taken into account. Article 13(d) of the Law No. 492 on Duties and Fees provides an exemption for decisions and the further acts they require concerning the annulment and correction of acts performed wrongly through the fault of enforcement and bankruptcy offices. This provision does not mean that all applications will be carried out without any cost.
As regards opposing counsel's fees and litigation costs, the outcome alone is not decisive; whether the opposing party caused the act may also matter. The acceptance of an ordinary complaint does not automatically give rise to a right to compensation for denial of enforcement (icra inkâr tazminatı) of twenty percent. Compensation for the official's fault is subject to separate conditions under Article 5 of the Law and is pursued in the civil courts against the administration.
Under the current Article 363 of the Law, the time limit for appeal is two weeks from service for decisions open to appeal. However, not every complaint decision is open to appeal. Decisions that are expressly final under the Law, the monetary threshold, the nature of the decision and transitional provisions are examined. The statement in older sources that the time limit is "ten days from pronouncement or service" cannot be applied automatically to current decisions.
Under Article 364 of the Law, for regional court of appeal decisions open to review by the Court of Cassation, the current time limit is also two weeks from service. The monetary thresholds change every year. Following the amendment of December 24, 2025, Additional Article 1 takes as the basis for determining the threshold the amount at the date the complaint was filed or the action was opened. For old files, the transitional and entry-into-force position must be separately assessed. The effect of an appeal on the sale and other acts is determined by reading Articles 363 to 365 together; it cannot be said that every application suspends all enforcement.
How should the file be assessed before an application?
A well-prepared assessment does not merely list favorable possibilities. It also examines the defense of time-limit expiry, the arguments of the opposing party, whether the act is genuinely capable of being annulled and the remedies other than a complaint. At the end of the review, a clear link must be established between the act, the date, the evidence and the claim.
Güneş & Güneş Law Firm may be asked for a legal opinion and an independent assessment at the stage the ongoing enforcement file has reached. The review may include a report on the current acts, the options for application, time limits, gaps in evidence and legal risks. The contact page may be used for requests and file submission.
For this assessment, a complete copy of the enforcement file and the linked court files should be obtained. UYAP documents may be shared by the right holder, or access by an authorized attorney may be used. Sharing of an e-Government password is not requested.
The report is in principle to be submitted no later than seven business days after the scope of the review has been agreed and the complete file and documents have been delivered. Where the volume of the file, foreign documents, a technical examination or missing papers require a special period, this is notified separately. The time needed to prepare a report is not a statutory time limit for an application; no report is awaited for an approaching complaint, objection or sale date.
Conclusion
A complaint against enforcement office acts is an important means of review, both to protect the debtor and to allow the creditor to obtain its right in accordance with the law. The basis of an effective application is to describe the act correctly, choose the correct legal route and calculate the time limit on the basis of the concrete records of the file.
The general seven-day time limit, the exceptions for unlimited complaints and the special time limits must be assessed together. UYAP records, the nature of service, the learning of the attachment and the state of completion of the enforcement may change the result. Likewise, filing a complaint petition and suspending enforcement are different stages.
The strength of seeking a remedy does not come merely from objecting; it comes from clearly stating what is sought, on which evidence, before which authority and for which result. A reasoned application and careful monitoring of the file that follows the implementation of the decision are complementary parts of legal protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is an enforcement office act complained of?
An application under Article 16 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is, as a rule, made to the enforcement court to which the enforcement office that performed the act is attached. In attachment carried out on a letter of request and in special acts, the authority is checked separately.
How many days do I have to complain about an enforcement office?
The general time limit is seven days from learning of the act. For failure to perform a right, unjustified delay and certain violations of public policy, an unlimited complaint may be available; different time limits apply to specific matters.
I submitted a correction request to the enforcement office; does the time limit for applying to the court stop?
As a rule, it does not. Waiting for the office's reply may cause the right to a time-limited complaint to be lost. Repeating the same request does not restart a time limit that has already expired.
Is the date I saw the file on UYAP treated as the date of learning?
A record showing that the specific act was really learned of may affect the time limit. There is a Court of Cassation decision on the opening of a payment order; simply logging into the system or seeing a file list does not produce the same result in every case.
Does a complaint about defective service replace an objection to the debt?
No. In enforcement proceedings without a judgment through general attachment, the objection to the debt must be made to the enforcement office. A request to correct the date of service and an objection to the debt must each be raised within their own procedures and time limits.
Does filing a complaint automatically stop an attachment or a sale?
No. Under Article 22 of the Law, a decision of the court staying enforcement is required. Where urgent protection is sought, the act and its reasons must be clearly shown, and the implementation of the decision in the enforcement file must be monitored.
Can a residence protection complaint always be made?
No. A residence protection complaint is subject to a seven-day time limit from learning of the attachment. A later notice does not automatically renew a period that began with earlier learning.
My property was attached for someone else's debt; is a complaint alone enough?
Not always. Where ownership is claimed, the third-party ownership route and its time limits must be examined. Separate procedural errors, such as a wrong application of the third-party ownership procedure, may give rise to a complaint.
If a second enforcement proceeding is opened for the same debt, what can be done?
Where an existing proceeding for the same receivable and debtor is pending, opening a new one may, under the current approach of the Court of Cassation, be the subject of an unlimited complaint concerning the condition for enforcement. Whether the proceedings concern the same debt is assessed on the basis of documents.
Can a complaint be made after the enforcement file has been closed?
Completion of the enforcement may limit the possibility of complaining about earlier acts. However, the claim that the closing act itself is unlawful because of an incorrect account is different. The reason for closure, the subject of the complaint and the legal interest must be examined together.
If a complaint is accepted, do the debt and all the attachments disappear?
That depends on the scope of the decision. The correction of an account, the annulment of a particular attachment and the annulment of the enforcement are different outcomes. Debts and acts outside the operative part of the decision do not disappear automatically.
What is the time limit for appealing a decision of the enforcement court?
Under the current Article 363 of the Law, the time limit for decisions open to appeal is two weeks from service. Final decision exceptions, the monetary threshold and the transitional provisions for old files must be checked separately.
Sources and legal bases
Legislation
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu, İİK): In particular Arts. 4–5, 8–9, 16–22, 62, 66, 79–85, 96–99, 128(a), 134, 168–170(a), 363–365 and Additional Art. 1. Ministry of Justice, current consolidated text.
Law No. 7201 on Notification: Arts. 7(a), 11 and 32. Ministry of Justice, current consolidated text.
Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure: In particular Arts. 27 and 103. Ministry of Justice, current consolidated text.
Law No. 492 on Duties and Fees: In particular Art. 13(d) and the relevant tariffs. Ministry of Justice, current consolidated text.
Court decisions
Constitutional Court, Mehmet Ali Bedir and Tevfik Günay, B. No: 2013/4073, January 21, 2016, in particular §§ 33–41: equality of arms and adversarial proceedings in complaint proceedings. Case record.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 2, 2022, E.2021/8753, K.2022/2658: The limit of a complaint raised after enforcement has been carried out. Decision text.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 6, 2023, E.2022/9429, K.2023/2431: Distinction between third-party ownership claim and complaint. Decision text.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 2, 2023, E.2022/10392, K.2023/2986: Assessment of duplication of enforcement as a condition for enforcement and as an unlimited complaint. Decision text.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 11, 2023, E.2022/10807, K.2023/3309: File account, collection fee and erroneous closure. Decision text.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 11, 2025, E.2025/519, K.2025/2154: UYAP document record and date of learning in a defective service complaint. Decision text.
12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 15, 2025, E.2025/2388, K.2025/4014: Time limit and learning of attachment in a residence protection complaint. Decision text.
Academic works
Korkmaz, Cansu. “Raising Defective Service in Enforcement Proceedings and Determining the Date of Service” (“İcra Takibinde Usûlsüz Tebligatın İleri Sürülmesi ve Tebliğ Tarihinin Belirlenmesi”). Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi (Turkish Justice Academy Journal), 2026, no. 67, pp. 691–742; in particular pp. 724–726 and 735–737. DOI: 10.54049/taad.1937424. Article and full-text access.
Gündoğdu, Süleyman Burak. “The Approach of the Constitutional Court to the Institution of Complaint in Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law from the Perspective of the Right to Be Heard” (“Anayasa Mahkemesinin İcra ve İflâs Hukukundaki Şikâyet Müessesesine Hukukî Dinlenilme Hakkı Açısından Yaklaşımı”). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi (Jurisdictional Disputes Court Journal), 2021, no. 18, pp. 89–116; in particular pp. 112–113. DOI: 10.18771/mdergi.1037953. Article and full-text access.