Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law
This section covers debt collection, attachment, composition with creditors (concordato) and bankruptcy proceedings. The articles are prepared in light of the current provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code (No. 2004) and the settled case law of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
Negative Declaratory and Discharge Action: Application of İİK m.72
Judicial declaration that no debt is owed
What is a negative declaratory action, the conditions for filing before and after enforcement, the interim-measure condition, and conversion into a restitution action.
The negative declaratory action allows a person alleged to be a debtor to obtain a court declaration that the alleged debt does not exist. Governed by İİK m.72, this action protects against wrongful enforcement, removes judicial pressure and allows the debtor to be cleared of unpaid debts. If the debt has been paid, the action is converted into a restitution action.
When the Action May Be Filed
The negative declaratory action may be brought before, during or after enforcement proceedings (İİK m.72/1-2). If filed before enforcement starts, the debtor may obtain an interim measure staying the proceedings; if filed after enforcement has started, an interim measure requires the debtor to lodge security of not less than 15 % of the claim.
Burden of Proof and Bad-Faith Damages
The burden of proof follows the general rules and the basis of the claim. The creditor must prove that the debt arose; the debtor must prove the defences relied on (payment, release, limitation, invalidity of the deed, etc.).
If the action succeeds and the pursuit is found wrongful and in bad faith, bad-faith damages of not less than 20 % of the claim are awarded to the debtor (İİK m.72/5). Conversely, if the action fails, the creditor recovers damages from the security — not less than 20 % — for the delay in obtaining payment (İİK m.72/4).
Conversion to a Restitution Action
If the debtor is obliged to pay the debt during or before the action, the negative declaratory action is converted by force of law into a restitution action (İİK m.72/6). The debtor may then also claim repayment of the amount paid.
Under İİK m.72/7, a debtor who did not object to the enforcement or whose objection was removed and who has been compelled to pay an amount not owed may, within one year of payment, bring a restitution action in the ordinary courts. This one-year period is a forfeiture period.
Practical Considerations
In enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings, the choice of enforcement track must be determined by the basis of the claim and the available documents. Although ordinary enforcement, commercial-paper enforcement, judgment-based enforcement, preliminary attachment, composition with creditors and bankruptcy may pursue the same outcome, they differ in time limits, available objections and costs.
Dates of service, objection or payment deadlines, attachment requests, sale-request periods and complaint deadlines are the most critical stages of the file. For this reason the dates of service of the payment order, enforcement order, attachment record, valuation report and sale notice should be tracked in a separate schedule.
For the creditor, interest calculation, the clarity of the enforcement request and the inquiry into the debtor's assets are decisive; for the debtor, grounds of objection, claims of exempt assets and the possibility of a negative declaratory action must be assessed from the outset. Otherwise, a procedural oversight may eclipse a meritorious position.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- İİK m.72Negative declaratory and restitution actions
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 72 – (Değişik: 18/2/1965-538/43 md.) Borçlu, icra takibinden önce veya takip sırasında borçlu bulunmadığını ispat için menfi tesbit davası açabilir. İcra takibinden önce açılan menfi tesbit davasına bakan mahkeme, talep üzerine alacağın yüzde onbeşinden aşağı olmamak üzere gösterilecek teminat mukabilinde, icra takibinin durdurulması hakkında ihtiyati tedbir kararı verebilir. İcra takibinden sonra açılan menfi tesbit davasında ihtiyati tedbir yolu ile takibin durdurulmasına karar verilemez. Ancak, borçlu gecikmeden doğan zararları karşılamak ve alacağın yüzde onbeşinden aşağı olmamak üzere göstereceği teminat karşılığında, mahkemeden ihtiyati tedbir yoluyle icra veznesindeki paranın alacaklıya verilmemesini istiyebilir. (Değişik: 9/11/1988-3494/6 md.) Dava alacaklı lehine neticelenirse ihtiyati tedbir kararı kalkar. Buna dair hükmün kesinleşmesi halinde alacaklı ihtiyati tedbir dolayısıyla alacağını geç almış bulunmaktan doğan zararlarını gösterilen teminattan alır. Alacaklının uğradığı zarar aynı davada takdir olunarak karara bağlanır. Bu zarar herhalde yüzde yirmiden aşağı tayin edilemez. (Değişik: 9/11/1988-3494/6 md.) Dava borçlu lehine hükme bağlanırsa derhal takip durur. İlamın kesinleşmesi üzerine münderecatına göre ve ayrıca hükme hacet kalmadan icra kısmen veya tamamen eski hale iade edilir. Borçlu, menfi tesbit davası zımmında tedbir kararı almamış ve borç da ödenmiş olursa, davaya istirdat davası olarak devam edilir. Takibe itiraz etmemiş veya itirazının kaldırılmış olması yüzünden borçlu olmadığı bir parayı tamamen ödemek mecburiyetinde kalan şahıs, ödediği tarihten itibaren bir sene içinde, umumi hükümler dairesinde mahkemeye başvurarak paranın geriye alınmasını istiyebilir. Menfi tesbit ve istirdat davaları, takibi yapan icra dairesinin bulunduğu yer mahkemesinde açılabileceği gibi, davalının yerleşim yeri mahkemesinde de açılabilir. Davacı istirdat davasında yalnız paranın verilmesi lazımgelmediğini ispata mecburdur.
English summary (non-binding):
The debtor may, before or during enforcement, bring a negative declaratory action to prove that no debt is owed. If brought before enforcement, the court may, on the debtor's request, grant an interim measure staying the enforcement against security of not less than 15 % of the claim. If brought after enforcement has started, no stay can be ordered by interim measure; however, the debtor may, against compensation for delay and security of not less than 15 %, obtain an interim measure preventing release of cash held by the enforcement office to the creditor. If the action is decided in favour of the creditor, the interim measure lapses; once final, the creditor recovers damages for delayed payment from the security — set in the same action at not less than 20 %. If decided in favour of the debtor, enforcement is stayed immediately; once the judgment is final, enforcement is reversed in whole or in part without need of further decision. Where the pursuit forcing the debtor to bring the action is wrongful and in bad faith, the debtor's damages are collected from the creditor — set at not less than 20 % of the claim. Where no interim measure was obtained and the debt has been paid, the action continues as a restitution action. A debtor who, having failed to object or whose objection was removed, has been forced to pay an amount not owed may, within one year of payment, sue for restitution under the general rules. Both actions may be brought at the court at the place of the enforcement office or at the defendant's place of residence; in the restitution action the plaintiff need only prove that the money was not owed.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- İİK m.72/2Pre-enforcement interim measure
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 72 – (Değişik: 18/2/1965-538/43 md.) İcra takibinden önce açılan menfi tesbit davasına bakan mahkeme, talep üzerine alacağın yüzde onbeşinden aşağı olmamak üzere gösterilecek teminat mukabilinde, icra takibinin durdurulması hakkında ihtiyati tedbir kararı verebilir.
English summary (non-binding):
A court hearing a negative declaratory action filed before enforcement may, on request and against security of not less than 15 % of the claim, grant an interim measure staying the enforcement.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- İİK m.72/3Post-enforcement security requirement
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 72 – (Değişik: 18/2/1965-538/43 md.) İcra takibinden sonra açılan menfi tesbit davasında ihtiyati tedbir yolu ile takibin durdurulmasına karar verilemez. Ancak, borçlu gecikmeden doğan zararları karşılamak ve alacağın yüzde onbeşinden aşağı olmamak üzere göstereceği teminat karşılığında, mahkemeden ihtiyati tedbir yoluyle icra veznesindeki paranın alacaklıya verilmemesini istiyebilir.
English summary (non-binding):
In a negative declaratory action filed after enforcement has started, the proceedings cannot be stayed by interim measure. However, the debtor may, against compensation for delay damages and security of not less than 15 % of the claim, obtain an interim measure preventing release of cash held by the enforcement office to the creditor.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- İİK m.72/4Damages from security where creditor prevails
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 72 – (Değişik: 18/2/1965-538/43 md.) Dava alacaklı lehine neticelenirse ihtiyati tedbir kararı kalkar. Buna dair hükmün kesinleşmesi halinde alacaklı ihtiyati tedbir dolayısıyla alacağını geç almış bulunmaktan doğan zararlarını gösterilen teminattan alır. Alacaklının uğradığı zarar aynı davada takdir olunarak karara bağlanır. Bu zarar herhalde yüzde yirmiden aşağı tayin edilemez.
English summary (non-binding):
If the action is decided for the creditor, the interim measure lapses. Once final, the creditor recovers damages for late receipt of the claim from the security lodged; damages are set in the same action and may not be less than 20 %.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- İİK m.72/7One-year forfeiture period for restitution
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 72 – (Değişik: 18/2/1965-538/43 md.) Takibe itiraz etmemiş veya itirazının kaldırılmış olması yüzünden borçlu olmadığı bir parayı tamamen ödemek mecburiyetinde kalan şahıs, ödediği tarihten itibaren bir sene içinde, umumi hükümler dairesinde mahkemeye başvurarak paranın geriye alınmasını istiyebilir.
English summary (non-binding):
A person who, having failed to object or whose objection was removed, has been forced to pay an amount not owed may, within one year of payment, sue under the general rules for restitution.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- HMK m.190Allocation of the burden of proof
Original (Turkish, official):
MADDE 190- (1) İspat yükü, kanunda özel bir düzenleme bulunmadıkça, iddia edilen vakıaya bağlanan hukuki sonuçtan kendi lehine hak çıkaran tarafa aittir. (2) Kanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini oluşturan vakıaya ilişkin ispat yükü altındadır. Kanunda öngörülen istisnalar dışında, karşı taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir.
English summary (non-binding):
Unless otherwise provided, the burden of proof rests on the party who derives rights from the legal consequence attached to the alleged fact. A party relying on a statutory presumption bears the burden only of the underlying fact; the opposing party may, except where statute provides otherwise, prove the contrary.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
The statutory provisions are reproduced for information purposes only. The current and official text on mevzuat.gov.tr is authoritative.
Conclusion
The negative declaratory action gives the alleged debtor an effective tool against wrongful enforcement. Accurate calculation of the security and the time limits for interim measures is decisive for the strategic conduct of the case.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you would like professional assistance on a specific matter, you may request a consultation.
Request a ConsultationRelated Articles
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy
Initiating Enforcement Proceedings: Enforcement With and Without a Judgment
18 April 2026
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy
Objection to the Payment Order: Time Limits, Formalities and Legal Consequences
05 April 2026
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy
Attachment and Exempt Assets: Scope and Avenues of Complaint
22 March 2026