Citation Number
7
Views
252
Downloands
43
Son yıllarda çeşitli gerekçelerle önemini yitiren konkordatonun yeniden canlandırılması için 7101 sayılı Kanun ile İcra ve İflâs Kanunu’nun konkordatoya ilişkin hükümlerinde bazı değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Yapılan değişikliklerden birisi de, kesin mühletin rehinli alacaklılar bakımından sonuçlarının ayrı bir maddede (İİK m 295) düzenlenmesidir. İcra ve İflâs Kanunu’nun 294. maddesinin birinci fıkrasına göre, kesin mühlet içinde borçluya karşı kural olarak hiçbir takip işlemi yapılamaz ve daha önce başlamış olan takiplere devam edilemez. Rehnin paraya çevrilmesi yoluyla takip bakımından ise durum farklıdır. Zira Kanun’un 295. maddesinin birinci fıkrasına göre, konkordato mühleti sırasında rehinle temin edilmiş alacaklar nedeniyle rehnin paraya çevrilmesi yoluyla takip başlatılabilir veya başlamış olan takiplere devam edilebilir; ancak bu takip nedeniyle muhafaza tedbirleri alınamaz ve rehinli malın satışı gerçekleştirilemez. 7101 sayılı Kanun ile yapılan değişiklikten önce, bu konuda İcra ve İflâs Kanunu’nda benzer bir hüküm yer almaktaydı (İİK m 289). Bununla birlikte, yeni maddede düzenlenen rehinli malın satış yasağının 7101 sayılı Kanun ile değiştirilen diğer maddeler çerçevesinde incelenmesi gerekir. Çalışmada konkordato süreci bakımından önemli sonuçları bulunan konkordato mühleti içinde rehinli malın paraya çevrilmesi yasağı incelenmiştir. Söz konusu yasak; yasağın amacı, yasağın geçerli olduğu zaman dilimi ve kişi bakımından kapsamı yönleriyle ele alınmıştır. Yasağın kişi bakımından kapsamı incelenirken özellikle konkordato borçlusu lehine üçüncü kişinin malvarlığı üzerinde rehin tesis edilmesi durumunda, satış yasağının üçüncü kişiye ait rehinli mal bakımından geçerli olup olmadığı meselesi üzerinde durulmuş ve bu konuda Türk ve İsviçre hukukundaki görüşler değerlendirilerek bu yasağın üçüncü kişiye ait rehinli mallar açısından da mevcut olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.
In recent years, some changes have been made in the provisions of Law No. 7101 and the Concordatoa of the Law of Execution and Inflas for the reanimation of the concordatone that has lost its importance for various reasons. One of the changes made is that the results of the fixed deadline in terms of the kidnapped recipients are arranged in a separate article (ICM m 295). In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Law on the Execution and Inflation, no follow-up process against the debtor as a rule can be carried out within a certain period of time and no follow-up process can be carried out before. If the reef is converted into money, the situation is different. The law of 295. According to the first subparagraph of this article, the tracking may be initiated or continued through the conversion of the hostage to money due to the receipts provided with the hostage during the concordato period; however, due to this tracking, conservation measures cannot be taken and the sale of the hostage goods cannot be carried out. Before the amendment made by Law No. 7101, a similar provision was included in the Law of the Republic of Iraq and the Law of the Republic of Iraq (ICM 289). However, the prohibition of the sale of the robbed goods provided for in the new article must be examined within the framework of other articles amended by Law No. 7101. The study examined the prohibition of the conversion of the robbed goods into money within the concordato period with significant results in terms of the concordato process. This prohibition is addressed by the purpose of the prohibition, when the prohibition is valid, and the extent of the prohibition in terms of person. When examining the scope of the prohibition in person, especially in the case of the third party's property in favor of the concordato debtor, the question of whether the prohibition of sale is valid in terms of the property of the third party, and in this regard the views in the Turkish and Swiss law are assessed and the conclusion is that this prohibition is also available in terms of the property of the third party.
To revitalize the concordat process which has lost its importance for various reasons in recent years, some amendments have been made in the provisions of the Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy (IIK) by Law No 7101. One of the amendments is to regulate the results of the definitive period in terms of pledged creditors in a separate article (Article 295 of the Turkish IIK). Under the first paragraph of Article 295 of the Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy, pledges may initiate debt collection by realising pledged property during the definitive period; but no protection measures can be taken and the sale by auction of the pledged property cannot be realized. Prior to the amendment to Law No 7101, a similar provision was included in the Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. However, the prohibition on the sale by auction of pledged goods issued in the new article should be examined within the framework of other articles amended by Law No 7101. In this study, the prohibition of the sale by auction of pledged goods within the definitive period is examined, which has important results in terms of the concordat process. In this study, the purpose and scope of prohibition are taken into consideration in terms of the time period. When considering the scope ofprohibition in terms of a person, especially in the case of pledge on the assets of the third party in favor of the concordat debtor, the issue of whether the prohibition of auction by sale applies to the pledged property of the third party was discussed and the opinions of Turkish and Swiss jurists were evaluated. As a result of this study, it was concluded that prohibition also exists for the third party pledged goods.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Ulusal
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
