Draft Forceful Execution Law Published: A New Law on the Way

The Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 (“Current Law”) [i], which has been in force since 1932, traces its origins back to the Swiss Federal Law on the Collection of Monetary Claims and Bankruptcy of 1889 (“Model Law”). The Execution and Bankruptcy Law numbered 1424 of 1929, which was based on the Model Law, was revised and given a new number, becoming the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 that has been in use to this day.

The Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law, which has been in force for over ninety years, has undergone numerous amendments to keep pace with changing conditions and has diverged significantly from its origins. Although this divergence has had legitimate aims, such as establishing the legal regulations most suitable for Turkish legal practice, there have long been discussions that the Current Law needed to be updated, especially after the enactment of the new Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 [ii] and the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 [iii] in 2011, as the execution and bankruptcy law has become outdated. As a result of these discussions, the Execution and Bankruptcy Law Scientific Commission was established, and the new execution and bankruptcy law prepared by the commission, originally titled “Draft Law on Forceful Execution” (“Draft Law”), was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye on 14 August 2025.

The deadline for submitting opinions and suggestions on the Draft Law has been set as 31 January 2026, and it has been announced to the public that, following the receipt of these opinions, the Draft Law text will be discussed in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. We summarize below the most significant innovations envisaged by the Draft Law under the following subheadings: modernization of legal language, reforms in execution proceedings, reforms concerning the judiciary, provisions abolished by the Draft Law, and provisions introduced by the Draft Law.

Modernization of Legal Language

The replacement of the title of the Current Law with “Forceful Execution Law” is a notable development. The Draft Law attempts to simplify the language of the Current Law by adapting it to modern Turkish and adopting a more contemporary legal language. The appropriateness of this name in terms of legal technique and practice, and whether it will contribute to current legal practices, is already a matter of debate. Since the term “forceful execution” is an umbrella term covering all individual and collective collection methods in the sense of execution and bankruptcy law, there is no problem with the choice of this term from a legal-technical standpoint. In other words, the term “forceful execution” is an umbrella concept that encompasses both individual execution proceedings and bankruptcy procedures, which, in essence, is a form of collective liquidation. However, it has also been criticized that the choice of the word “cebir,” meaning “coercion, recourse to force,” is inconsistent with efforts to simplify the language of the law.

Reforms in Execution Proceedings

Under the Current Law, a rendered judgment is sufficient to initiate execution proceedings based on a judgment. By contrast, one of the most noticeable provisions of the Draft Law concerns the nature of first instance court judgments and the requirements for a judgment to be subject to execution. In this context, for first instance court judgments to be subject to execution, the Draft Law stipulates that: (i) the judgment must be final at the time it is issued, (ii) no legal remedy may be sought, or (iii) the appeal must have been rejected by the regional court of appeal.

In other words, if the Draft Law is enacted in its current form, it will not be possible to execute first instance court decisions without an appeal review. However, certain exceptions will remain in place for this rule: All types of alimony claims, bodily injury claims, claims for loss of support, and employee claims will continue to be executed without waiting for the appeal review, as was the case before. This regulation is a positive step in terms of reducing stay of execution procedures, which cause great hardship in practice. That said, the regulation has been subject to harsh criticism due to the delay in creditors receiving payment. Indeed, considering the lengthy trials in our country, making creditors, who have already waited for years for the first instance court decision, wait again until the end of the appeal stage is likely to upset the delicate balance between protecting creditors and protecting debtors.

Under the Current Law, there is no requirement to rely on any document to initiate execution proceedings without a judgment. In the Draft Law, however, it is mandatory to rely on a document in order to initiate the proceedings. In this context, it is a prerequisite that the creditor has: (i) a document or contract issued or approved by official authorities or competent bodies regarding the debt or collateral in question, (ii) a document proving the cause of the debt, or (iii) in execution proceedings where both parties are merchants, an uncontested invoice. Undoubtedly, this regulation raises concerns that the requirement for documentation in execution proceedings without a court order may negatively affect business life by prolonging the collection process for individuals who have a legitimate claim but lack written evidence. However, in our country, where there are currently over 10 million execution files, it is also true that this regulation will reduce the number of execution files by preventing the initiation of unnecessary execution proceedings and will speed up the proceedings. In this regard, entering into written contracts has become more important than ever.

Reforms Concerning the Judiciary

The Draft Law abolishes the procedure for annulment of objections by applying to execution courts. As a result, an action for annulment of the objection can only be brought before general courts. The creditor against whom an objection has been filed will have the right to file a lawsuit for the annulment of the objection in accordance with the general provisions within 6 months from the date of notification of the objection, unlike under the Current Law. In addition, the Draft Law goes beyond this regulation and also envisages various changes in the time limits for different procedures.

Another innovation is the establishment of bankruptcy courts. Accordingly, bankruptcy courts will handle all claims, cases, complaints, and lawsuits related to bankruptcy proceedings, the annulment and closure of bankruptcy, and concordat. Furthermore, the relationship between bankruptcy courts and civil and commercial courts and other courts of law has been regulated as a functional relationship, and it has been stated that procedural rules relating to this function will apply. Unless otherwise provided by law, simplified proceedings will apply in a manner appropriate to the nature of the cases and matters heard in bankruptcy courts, and these matters will be heard urgently. The Draft Law stipulates that bankruptcy courts will also perform the duties assigned to them by this Draft Law and other laws.

Provisions Abolished by the Draft Law

Unlike the Current Law, the Draft Law does not include provisions specific to negotiable instruments or collecting bank claims. This situation is interpreted as the removal of the procedures for enforcing negotiable instruments. While some commentators consider this to be a deliberate omission to be discussed in the Justice Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, some authors believe that it means that the execution procedure specific to negotiable instruments has been completely abolished. We expect this issue to be clarified in the coming months.

Provisions Introduced by the Draft Law

Maritime forceful execution has been regulated in a dispersed manner in various laws to date, creating difficulties and uncertainties in practice. Under the new Forceful Execution Law, provisions relating to maritime execution have been addressed with a holistic approach; it has been determined that the scattered and inadequate regulations in this area need to be consolidated. Furthermore, it has been emphasized that maritime execution should essentially be evaluated within the scope of execution and bankruptcy law. For this reason, it has been envisaged that the most appropriate solution is to compile the provisions specific to maritime forceful execution in a separate book titled “Maritime Forceful Execution” in the new law, aiming to make the regulations more understandable and to ensure uniformity in practice.

The Draft Law stipulates that any actions contrary to the mandatory provisions introduced to protect the public interest or the interests of persons not involved in the proceedings shall be deemed invalid. In this respect, the court may determine this invalidity at any stage in the disputes brought before it and render a decision accordingly.

The Draft Law modernizes the sale of attached properties by moving it to a digital environment. Under this framework, sales will be conducted through an electronic portal integrated with UYAP, the National Judiciary Information System, via auction; the aim is to ensure transparency and increase participation in auctions. Moreover, the debtor is granted a broader opportunity to sell their attached properties voluntarily.

The Draft Law, which is currently in the preparatory stage, represents a significant initiative to reform the existing system that has been in place for many years. The Draft Law aims to eliminate the inconsistencies created by the Current Law, as claimed by some commentators, and to find more effective solutions to the problems encountered in practice. This step, taken with the goal of strengthening legal certainty and justice, is expected to bring many innovations to the future of execution law. It should be noted, however, that changing or renewing the law will not automatically bring about concrete changes. The way to reduce the number of execution files or save companies from bankruptcy is not through legislative change, but through economic stability and reform. We will continue to closely monitor the process and developments and keep our valued readers informed.

[i] Published in the Official Gazetted dated 19 June 1932 and numbered 2128.

[ii] Published in the Official Gazette dated 14 February 2011 and numbered 27846.

[iii] Published in the Official Gazetted dated 4 February 2011 and numbered 27836.