A material supplier, “Demir Inc.,” sells construction materials worth 150,000 TL to a construction firm, “Yapı Ltd.,” and issues the invoice. According to the contract between the parties, payment must be made within 60 days. When payment is not made even after 90 days, Demir Inc. initiates an enforcement proceeding without judgment (ilamsız icra takibi) against Yapı Ltd. through its lawyer.

The official of Yapı Ltd. receives the payment order. Since the company’s cash flow is tight at that moment, they go to the Enforcement Office within the legal period of 7 days and object to the proceeding with a petition stating “I have no debt.”

Upon this objection, as per the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, the enforcement proceeding stops automatically. Supplier Demir Inc. cannot initiate foreclosure (seizure) procedures. The debtor company aimed to gain time with this unjust objection.

Legal Evaluation This case demonstrates the “bad faith” or “unjust” objection situation most frequently encountered by creditors.

1. Suspension of Enforcement Proceeding and Creditor’s Option The objection made by the debtor within 7 days stops the proceeding, even if it is unjust or malicious. The enforcement officer cannot say “your objection is unjust, you have a debt” at this stage. The ball is now in the creditor’s court to ensure the continuation of the proceeding.

Creditor Demir Inc. must file a “Lawsuit for Annulment of Objection” (İtirazın İptali Davası) in court within 1 year to overcome this unjust objection. This lawsuit aims to prove the existence of the debt and that the objection is unjust.

2. Lawsuit for Annulment of Objection and Burden of Proof Demir Inc. files a lawsuit in the Commercial Court of First Instance since it is a commercial relationship. In the lawsuit, it presents the following evidence to prove its receivable:

  • The material purchase and sale contract between the parties.

  • Order forms and delivery notes (documents showing the goods were delivered).

  • The invoice issued and notified to debtor Yapı Ltd.

  • Commercial ledger records showing no payment was made.

Yapı Ltd., on the other hand, cannot present any evidence (e.g., a “paid” receipt) to prove its “I have no debt” objection in court.

Legal Result and Heavy Sanction: Execution Denial Compensation In light of the evidence presented, the court becomes convinced that the debt exists and that Yapı Ltd. objected to the debt unjustly and maliciously.

The court makes the following decisions:

  1. Annulment of Objection: Decides that the objection made by Yapı Ltd. is unjust and cancels it.

  2. Continuation of Proceeding: Decides that the halted enforcement proceeding shall continue with interest.

  3. Heaviest Sanction: Execution Denial Compensation (EBL Art. 67/2): Since the debtor stopped the proceeding unjustly by saying “I have no debt” and forced the creditor to file a lawsuit, upon the creditor’s request, the debtor is sentenced to a special compensation aimed at punishing the debtor’s bad faith. The law states that this compensation must be at least 20% of the principal debt amount (150,000 TL).

    • Calculation: 150,000 TL (Principal Debt) x 20% (Compensation Rate) = 30,000 TL

Conclusion and Advice The unjust objection made by Yapı Ltd. to “gain time” to fix its cash flow cost the company dearly. As a result of the lawsuit, in addition to the principal debt of 150,000 TL, it had to pay at least 30,000 TL execution denial compensation, as well as lawsuit fees, delay interest, and the opposing party’s attorney fees.

This case holds a clear lesson for debtors: Objecting to an enforcement proceeding does not eliminate the debt, and if done solely to gain time, it becomes an expensive gamble rather than a legal right. For creditors, the message is clear: If your receivable is based on solid evidence like invoices and contracts, do not fear the debtor’s unjust objection. The lawsuit for annulment of objection is a powerful way to collect your receivable and punish the debtor’s bad faith.