Cancellation of Enforcement Proceedings by the Debtor – 2026

Cancellation of Enforcement Proceedings by the Debtor – 2026. The Turkish execution law system aims to ensure that the creditor reaches their claim in the fastest and most effective way, while developing various defense mechanisms to prevent the debtor from being overwhelmed under the threat of unjust execution. The foremost of these mechanisms is the objection to the payment order, which is used at the stage where the proceeding has not yet become final. However, the need to protect the debtor continues in cases where the debt is terminated, postponed, or becomes time-barred after the execution proceeding has become final. At this point, Article 71 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law (EBL) and Article 33 specifically for execution with a judgment provide the debtor with the opportunity for the “annulment and postponement” (stay) of the proceeding in the phase after the finalization. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of how to request the annulment of execution proceedings by the debtor, its legal basis, burden of proof, procedure, and current costs for the 2025-2026 period.

Legal Nature and Purpose of Annulment and Postponement of Execution

The finalization of the execution proceeding grants the execution office the authority to use the state’s coercive power, such as seizure and sale, over the debtor’s assets. However, a situation that terminates the debt or prevents its performance in material law may have arisen at a date after the finalization of the proceeding. The principle of the rule of law cannot accept the continuation of the state’s coercive power for a claim that no longer exists in terms of material law or whose enforceability has been postponed. In this context, the annulment and postponement of the proceeding function to realign the material law reality with the appearance of the execution law.

Annulment refers to the invalidation of the proceeding and the actions taken in cases where the debt has completely ended (discharge/payment) or has become time-barred. Postponement (stay), on the other hand, is the freezing of the proceeding for a certain period in cases where the creditor grants the debtor additional time (grace period). This distinction is the fundamental element determining the nature of the debtor’s request and the scope of the court’s decision.

Fundamental Grounds Requiring Annulment and Postponement of Execution

The grounds for annulment and postponement provided for under Article 71 of the EBL for proceedings without a judgment are grouped into three main categories: discharge (itfa), grace period (imhal), and statute of limitations (zamanaşımı).

Discharge of Debt and Annulment of Proceeding

Discharge is a general term covering all legal reasons that terminate the debt. Payment of the debt after the finalization of the proceeding, set-off, release of the debt by the creditor, or renewal of the debt (novation) are considered within the scope of discharge.

The following conditions are sought to request the annulment of the proceeding due to discharge:

• The debt and its accessories (interest, fees, expenses, and attorney fees) must be fully paid or terminated. In case of partial payment, “partial annulment” can be requested only for that portion.
• The discharge event must have occurred in the phase after the finalization of the proceeding. Payments made within the objection period to the payment order should be put forward through the objection route, not under Article 71.
• The debtor must prove the discharge with the limited types of documents specified in the law.

Grace Period and Postponement of Proceeding

A grace period occurs when the creditor grants the debtor additional time to pay the debt or agrees to an installment plan. This situation is essentially a maturity extension agreement in material law. A protocol made externally between the creditor and the debtor or a declaration of time provided by the creditor to the execution file constitutes a grace period. In this case, the execution court decides not on the annulment of the proceeding, but on its postponement (stay). With this decision, the proceeding stops; no execution actions can be taken until the granted period expires.

Statute of Limitations After Finalization of Proceeding

If the creditor does not take any action for a long time after the execution proceeding without a judgment becomes final, and this period of silence completes the statute of limitations to which the claim is subject, the debtor may request the “stay of execution” due to the statute of limitations. The point to be noted here is that the statute of limitations must have occurred in the phase after the proceeding became final. By reference of EBL 71/2, the provisions of EBL 33a, which regulate the statute of limitations in execution with a judgment, are applied by analogy in this case.

Law of Evidence and Strict Formal Requirements in Requests for Annulment and Postponement

Execution courts, unlike general courts, are limited-jurisdiction authorities that perform formal examinations. Therefore, the debtor’s claims such as “I paid” or “I received extra time” are tied to very strict formal requirements for proof. According to Article 71 of the EBL, proof by witnesses or the offer of an oath is not possible.

The documents with which the debtor can prove their claim are as follows:

1. Notary Certified Document: Payment receipts, release documents, or installment agreements issued in the presence of a notary are the strongest means of proof.
2. Ordinary Document with Signature Admitted by the Creditor: The creditor must accept (admit) in the presence of the court that the signature on the document presented to them belongs to them. If the creditor denies the signature, the execution court cannot perform a signature examination and rejects the request. In this case, the debtor will need to file a “Negative Clearance Action” in the general court to prove the payment.
3. Documents from Official Departments: Payment documents or receipts received from the tax office, municipality, or other official institutions are also accepted as valid.
4. Proof of Statute of Limitations: There is no obligation to present a document for the claim of statute of limitations; the period between the last transaction date in the execution file and the request date is examined by the court ex officio or upon objection.

Application Process within the Framework of Procedural Law: Jurisdiction, Venue, and Timing

The request for annulment or postponement of execution proceedings by the debtor, although technically in the nature of a “complaint” or “objection,” is conducted with the seriousness of a lawsuit.

Competent and Authorized Court

The authority where the request will be decided is the Execution Court to which the execution office conducting the proceeding is attached. For example, for an annulment application for a finalized proceeding in the Ankara 5th Execution Office, the application must be made to the Ankara Execution Courts. The venue rule is absolute, and this request cannot be put forward in any other local court.

Application Period and Statute of Limitations Dynamics

Requests for annulment and postponement based on discharge and grace period reasons are generally not subject to a specific time limit. Although the law states that they can be requested “at any time,” the limit for this is until the distribution of funds. Since there will be no proceeding left to annul after the debtor’s property is sold and the money is paid to the creditor, only a “Restitution Action” (recovery of money) can be filed in general courts after this stage.

In applications made due to the statute of limitations, there is no time restriction; the debtor can request the stay of execution at any time as long as the statute of limitations has occurred after the finalization of the proceeding. Furthermore, since the statute of limitations for a claim is a plea relating to public order, the execution court is obliged to examine the file upon the debtor’s request.

Trial Procedure and Stopping of Execution

The execution court examines the application according to the Simple Trial Procedure. The court generally decides based on the file, but if it deems the hearing of the parties necessary, it may open a trial. It should be emphasized that applying to the execution court for annulment does not automatically stop the proceeding. For seizure and sale transactions to stop, the debtor must obtain an “Interim Injunction” decision from the court or request the suspension of the proceeding by depositing a guarantee of approximately 115% of the debt subject to the proceeding.

2025-2026 Execution Proceeding Annulment Cost Analysis: Fees, Expenses, and Attorney Fees

The process of annulling the execution proceeding brings certain financial obligations for the debtor. The current judicial fees and minimum attorney fee tariffs determined for the years 2025 and 2026 play a critical role in the budget planning of this process.

Application Fees and Litigation Advance (2025-2026)

Fees for applications to execution courts are generally determined as fixed (lump sum) amounts.

The total initial cost for a debtor to file an annulment lawsuit in the execution court at the beginning of 2026 starts from approximately 2,500 TL to 4,000 TL, depending on the number of notifications and file details.

Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff (AAÜT)

The attorney fee to be awarded in requests for the annulment of execution proceedings varies according to the subject of the request. Fixed attorney fees are applied in execution court matters where the subject is not money or cannot be evaluated with money.

• Matters Followed in Execution Courts: 11,000 TL.
• Execution Court Lawsuits and Matters with Hearings: 18,000 TL.
• Proceedings Conducted in Execution Offices: 9,000 TL.
• Execution Proceedings Regarding Eviction: 20,000 TL.

If the request for annulment also involves the determination of a claim amount and the court needs to make a proportional (percentage-based) decision, the attorney fee is calculated at a rate of 16% for the first 600,000 TL of the claim.

Comparison of the Differences Between Objection to Payment Order and Annulment of Proceeding (EBL 71)

The most common mistake made by debtors is thinking that they can request the annulment of the proceeding for the same reasons after missing the objection period for the payment order. However, the scope and consequences of these two institutions are sharply separated.

This table shows how much the debtor’s right of defense narrows and the burden of proof increases with the finalization of the proceeding. A payment made before finalization can only be put forward through an objection to the payment order; the annulment of the proceeding under Article 71 cannot be requested based on this payment.

Legal Consequences of the Annulment Decision and Effect on Execution Actions

When the execution court finds the debtor’s request justified and decides on the annulment or postponement of the proceeding, this decision has immediate consequences on the execution file.

Consequences of Annulment of Proceeding

If the court decides to annul the proceeding, the proceeding stops. Upon the finalization of the annulment decision, all execution actions taken up to that day are canceled. The concrete reflections of this situation are as follows:

• Seizures on the debtor’s movable and immovable properties are lifted.
• Wage attachments and blocks on bank accounts are removed.
• If the seized goods have been sold but the money has not yet been paid to the creditor, the sale price is returned to the debtor.
• However, this decision of the execution court does not constitute a final judgment in the material sense; that is, the creditor can continue to seek their rights by filing a “Collection Action” against the debtor in general courts.

Consequences of Postponement (Stay) of Proceeding

In the decision to postpone the proceeding, the proceeding does not end but simply stops for a period. If the execution court determines that the creditor has granted the debtor time, no new execution actions can be taken during this period, and actions already taken (such as sale announcements) are retracted. When the granted period ends, the proceeding continues from where it left off upon the creditor’s request.

Execution with a Judgment and Stay of Execution: EBL 33 and 33a Distinction

Although execution proceedings without a judgment have been primarily addressed up to this point in the report, a similar protection exists in execution proceedings based on a court decision (execution with a judgment). In execution with a judgment, the debtor can apply to the execution court within 7 days from the notification of the execution order, claiming that the debt has been discharged, postponed, or is time-barred.

Pursuant to EBL Article 33a, if the claim that the judgment is time-barred is accepted, a “stay of execution” is decided. The creditor can file a lawsuit in general courts within 7 days from the notification of the finalization of this decision, proving that the statute of limitations has not occurred or has been interrupted. If the creditor does not file a lawsuit within this period, the matter that the judgment is time-barred constitutes a final judgment and the proceeding ends.

Recent Precedents of the Court of Cassation and Critical Developments in 2025

Recent decisions of the Court of Cassation have introduced new standards in favor of and against the debtor in applications for the annulment of execution proceedings. In particular, foreign currency claims and cases of contrary to public order stand out.

Ex Officio Annulment in Foreign Currency Claims

The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated May 21, 2025, presents a groundbreaking approach in execution law: If the Turkish Lira equivalent (as the value subject to fee) of a foreign currency claim is not shown in the execution request, this situation is considered contrary to public order, and the execution court must decide on the annulment of the proceeding ex officio without being subject to any time limit.

Claim That the Judgment Has Not Become Final

According to the decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 12, 2025, the claim that the judgment was put into execution before becoming final must be explicitly put forward by the debtor. The court cannot annul the proceeding ex officio by saying “the judgment has not become final” unless the debtor makes a complaint in this direction. This decision emphasizes the importance of the principle of being bound by the party’s request in execution law.

Effect of Annulment of Execution Order on Damages

The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers dated April 30, 2025, has strengthened the retroactive consequences of the annulment decision. If the execution order, which is the basis for the sale of a property by tender, is subsequently annulled by a court decision, this situation directly opens the door for the annulment of the tender or the compensation of the damages suffered by the debtor.

Strategic Recommendations

The process of requesting the annulment of the execution proceeding by the debtor is an area where technical details and strict rules of proof prevail. The following strategic points should be considered to achieve a successful result:

1. Document Preparation: Making payments through bank channels and writing the “execution file number” in the explanation section facilitates proof in the execution court. In external payments, obtaining a notary-certified release from the creditor is of vital importance.
2. Time Management: Although the claim of discharge can be requested “at any time,” the application must be made before the stage of distribution of funds. It is much more costly and difficult to seek rights after the sale has taken place.
3. Injunction Request: Simply making an annulment application does not stop the proceeding. To prevent the sale of the debtor’s assets, the suspension of the proceeding must be requested against a guarantee.
4. Option of Negative Clearance Action: Debtors who do not have documents of the nature specified in EBL 71 should file a “Negative Clearance Action” in general courts without losing time. Since the execution court cannot hear witnesses, it will reject the request.

2025-2026, under the digitalizing execution system and updated fee tariffs, debtor defense has become more technical. Article 71 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law provides the debtor with the power to stop the unjust proceeding while simultaneously demanding a high discipline of proof to use this power. The correct use of these legal opportunities by debtors at the right time and with the right documents is the only way to prevent irreparable damages.