07.08.2026 10:21
The Court of Appeals made a decision that closely concerns millions of people who view files through e-Government and UYAP. The defense of the tenant who objected to the execution proceeding by saying 'The notification did not reach me' was caught by UYAP records. The tenant was found unjust with a single 'click'. Here are the details...
In an execution proceeding initiated due to rental receivables, the 21st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals issued a striking decision. In the decision, the debtor's review of the documents in the execution file via the UYAP Citizen Portal was deemed an indication that they were aware of the proceeding. It was therefore noted that the thought 'The notification did not reach me, my legal period has not started' may not be valid in every case.
NOTIFICATION AND OBJECTION PERIODS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
In rental disputes, the payment order, notification, and objection periods are of great importance. Especially in execution proceedings, whether the notification was made in accordance with the procedure can lead to serious legal disputes between the parties.
The aforementioned decision revealed how important the use of the UYAP Citizen Portal can be in terms of legal periods. The case was filed following the rental of a property located in Nişantaşı, with the claim that the rent was not paid on time.
THEY OBJECTED SAYING 'UNLAWFUL NOTIFICATION'
According to Milliyet's report, Gizem Gonce, the lawyer representing the landlord in the case, stated that the property in Nişantaşı was rented out, but they initiated execution proceedings because the tenant did not pay the rent on time.
Within the scope of the execution proceeding, a payment order was sent to the tenant. However, the tenant claimed that the notification made was not delivered to them. The tenant's side, stating that they became aware of the proceeding later and by chance, objected to the notification date, arguing that the notification was unlawful. In the petition submitted to the court, the tenant's lawyer alleged that the notification regarding the execution proceeding initiated against their client was unlawful.
In the petition, it was claimed that the debtor did not receive the payment order, became aware of the proceeding externally and by chance, and learned of the execution file on 11 October 2024. It was also alleged that the notification was not made to the person's last known address.
It was argued that the notification report lacked sufficient explanation as to whether the tenant was temporarily or permanently absent at the address, that the identity of the neighbor from whom information was obtained was not clearly stated, and that the Izmir address to which the notification was sent was not the address where the debtor actually lived. Based on these grounds, it was requested that the date of learning of the payment order be accepted as 11 October 2024.
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOUND THE TENANT JUSTIFIED
The court of first instance, evaluating the tenant's application, ruled that the notification was unlawful. In its decision, the court noted that the first payment order sent to the debtor's MERNIS address was returned on the grounds that 'the addressee had moved.'
It was then recorded that a new notification was made to the same MERNIS address within the scope of Article 21/2 of the Notification Law. The court also evaluated the address information in the lease agreement signed between the parties. It was stated that in the lease agreement, the debtor's address was shown as Nişantaşı, and the rented property was also located in the same area.
The court of first instance deemed it unlawful to directly proceed to the MERNIS address according to Article 21/2 of the Notification Law without issuing notifications to the known addresses specified in the lease agreement. Accordingly, the tenant's complaint was accepted.
THE FILE WAS MOVED TO THE APPEAL
The landlord's side objected to the decision of the court of first instance and moved the file to the appeal. The 21st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals re-evaluated the file and reached a different conclusion from the court of first instance. In the appeal review, the tenant's entries to the execution file via the UYAP Citizen Portal and the dates on which they viewed the documents in the file were particularly examined. This examination became one of the most important details that changed the outcome of the case.
UYAP RECORDS CHANGED THE COURSE OF THE CASE
In the evaluation made by the 21st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, it was concluded that there was no unlawfulness in making the notification to the MERNIS address on 9 September 2024 within the scope of Article 21/2 of the Notification Law, after the first notification sent to the debtor was returned.
However, the truly striking point in the decision was the examination of the date on which the debtor viewed the execution file via the UYAP Citizen Portal. The court noted that the court of first instance had not sufficiently investigated whether the debtor was aware of the execution proceeding earlier via the UYAP Citizen Portal.
According to the file review records, it was determined that the tenant viewed the notifications sent to them in the execution file on 28 September 2024. It was also established that they examined the document underlying the proceeding on 4 October 2024 and the execution request on 10 October 2024. In light of these records, the tenant's claim of 'I became aware of the execution proceeding on 11 October 2024' was not accepted by the appeal court.
THE '7-DAY PERIOD' DETAIL CHANGED THE DECISION
The legal complaint period also played an important role in the court's evaluation. Within the scope of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, complaints regarding notifications must be made within a certain period from the date of learning. The appeal court took into account that the debtor examined the file via the UYAP Citizen Portal on 28 September 2024.
This date was accepted as an indication that the debtor was aware of the proceeding. Therefore, it was concluded that the complaint should also be made within the legal period starting from the date of learning. It was stated that the debtor's application was not made within this period and that the complaint should be rejected on procedural grounds.
THE METHOD OF ACCESSING UYAP WAS ALSO CONSIDERED
Another point highlighted in the decision was the method of using the UYAP Citizen Portal. Access to the UYAP Citizen Portal can be achieved through a personal e-Government password, electronic signature, or similar personal verification methods. Therefore, a person accessing the execution file with their own account and viewing the documents can be considered by courts as important data indicating they were aware of the file.
In the appeal court's evaluation, the established jurisprudence of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on similar issues was also taken into account. The court ruled that the debtor should be deemed to have become aware of the proceeding no later than 28 September 2024.
THE FIRST DECISION WAS OVERTURNED
The 21st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals found the court of first instance's decision to accept the complaint incorrect. The appeal court decided that the complaint should be rejected because it was not made within the period. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned. With the decision, the tenant's objection regarding the notification yielded no result, and a significant legal outcome emerged in favor of the landlord in the execution proceeding.
CAUTION ABOUT THE THOUGHT 'THE NOTIFICATION DID NOT COME, MY PERIOD HAS NOT STARTED'
Lawyer Gizem Gonce stated that the decision serves as an important warning for citizens.
Gonce noted that many people think the legal period does not start when physical notification does not reach them, and pointed out that actions in the UYAP system can also be taken into account in legal processes.
Gonce made the following assessment:
“Citizens may think, 'If the notification didn't reach me, my legal period hasn't started.' However, logins to the UYAP system can also be checked by courts. Therefore, it is important for citizens to carefully follow legal periods when they see an enforcement file, case file, or legal proceeding via UYAP or e-Devlet.”