The Problem of Non-Execution of the Precautionary Attachment Decision Taken during the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions

Zeynep Derya Tarman

Makale detayları

The Problem of Non-Execution of the Precautionary Attachment Decision Taken during the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions

Yazarlar:

Zeynep Derya Tarman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.44 Issue 1, pp.99-120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001326517

pISSN:

2651-5377

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Obtaining and executing a provisional attachment order during the recognition and enforcement proceeding of a foreign court judgement constitutes a significant issue in both private international law and enforcement law. Under Turkish law, rules regarding the procedure and conditions for the enforcement of foreign court judgements are regulated under the Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 PIL Code Article 50, and so forth, while the rules governing the conditions of issuance of provisional attachment orders are regulated under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 EBL Article 257, and so forth. Pursuant to Article 257 of the EBL, a distinction is made between those receivables that are due and those other receivables that are not due in terms of the conditions needed for the issuance of a provisional attachment order. Nevertheless, there is no specific provision under Turkish law regarding receivables that are subject to a foreign court judgement whose enforcement is yet to be requested or finalised before Turkish courts. The determination of whether the receivable is due or not is important in terms of the conditions to be sought for provisional attachment. Furthermore, the relationship between Article 57 2 of the PIL Code, which envisages that an appeal to the enforcement decision with regard to the foreign court judgement shall suspend the execution of the enforcement decision, and the time limits foreseen regarding the complementary procedures of a provisional attachment order is a debated subject. Moreover, whether foreigners who have deposited a security payment to file an enforcement lawsuit pursuant to Article 48 of the PIL Code will also be required to deposit security for a second time for the issuance of the provisional attachment order pursuant to Article 259 of the EBL is another issue that needs to be clarified. In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation.

 Obtaining and executing a provisional attachment order during the recognition and enforcement proceeding of a foreign court judgement constitutes a significant issue in both private international law and enforcement law. Under Turkish law, rules regarding the procedure and conditions for the enforcement of foreign court judgements are regulated under the Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 PIL Code Article 50, and so forth, while the rules governing the conditions of issuance of provisional attachment orders are regulated under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 EBL Article 257, and so forth. Pursuant to Article 257 of the EBL, a distinction is made between those receivables that are due and those other receivables that are not due in terms of the conditions needed for the issuance of a provisional attachment order. Nevertheless, there is no specific provision under Turkish law regarding receivables that are subject to a foreign court judgement whose enforcement is yet to be requested or finalised before Turkish courts. The determination of whether the receivable is due or not is important in terms of the conditions to be sought for provisional attachment. Furthermore, the relationship between Article 57 2 of the PIL Code, which envisages that an appeal to the enforcement decision with regard to the foreign court judgement shall suspend the execution of the enforcement decision, and the time limits foreseen regarding the complementary procedures of a provisional attachment order is a debated subject. Moreover, whether foreigners who have deposited a security payment to file an enforcement lawsuit pursuant to Article 48 of the PIL Code will also be required to deposit security for a second time for the issuance of the provisional attachment order pursuant to Article 259 of the EBL is another issue that needs to be clarified. In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation.

 Obtaining and executing a provisional attachment order during the recognition and enforcement proceeding of a foreign court judgement constitutes a significant issue in both private international law and enforcement law. Under Turkish law, rules regarding the procedure and conditions for the enforcement of foreign court judgements are regulated under the Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 PIL Code Article 50, and so forth, while the rules governing the conditions of issuance of provisional attachment orders are regulated under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 EBL Article 257, and so forth. Pursuant to Article 257 of the EBL, a distinction is made between those receivables that are due and those other receivables that are not due in terms of the conditions needed for the issuance of a provisional attachment order. Nevertheless, there is no specific provision under Turkish law regarding receivables that are subject to a foreign court judgement whose enforcement is yet to be requested or finalised before Turkish courts. The determination of whether the receivable is due or not is important in terms of the conditions to be sought for provisional attachment. Furthermore, the relationship between Article 57 2 of the PIL Code, which envisages that an appeal to the enforcement decision with regard to the foreign court judgement shall suspend the execution of the enforcement decision, and the time limits foreseen regarding the complementary procedures of a provisional attachment order is a debated subject. Moreover, whether foreigners who have deposited a security payment to file an enforcement lawsuit pursuant to Article 48 of the PIL Code will also be required to deposit security for a second time for the issuance of the provisional attachment order pursuant to Article 259 of the EBL is another issue that needs to be clarified. In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation.

 Tenfiz yargılaması sürecinde ihtiyati haciz kararının alınması ve icra edilmesi hem milletlerarası özel hukuk hem de icra hukuku açısından önem arz etmektedir. Hukukumuzda tenfiz kurumu 5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanunun MÖHUK 50. maddesi ve devamında; ihtiyati haciz kurumu ise 2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanununun İİK 257. maddesi ve devamında düzenlenmiştir. İİK m. 257 uyarınca ihtiyati haciz kararı verilebilmesi için aranan şartlar yönünden vadesi gelmiş ve gelmemiş borçlar bakımından bir ayrım yapılmıştır. Ancak, henüz tenfiz edilmemiş bir yabancı mahkeme kararına konu olan bir alacağa istinaden ihtiyati haciz talep edilmesi halinde aranacak olan şartlar ile ilgili olarak hukukumuzda özel bir düzenleme bulunmamaktadır. Bu tür alacakların muaccel alacaklar gibi mi yoksa vadesi henüz gelmemiş alacaklar gibi mi yorumlanacağı tartışmalı bir husustur. Bununla birlikte, MÖHUK m. 57f.2de yer alan temyizin icrayı durduracağı hükmünün ihtiyati haczin tamamlayıcı merasimleri bakımından öngörülen sürelerle nasıl bir ilişki içinde olduğu da uygulamada sorun arz eden bir durumdur. Öte yandan, MÖHUK m. 48 gereğince teminat yatırmış yabancıların İİK m. 259 uyarınca ihtiyati haciz istemleri kapsamında bir kez daha teminat yatırmalarının gereği de doktrinde tartışmalı bir mesele teşkil etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak ihtiyati haciz kurumu ana hatlarıyla incelenecek, ardından anılan meseleler kapsamında uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunlar, doktrin görüşleri ve Yargıtay kararlarından örneklerle tartışmalı hususlar irdelenecektir.

Makale detayları

The Problem of Non-Execution of the Precautionary Attachment Decision Taken during the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions

Yazarlar:

Zeynep Derya Tarman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.44 Issue 1, pp.99-120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001326517

pISSN:

2651-5377

Provisional attachment order

Enforcement of unfinalized judgements

Foreign court judgement

Foreign arbitral award

Enforcement lawsuit

Security paymentİhtiyati haciz

Kesinleşmemiş ilamın icrası

Yabancı mahkeme kararı

Yabancı hakem kararı

Tenfiz davası

Teminat

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Zeynep Derya Tarman

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi: Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.44 Issue 1, pp.99-120

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001326517

pISSN: 2651-5377

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Zeynep Derya Tarman

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Çevre ve Kaynaklar Hukuku (Diğer)

Dergi:

Public and Private International Law Bulletin Vol.44 Issue 1, pp.99-120

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001326517

pISSN:

2651-5377