İcra ve İflas Hukukunda Gecikmiş İtiraz

Year 2010, Issue: 24, 371 - 387, 01.08.2010

Alper Uyumaz

Abstract

Borçlunun, hakkındaki takip açısından hayatî değer taşıyan ödeme emrine itiraz süresini kusursuz olarak, kendi iradesi dışında meydana gelen bir sebepten ötürü kaçırmasıdurumunda, menfaatlerin telifini esas alan kanunkoyucu, İcra ve İflâs Kanununun 65. maddesi ile gecikmişitiraz müessesesine yer vermeyi uygun bulmuştur. İcra ve İflâs Hukukunda, ödeme emrine itiraz süresini kaçırmanın ve bu durumun hak düşürücü özelliğinin tek istisnasıgecikmişitiraz müessesesidir. Zira, ödeme emrine itiraz süresini, kusuruna dayanmayan kabul edilebilir bir mazereti sebebiyle kaçıran bir borçlunun, kesinleşmiştakibi durdurabilmesinin tek yolu gecikmişitirazda bulunmaktır. Bu bakımdan, gecikmişitirazın hukukî niteliğinin, İcra ve iflâs Hukuku anlamında bir hukuksal çare olduğu kabul edilebilmektedir. Gecikmişitiraz talebinde bulunmak tek başına takibi durdurmazsa da, ödeme emrine itirazın kaçırılmasına sebep gösterilen mazeretin incelemeyi yapan mercii tarafından kabulü ile birlikte takip duracaktır. Ancak, incelemeyi yapan mercii, duruma göre ihtiyatî tedbir niteliğindeki bir karar ile de, daha gecikmişitiraza ilişkin talebi incelemeye başlamadan takibi durdurabilir. Ayrıca, incelemeyi yapan merciin, kanunda sınırlı şekilde sayılmışmazeret sebepleriyle bağlıolmamasıda müesseseye ayrıbir özgünlük kazandırmaktadır. Gecikmişitiraza ilişkin kanunî düzenlemenin, mazeret ve itiraz sebeplerinin yetkili ve görevli mercie birlikte verilmesi, duruşma ilişkin harç ve masrafların da peşinen yatırılmışolmasını şart koşmasıbakımından gecikmişitirazın bir an önce karara bağlanmasıamacınıgütmekte olduğu söylenebilir. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, İcra Hukukunda olduğu gibi, İflâs Hukukunda da uygulanabilirliği tartışmasız olan gecikmişitiraz müessesesine, kambiyo senetlerine mahsus takip hukuku açısından özel olarak yer verilmişolması, adî genel iflas yoluyla takiplerde müessesenin uygulanma kabiliyetine sahip olmadığı şeklinde yorumlanmamalıdır. Son olarak, açık bir kanun hükmü olmamasına rağmen, gecikmişitiraza talebine ilişkin olarak ilgili merciin verdiği karara karşıüst yargıdenetimine, bu anlamda temyiz ve karar düzeltme yollarına başvurulabilmesine bir engel olmadığıbelirtilmelidir.

Keywords

Ödeme Emrine İtiraz, Gecikmiş İtiraz, Hukuksal Hukukî Çare, İcra Hukuku, İflâs Hukuku, İcra ve İflâs Kanunu Madde 65

Late Objection in The Law of Execution And Bankruptcy

Abstract

In law practice financial problems between parties have a special value. On account of this, codes which include economical substantials are being studied as research subjects. The most considerable of that codes which involve these features is The Code of Execution and Bankruptcy. A lot of prescription periods are foreseened at the Code of Execution and Bankruptcy. Because, the Code of Execution and Bankruptcy saves creditor’s benefits and provides pulling in cash his credit promptly. By the way, the code also conserves debitor’s benefits. One of the examples of this at Turkish Law of Execution and Bankruptcy is late objection. Actually, late objection helps to debitor, when he missed prescription period. Late objection is the only exception of objection period. Late objection concept is put in order article sixty five and one hundred seventy four paragraph four at Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act. This research which embraces late objection in the law of execution and bankruptcy is consisted of four paragraphs. The first paragraph’s primary topic is about the definition of the late objection. Secondary topic here is about practice of the late objection in the law of execution and bankruptcy. After this topic the juridicial meaning of late objection takes place in the last topic in this paragraph. The terms of the late objection demand are explained at the second paragraph. Whole paragraph includes five fundamental terms of the late objection. All terms are explained with details in here. Third paragraph is about the juridicial consequences of the late objection demand. Acceptance and refusal of the late objection demand are placed at this paragraph. Appeal request about the late objection adjudgement is expressed end of the paragraph. Also, this paragraph tells correction of adjustment. At the conclusion paragraph, the concept of late objection is censured with negative and constructive aspects in the light of de lege ferenda. According to Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act, objection period to the order of payment is seven days. This period starts when debitor gets writing notice. If debitor does not object to order of payment in this period, the execution proceeding come final. Hereafter, the only way of cutting down foregoing proceeding is late objection demand. But, the term of head to late objection demand is to be free from fault of debitor. Also, the debitor must have an excuse, like beiing in severe illness. Compelling reasons and unexpected events are rate as excuse for late objection, too. In this respect, late objection is accepted as a legal remedy. Essentially, with late objection demand, foregoing proceeding does not stop. Before all else, the court which takes the objection demand can adjudge to cut down the proceeding with temporary injunction. If the court does not adjudge temporary injunction about this demand, execution or bankruptcy proceeding does not stop. Whenever the excuse is accepted by the court, foregoing proceeding is cut down. In this case, the court can accept the excuse or refuse the excuse. Because, Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act article sixty five, gives to judge a judicial discretion. Thanks to this, in all the present cases, judge can adjudge different decisions. Furthermore, judge can investigate this demand at a trial or only on a document basis. With this assistance, time loss can be blocked. However, the debitor must put forward objections to order of payment with the late objection demand. Herein, the aim is barring time loss. With the same reason, article sixty five involves to pay all expenses of trial. This is one of the term of late objection demand according to article sixty five. The payment of trial expenses before judge decides to give a hearing is can be criticised. Scarcely, this term increases the speed of judgement. Late objection can bu used in law of execution. It is also can be used in law of bankruptcy. This estimation is argued from Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act article 65 and 173/4 clearly. But, there is a discussion here. Because, Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act subject that late objection is possible bankruptcy proceeding about commercial set. On the other hand, the act does not subject whether late objection is possible or not about general bankruptcy proceeding. According to doctrine and caselaw debitor can use late objection right in spide of there is no clause in Execution and Bankruptcy Act. Therefore, there are some fundamental terms of late objection demand. Before everything, debitor must have an excuse. And this acceptable excuse must have been prevented his objection to order of payment. Besides, debitor must be free from fault. If he has a fault about missing objection period, he can not use this right. In one go, debitor must present his late objection brief to the venue. At last, trial expenses must have been paid by the debitor. When does the debitor present his late objection demand to the venue? He has two period limits here. He must present his late objection demand in three days. This period starts when the excuse disappears. The other time limit is about upper limit. Under the circumstances, the debitor must present late objection until converting into money pledged goods. This upper time limit changes in the law of banktrupcy. In here, the debitor can present his late objection demand until commercial court adjudjes debitor’s bankruptcy. Late objection is not similar with the case of unmethodical notification. For using late objection right, debitor must miss seven days objection period and late objection is his last chance. But in this case, debitor does not know order of payment. In the case of unmethodical notification, period for order of payment does not start. If debitor has heard the notification, objection period starts at this time. Once at for all, parties of execution or bankruptcy proceeding can appeal with the Supreme Court for the adjudgment of local court. There is no article in the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Act about appeal. Certainly, right about appeal is an inalienable right. Just because of this, not only doctrine but also caselaw believe that parties appeal the adjudgement of court about late objection demand. In the mean time, the parties of execution or bankruptcy proceeding can want correction of adjustment from Supreme Court, too

Keywords

Objection to the Order of Payment, Late Objection, Legal Remedy, Law of Execution, Law of Bankruptcy