The Constitutional Court recently considered an applicant's
right to receive a fair trial. The court held this constitutional
right to receive a fair trial was violated in these circumstances
because the court of first instance gave a decision regarding
cancellation of an enforcement proceeding, contrary to mandatory
rules and without jurisdiction over the dispute.
The applicant initiated an enforcement proceeding, receiving a
judgement for payment of the applicant's attorney's fee.
The debtor of the proceeding brought an action for annulment of
enforcement proceeding before Labor Court. The court held that the
action had the characteristic of an action for annulment of
objection. It awarded the debtor 25% compensation for denegation of
enforcement and nullified the objection.
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's right to
receive a fair trial had been violated, particularly the right to
receive a justified decision.
According to Article 16 of Law numbered 2004, it is clear that
the annulment of the execution order must be claimed before the
Enforcement Court. No time limits apply to such claims. In this
case, despite the court's statement that the action has the
characteristic of an action for annulment of objection, the Labor
Court acted as an Enforcement Court, ruling on a claim regarding
In addition, the Labor Court awarded the debtor 25% compensation
for denegation of enforcement. Compensation for denegation of
enforcement can only be awarded if the action is accepted for
annulment of objection against enforcement proceeding without
judgment. It is not possible to award compensation for denegation
of enforcement while ruling on the nullification of the
During the trial, the applicant's claim must be made before
the Enforcement Court. However, the Labor Court ruled on a claim
regarding an enforcement proceedings, without jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Even if the action is deemed to be an action for
annulment of objection, the annulment can only be claimed by a
creditor, not a debtor. In addition, compensation for denegation of
enforcement at the rate of more than 20% must be provided together
with justification from the court. The court did not provide the
justification in these circumstances and did not consider the
substantial objections about the case.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held the applicant's
right to fair trial were violated. However, the court rejected the
applicant's claim about violation of the right to receive due
process before an objective court, due to lack of legal basis.
The full text of the Constitutional Court's decision can be
found at this link (only available in Turkish).
Information first published in the
MA | Gazette, a fortnightly legal update newsletter produced by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a judgment harking back to the principles in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that the manufacturer of a defective product installed to prevent fire was not liable...
A year-long arbitration pilot scheme to provide a cost-effective, straightforward and quick method of solving legal disputes between claimants and participating members of the press commenced on the 26th July 2016.
Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread – the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy.
Each year businesses around the world face a growing number of risks that could potentially jeopardize hundreds of billions of euros.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).