Statute of Limitations in Enforcement Proceedings — Time Periods, Objection and Lapse

The statute of limitations is a legal institution that grants the debtor the ability to refuse payment of debt when the right to claim has not been exercised for a certain period. In enforcement law, the statute of limitations is a critical element that directly affects both the creditor's time limit for initiating proceedings and the procedural time limits within ongoing proceedings. EBL Art. 33/a specifically regulates the statute of limitations in judgment enforcement, while in non-judgment enforcement, the statute of limitations is determined according to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TCO) and the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TCC). This article comprehensively examines limitation periods in enforcement proceedings, interruption and suspension of limitation, objection procedures and practical issues encountered.

The Concept of Statute of Limitations and Its Place in Enforcement Law

The statute of limitations is an institution regulated in substantive law that grants the debtor a defence right (exception) when the right to claim has not been asserted within a certain period. The expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to claim; it merely gives the debtor the ability to refuse payment. If the debtor does not raise the limitation defence, the creditor may collect the claim even if the limitation period has expired.

In enforcement law, the statute of limitations manifests in two different dimensions. The first is the limitation period before proceedings are initiated; whether the claim has become time-barred is assessed at this stage. The second is the limitation within proceedings after they have been initiated; if the parties fail to take action within certain periods at any stage of the proceedings, the statute of limitations may become relevant.

The statute of limitations differs from preclusive periods. A preclusive period extinguishes the right itself upon expiry and is taken into consideration by the court ex officio. The statute of limitations, however, depends on the debtor raising it; the court or enforcement office cannot observe the limitation ex officio. However, exceptions to this rule exist and will be discussed in detail below.

What Are the Limitation Periods in Non-Judgment Enforcement?

The limitation period in non-judgment enforcement is determined according to the type and legal source of the claim forming the basis of the proceedings. The TCO provides different limitation periods for different types of claims.

General Limitation Period (TCO Art. 146): Unless otherwise provided by law, every claim is subject to a 10-year limitation period. This period applies to claims arising from contracts, debt relationships other than torts, and claims for which no special period is provided by law.

Five-Year Limitation Period (TCO Art. 147): Claims arising from periodic obligations such as rent payments, principal interest and wages; accommodation charges at hotels, motels, guesthouses and holiday villages along with food and beverage charges; claims arising from small craft works and retail sales; claims arising from partnership agreements between partners or between partners and the partnership; and claims arising from agency, commission and commercial agency agreements are subject to a 5-year limitation period.

Two-Year Limitation Period (TCO Art. 72): For claims arising from tort, the limitation period is 2 years from the date the injured party learns of the damage and the person liable for compensation. In any case, the limitation period expires upon the passage of 10 years from the date the tort was committed. If the tort also constitutes a crime under criminal laws and criminal laws provide for a longer limitation period, that period applies.

Limitation for Negotiable Instruments: Limitation periods for negotiable instruments are specifically regulated in the TCC. For promissory notes and bills of exchange, the period is 3 years against the primary debtor and 1 year against endorsers; for cheques, the holder has a 3-year limitation period from the expiry of the presentation period.

Limitation for Employment Law Claims: For claims such as wages, overtime, annual leave pay, notice compensation and severance pay regulated under Labour Law No. 4857, the limitation period is 5 years (Labour Law Art. 32, Additional Art. 3).

How Is the Limitation Period Applied in Judgment Enforcement?

The statute of limitations in judgment enforcement is specifically regulated under EBL Art. 33/a. According to this article, the debtor may raise a limitation objection for postponement of enforcement in judgment enforcement. The limitation period for a judgment is 10 years from the date the judgment becomes final (TCO Art. 156/2). If the judgment is not enforced within this period, the debtor may raise a limitation objection to obtain cancellation of the proceedings.

The limitation objection in judgment enforcement may vary depending on the subject matter of the judgment. In judgments relating to monetary claims, the general 10-year limitation period applies. However, if the judgment contains periodic obligations (maintenance, rent, etc.), the portion relating to accrued periodic obligations is subject to the 10-year limitation period, while the portion relating to future obligations is subject to the relevant special limitation period.

The limitation objection in judgment enforcement is filed with the enforcement court (EBL Art. 33/a). The enforcement court examines the debtor's limitation objection and decides whether the objection is justified. The debtor's proof of limitation objection may be sufficient by demonstrating the date of the judgment and that the limitation period has expired; additionally, it must be established that no cause for interruption or suspension of limitation exists.

What Is Interruption of Limitation and What Actions Interrupt It?

Interruption of limitation means the resetting of the limitation period to zero due to a specific action or event and its recommencement from the beginning. The causes for interruption of limitation are listed in TCO Art. 154.

Acknowledgment of debt by the debtor: The debtor's acceptance of the debt verbally or in writing, payment of interest or instalments, or providing security interrupts the limitation. Acknowledgment of debt by the debtor is the most common cause of interruption of limitation.

Assertion of the right by the creditor through action or defence: The creditor's filing of a lawsuit, assertion of the claim as a counterclaim, or assertion of the claim as a defence in proceedings interrupts the limitation.

Initiation of enforcement proceedings by the creditor: The creditor's initiation of enforcement proceedings or application to the bankruptcy estate interrupts the limitation (TCO Art. 154/2). Initiation of enforcement proceedings is one of the most important actions that interrupt the limitation. The limitation is interrupted upon initiation of proceedings and a new limitation period begins to run.

When the limitation is interrupted, a new limitation period begins to run. The new period is, as a rule, the same as the old period. However, for claims established by court judgment, the new limitation period is 10 years regardless of the old period (TCO Art. 156/2).

The question of whether every enforcement action taken during proceedings interrupts the limitation is frequently debated in practice. According to the Court of Cassation's settled case law, every enforcement action taken at the creditor's request in the enforcement file (attachment request, sale request, renewal request, etc.) interrupts the limitation. However, renewal of the enforcement file (EBL Art. 78/2) is not an enforcement action in itself but merely causes the file to be reactivated; whether the limitation period has expired must be evaluated separately.

What Is Suspension of Limitation and in What Cases Does It Occur?

Suspension of limitation means that the limitation period does not run for a certain period and continues from where it left off after the cause of suspension is removed. The difference from interruption of limitation is that the period is not reset to zero but merely suspended for a certain period.

TCO Art. 153 lists the causes for suspension of limitation: during the period of parental authority, for children's claims against their parents; during the period of guardianship, for claims of persons under guardianship against the guardian; during marriage, for claims of one spouse against the other; during the employment relationship, for claims of domestic servants against their employers; and during the period in which the debtor holds a usufruct right over the claim.

Additionally, it is accepted that the limitation may be suspended during periods when it is factually impossible for the creditor to file a lawsuit or initiate enforcement proceedings due to force majeure (natural disaster, war, epidemic, etc.). However, this situation must be concretely proven.

How Is a Limitation Objection Raised in Enforcement Proceedings?

The limitation objection in enforcement proceedings is subject to different procedures depending on the type of proceedings.

Limitation Objection in Non-Judgment Enforcement: In non-judgment enforcement through general attachment, the debtor may raise the limitation defence when objecting to the payment order. The limitation objection is evaluated within the scope of objection to the debt (EBL Art. 62). The debtor must raise the limitation objection at the enforcement office within 7 days of service of the payment order. If the objection is made within the time limit, the proceedings stop and the creditor must resort to an action for annulment of the objection (EBL Art. 67) or removal of the objection (EBL Art. 68).

Limitation Objection in Proceedings for Negotiable Instruments: In special attachment proceedings for negotiable instruments, the limitation objection is filed with the enforcement court within the scope of objection to the debt (EBL Art. 169/a). The debtor must apply to the enforcement court within 5 days of service of the payment order to raise the limitation objection. The enforcement court examines the limitation objection by holding a hearing.

Limitation Objection in Judgment Enforcement: The limitation objection in judgment enforcement is filed with the enforcement court pursuant to EBL Art. 33/a. The debtor may raise the limitation objection within 7 days of service of the enforcement order or at any time after service of the enforcement order. In judgment enforcement, the limitation objection is not time-bound; the debtor may raise the limitation objection at any stage of the proceedings.

Is the Statute of Limitations Examined Ex Officio?

As a rule, the statute of limitations is not examined ex officio; the debtor must raise the limitation defence. This rule applies both in the field of substantive law and in enforcement law. The enforcement office, enforcement court or general courts cannot observe the limitation ex officio if the debtor has not raised a limitation objection.

However, there are important exceptions to this rule. First, for public receivables, the limitation is taken into consideration ex officio. For public receivables within the scope of the Law on Collection Procedure for Public Receivables No. 6183, the limitation is observed ex officio by the collection office, and public receivables whose limitation has expired are cancelled (LCPPR Art. 102).

Second, when the enforcement court examines the debtor's limitation objection in judgment enforcement, it calculates and evaluates whether the limitation period has expired on its own. In this sense, the enforcement court's ex officio calculation of the limitation period should not be confused with ex officio examination; the enforcement court evaluates the limitation period only upon the debtor's objection.

Third, in cases where criminal limitation applies (tort limitation, TCO Art. 72/1), whether the criminal limitation period should be applied may be evaluated by the court ex officio. However, this does not mean ex officio examination of the substantive law limitation; it relates only to the determination of the applicable limitation period.

The Relationship Between Lapse of the Enforcement File and the Statute of Limitations

Lapse (shelving) of the enforcement file arises when no action is taken in the file for a certain period. Pursuant to EBL Art. 78/2, if an attachment request is not made within 1 year from service of the payment order, the file is shelved. Shelving of the file does not mean termination of the proceedings; the creditor may reactivate the file with a renewal request.

There is a direct relationship between shelving of the file and the statute of limitations. If the creditor does not make a renewal request after the file is shelved, the limitation period continues to run. If the limitation period expires, the debtor may raise a limitation objection against the renewal request.

The limitation period is calculated from the date of the last enforcement action in the file. The last enforcement action is any action taken by the enforcement office at the creditor's request: attachment request, attachment implementation, sale request, renewal request, etc. Actions taken by the debtor or third parties (objection, complaint, etc.) do not interrupt the limitation.

The Court of Cassation has issued many important decisions regarding lapse of enforcement files and the statute of limitations. According to the Court of Cassation, if the limitation period has expired from the date of the last action in the enforcement file, the debtor's limitation objection should be accepted and the proceedings cancelled. However, if the creditor makes a renewal request within the limitation period from the date of the last action, the limitation is interrupted and a new limitation period begins to run.

What Are the Consequences of Acceptance of a Limitation Objection?

If the limitation objection is accepted, the enforcement proceedings are cancelled and the creditor is prevented from continuing the proceedings. The expiry of the limitation does not extinguish the right to the claim; it merely grants the debtor a defence right (exception). Therefore, if the debtor voluntarily pays a time-barred debt, this payment is valid and cannot be reclaimed (TCO Art. 78).

Acceptance of the limitation objection also has consequences regarding enforcement costs and attorney's fees. If the objection is accepted, the creditor may be liable to pay enforcement costs and opposing attorney's fees to the debtor. Additionally, it is possible for bad faith compensation to be awarded against the creditor.

If the limitation objection is rejected, the proceedings continue. If the enforcement court rejects the limitation objection, the debtor may file a negative declaratory action in general courts to reassert the limitation claim. In a negative declaratory action, the debtor may request cancellation of proceedings and return of paid money by proving that the claim has become time-barred.

Practical Considerations Regarding the Statute of Limitations

The most common mistake in practice regarding the statute of limitations is incorrect calculation of the limitation period. The start date of the limitation period varies according to the type of claim: in claims arising from contracts, the date the debt becomes due; in claims arising from tort, the date the damage and perpetrator are learned; in negotiable instruments, the maturity date or presentation period determines the start date of the limitation.

Another common mistake is incorrect evaluation of actions that interrupt the limitation. Not every enforcement file action interrupts the limitation; only enforcement actions taken at the creditor's request interrupt the limitation. For example, the debtor's objection or complaint to the enforcement file does not interrupt the limitation.

It is important for the creditor to regularly take action in the enforcement file (attachment request, sale request, etc.) for the purpose of interrupting the limitation. Otherwise, if the limitation period expires and the debtor raises a limitation objection, the proceedings will be cancelled.

From the debtor's perspective, it is critically important that the limitation objection is raised at the right time and to the correct authority. If the objection period is missed in non-judgment enforcement, the limitation defence can only be raised in an action for annulment of objection or in a negative declaratory action. In judgment enforcement, the limitation objection may be filed with the enforcement court at any time.

Final note: This content is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that you seek professional support from a lawyer for your specific legal issues.