Property and Rights Impermissible for Seizure Under Turkish and English Law

In the case at hand, it is evident from the population registry extract in the file that the debtor Hafize ... died on December 21, 2019, after filing the non-seizability complaint. In this case, since the basis of the domicile claim and thus the subject of the non-seizability complaint no longer exists due to the death of the debtor, the court should have rejected the application concerning the deceased debtor instead of examining the merits of the complaint and accepting it. “…

“...Article 82, paragraph 1, clause 12 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law states that the debtor’s house suitable for their condition cannot be seized. Under this legal provision, the complaint of domicile is a right granted only to the execution debtor; third parties who are not debtors in the execution cannot file this complaint.…

In the present case, the fact that the complainant A. Ö. is not a ‘debtor’ in the execution proceedings and the execution debtor Dikmen İkan is not the owner of the real estate clearly indicates that they cannot file a domicile complaint. Therefore, the court should have rejected the complaint due to the lack of active legal interest.(40)…