Action for Annulment of Objection

In an enforcement proceeding without a court judgment (ilamsız icra takibi), when the debtor objects to the payment order, the proceeding stops automatically. The most comprehensive way for the creditor to resume the proceeding where it left off is a lawsuit for annulment of the objection (itirazın iptali davası). In this lawsuit, the court examines whether the receivable actually exists under the general provisions. If it concludes that the objection was unfounded, it annuls the objection and orders the proceeding to continue.

On this page, we explain the requirements of the annulment of objection lawsuit, the time limit, the competent court, the mandatory mediation requirement, and the enforcement denial compensation (icra inkâr tazminatı). For broader information on the initial stage of enforcement proceedings and the right to object to a payment order, you can read our article on enforcement proceedings and objecting to a payment order.

When can a lawsuit for annulment of objection be filed?

This lawsuit only comes into play in enforcement proceedings without a court judgment (through general seizure) where the debtor has objected to the payment order within the time limit. In proceedings based on negotiable instruments, the objection is made to the enforcement court, so a different system applies. For the lawsuit to be filed, the following conditions must be met together:

• There must be an ongoing enforcement proceeding without a court judgment initiated by the creditor,
• The debtor must have objected to the payment order within the time limit,
• The objection must have been served on the creditor,
• The lawsuit must be filed within the statutory period from the service of the objection.

If the debtor has objected only to a portion of the debt, the proceeding continues for the portion not objected to; the lawsuit is filed over the portion objected to. Since the annulment of objection lawsuit is tied to the proceeding, a receivable item not requested in the enforcement request cannot be asserted in this lawsuit; the lawsuit is limited to the amount requested in the proceeding and objected to. Preparing the enforcement request correctly and completely from the outset is therefore decisive for the subsequent lawsuit as well.

One-year forfeiture period

The creditor may file a lawsuit for annulment of the objection within one year from the service of the objection on them. This period is a forfeiture period; once it has passed, a lawsuit for annulment of the objection can no longer be filed for the same proceeding, and the court takes this into account on its own motion. Even if the deadline is missed, the right to the receivable is not entirely extinguished; if the statute of limitations has not expired, a receivable lawsuit can be filed under the general provisions. However, in that case, the advantages provided by the enforcement proceeding and the possibility of enforcement denial compensation are lost.

If the dispute falls within the scope of mandatory pre-litigation mediation, forfeiture periods do not run from the date of application to the mediator until the date the final report is issued. Even so, not leaving it to the last days of the period is the safest course against potential procedural problems.

Is mediation mandatory?

Depending on the nature of the receivable subject to the proceeding, the annulment of objection lawsuit may be subject to the mediation requirement. For example, in proceedings based on a commercial monetary receivable, an employment receivable, or a consumer dispute (excluding disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the consumer arbitration committee), applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit is a condition for the lawsuit. For commercial cases, Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK), with the 2023 amendment, expressly brought annulment of objection lawsuits within this scope. Certain disputes, such as receivables arising from lease relationships, have also been brought within the scope of mandatory mediation in recent years. Because the scope has expanded over time, the regulation in force should be carefully checked based on the relationship underlying the proceeding and the date of filing. A lawsuit filed without going to a mediator may be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Competent and authorized court

The annulment of objection lawsuit is filed not in the enforcement court but in the general court competent according to the nature of the receivable:

• The commercial court of first instance for commercial receivables,
• The labor court for receivables between employees and employers,
• The consumer court for receivables arising from consumer transactions,
• The civil court of peace for rent receivables,
• As a rule, the civil court of first instance for other receivables.

The authorized court is determined under the general provisions; the defendant debtor's place of residence and the place of performance of the contract are the most commonly used options. If the proceeding was initiated at an enforcement office lacking jurisdiction and the debtor also objected on that ground, the jurisdiction issue is addressed separately in the lawsuit. For this reason, choosing the correct enforcement office when preparing the enforcement request is also important for the lawsuit to be filed later.

Enforcement denial compensation

If the court finds the debtor's objection unfounded, then upon the creditor's request, enforcement denial compensation of no less than twenty percent of the awarded receivable amount is ordered against the debtor. For compensation to be awarded, the receivable must be liquid, meaning it must be determinable by the debtor. If the amount of the receivable can only be established through an expert examination at the end of the trial, the court may reject the compensation request.

The same rule works in reverse: if the lawsuit is dismissed and it becomes clear that the creditor was unjustified and acted in bad faith in the proceeding, bad faith compensation of no less than twenty percent may be ordered against the creditor upon the debtor's request. For this reason, before initiating a proceeding, you should make sure the receivable is strongly supported by documents.

Difference from removal of the objection

If the creditor holds a document of the type listed in the law, such as a private deed with an acknowledged signature or an official document, they may, instead of filing a lawsuit in the general court, request removal of the objection (itirazın kaldırılması) from the enforcement court. This request must be made within six months of the service of the objection. Removal of the objection is a path that can conclude more quickly; however, the enforcement court conducts only a limited, document-based review, and its decision does not constitute a final judgment on the existence of the receivable. For receivables with disputed documents or that require an accounting reconciliation, the annulment of objection lawsuit is more suitable. For the general framework of enforcement remedies, you can see our Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law page.

The lawsuit process and our firm's support

1. The proceeding file, the objection petition, and the service dates are reviewed, and the time limit is calculated.
2. If necessary, the mediation process is initiated and negotiations are conducted.
3. Evidence such as invoices, contracts, current accounts, correspondence, and commercial books is gathered, and the petition is prepared.
4. During the trial, the expert examination is followed and the other party's defenses are answered.
5. If the lawsuit is accepted, the proceeding is resumed where it left off.

We provide legal support at every stage of this process, whether on the creditor's or the debtor's side. Every enforcement file is unique; the status of the time limits and evidence must be assessed separately and specifically.