Enforcement Proceeding Through Attachment Specific to Bills of Exchange

Bills of exchange are among the most frequently used credit instruments in commercial life, providing creditors with a strong means of enforcement proceeding. The Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”) facilitates faster and more effective debt collection through enforcement proceeding specifically designed for bills of exchange. This article examines the stages of enforcement proceeding through attachment specific to bills of exchange, highlighting their distinctions from enforcement proceeding through general attachment. The process is analyzed from the enforcement request to the payment order, including the debtor’s rights to object and avenues for complaint.

Process

Possession of a bill of exchange does not obligate the creditor to pursue enforcement proceeding through attachment specific to bills of exchange; they may also opt for enforcement proceedings through general attachment. However, such specific proceedings are available only when the claim arises from a bill of exchange.

Both enforcement proceedings follow similar stages: the enforcement request, issuance of the payment order, finalization of enforcement, seizure, and distribution of sale proceeds.

1.  Enforcement Proceeding Request

Under Article 167 of the EBL, an enforcement request in enforcement proceeding through attachment specific to bills of exchange must include the type, date, and number of the bill, as in general enforcement. However, the unique features of the bill must be considered. The original bill of exchange and a certified copy for each debtor must accompany the enforcement request. If the request is filed electronically, the original bill must still be submitted to the enforcement office within three days, even if it bears a secure electronic signature.[1]

When a bill of exchange becomes due and remains unpaid, a notary public issues a protest of non-payment, as required under the Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC”). This “protest” is an official notice evidencing default. If a protest is legally required to establish the creditor’s claim, it becomes an integral part of the bill of exchange and must also be attached to the enforcement request.[2]

Pursuant to Article 168/1 of the EBL, the enforcement director must examine whether:

• the request satisfies Article 58 requirements,
• the document qualifies as a bill of exchange,
• the maturity date has arrived, and
• the creditor is entitled to enforcement.

A complaint regarding this examination may be filed within five days.

2.  Payment Order

If the enforcement request meets the necessary conditions, the enforcement director issues a payment order to the debtor. The payment order contains two parts: (1) details of the enforcement parties and (2) warnings. A copy of the bill and, if applicable, the protest document are attached. Separate payment orders are sent to each debtor.

Objection to the Payment Order

The debtor may object to the payment order by filing a written petition with the enforcement court within five days. Verbal objections are not accepted. Objections fall into two categories: objections to the signature and objections to the debt.

a. Objection to the Signature

Article 170 of the EBL governs signature objections. If the debtor alleges that the signature on the bill is not theirs, they must notify the enforcement court in writing within five days. Failure to do so results in the signature being deemed valid.

If the court finds the debtor’s objection justified, enforcement is suspended. If the creditor acted in bad faith or with gross negligence in initiating enforcement, they are liable for a fine equal to %10 of the disputed amount and compensation of at least %20.

If the creditor subsequently files a general court action, the fine and compensation are deferred until the case concludes. If the court later verifies that the signature belongs to the debtor, the objection is dismissed, any suspension is lifted, and proceedings continue. In that case, the debtor becomes liable for a denial compensation of at least 20% of the claim and a fine of 10%.

b. Objection to the Debt

Under Article 169 of the TCC, objections other than those to the signature are considered objections to the debt.[3] If the debtor argues that they are not liable for reasons other than signature authenticity, they must submit a written objection with supporting grounds within five days.

The enforcement court examines the objection through a trial. If one party fails to attend, the court may decide in their absence at the request of the attending party. If neither party appears, or if one appears but does not request continuation in the other’s absence, the case is dismissed. However, jurisdictional objections are decided ex officio.

• Proof of Non-Indebtedness

According to Article 169(a)/I of the EBL, the debtor may only prove non-indebtedness, extinguishment, or deferment of the debt through an official document or a document signed by the creditor. If the creditor denies the signature and the court confirms its authenticity, the debtor’s objection is upheld, and the creditor is fined 10% of the amount stated.[4]

Limitation period objections are assessed based on the date in the bill of exchange. If the creditor claims interruption or suspension of limitation under Article 169(a)/IV of the EBL, they must substantiate this with an official document or one signed by the debtor.

If the court accepts the debtor’s objection, proceedings are suspended. Once the decision becomes final, they are canceled. If the objection is rejected, proceedings continue.[5]

Special Complaints Against the Payment Order

In enforcement proceeding through attachment specific to bills of exchange, complaint periods may be indefinite, five days, or seven days. Unlike enforcement proceeding through general attachment, these proceedings include special complaints relating to the nature of the bill, the creditor’s right to enforcement, the due date, and the submission of the original bill.

a. Complaint Regarding the Nature of the Bill and the Right to Enforcement

Under Article 170(a) of the EBL, the debtor may claim that the creditor is not the rightful holder, that the document is not a bill of exchange, or that enforcement is pursued against the wrong person. These claims must be made within five days. Such complaints do not automatically suspend enforcement, but the enforcement court may decide on them.[6] Furthermore, under Article 170(a)/II, the court may, ex officio, determine that the document does not qualify as a bill of exchange or that the creditor lacks standing, provided a complaint or objection is duly [7] However, this authority of the court may be available in cases where an objection or complaint is filed.[8]

b. Complaint Regarding the Due Date and Failure to Submit the Original Bill (EBL Art. 168/I)

Matters not covered by Article 170(a) are governed by general provisions and subject to a seven-day complaint period. If the enforcement officer erred regarding the bill’s due date, a complaint must be lodged within seven days.

If the original bill or a certified copy for partial payments is not submitted to the enforcement office, or if the original bill is not reported to the enforcement office within three days in cases pursued through the National Judicial Network Information System (UYAP), a complaint may be filed within 7 days.[9]

• Permanent Complaint Cases

Under Article 16 of the EBL, no time limit applies to complaints concerning unjustified delays in enforcement, denial of rights, or violations of public order.[10] For this reason, in cases of enforcement proceedings specific to bills of exchange, it is possible to pursue the complaint process indefinitely in such circumstances.

Conclusion

Enforcement proceeding through attachment specific to bills of Exchange constitute a specialized mechanism designed to balance the rights of creditors and debtors under strict procedural rules. The debtor’s opportunities to object—particularly regarding signature and debt—are narrowly defined and must be substantiated with formal documentation. Conversely, creditors acting in bad faith are subject to fines and compensation, ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of this expedited enforcement route.

With thanks to Emre Göçenler for his contributions to this article.

References

Köse, Y. (2025). İcra Hukukunda Süresiz Şikâyet Halleri (1 ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.

Pekcanıtez, H., Atalay, O., & Özekes, M. (2020). İcra ve İflas Hukuku (17 ed.). On İki Levha Yayıncılık,.