An Attachment Occurred at the Spouse's Workplace; How Will the Time Limit Be Calculated?
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court Dated 18/2/2026 and Application Number 2022/63967
The Constitutional Court considered the dismissal of a lawsuit filed for goods seized during an attachment carried out at a workplace address on the reasoning that it was 'filed late' to be a violation of the right of access to a court.
Details of the Regulation
The applicant, Sevra Gül Ersayın, filed an entitlement (ownership) lawsuit upon the seizure of her personal jewelry during an attachment proceeding conducted at her father's company address due to her ex-husband's debt. Although the court of first instance accepted the lawsuit, the Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the lawsuit on the reasoning that the 7-day time limit for filing a lawsuit had expired, applying the 'presumption' that the applicant was informed of the attachment on that day because she lived together with her debtor spouse.
In its examination, the Constitutional Court determined that the attachment was not conducted at the applicant's residence, but at the family company of the debtor spouse, and that the applicant was not present there at the time of the attachment. The Court held that interpreting the presumptions of ownership in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law in an excessively rigid manner incompatible with the reality of the concrete case eliminated the applicant's right to file a lawsuit.
As a result of the decision, it was decided that the applicant's right of access to a court was violated, that the file be sent to the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal for a retrial, and that attorney's fees and litigation expenses be paid to the applicant.
Questions You Might Have
- Does the fact that I live in the same house with my spouse mean that I know about every attachment at their workplace?
- No, with this decision, the AYM considered making the assumption of 'definitely knows' solely based on the status of being a 'spouse', without considering the place and circumstances where the attachment was carried out, to be a violation of a right.
- If I miss the time limit for filing a lawsuit, will this AYM decision help me?
- If the reason for missing the time limit is that the court accepted through a 'presumption' that 'you knew' an incident which you actually did not know, this decision is of a precedent nature.
- Was compensation paid to the applicant?
- No, the AYM found holding a retrial sufficient to eliminate the consequences of the violation and dismissed the request for non-pecuniary compensation.
Key Terms
- İstihkak Davası
- An ownership lawsuit filed by a third person who alleges that an attached property belongs to himself/herself, not to the debtor.
- Mülkiyet Karinesi
- The legal presumption that a property is deemed to belong to whoever possesses it.
- Mahkemeye Erişim Hakkı
- The right of a person to apply to a judicial authority for the resolution of disputes and to request the examination of the merits of his/her lawsuit.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 33 items in the Official Gazette of 6 August 2026; we published only 4 of them here.
REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.
The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.
REGAS Commentary
This decision shows that the presumption of 'cohabiting/living together', which is frequently resorted to in enforcement law, cannot be applied automatically in every case. In particular, the assumption that spouses are constantly aware of each other's commercial activities or the transactions at their workplace addresses must be supported by concrete evidence by the courts. For citizens, this decision offers the right to defend that the 'actual date of knowledge' must be taken as a basis in calculating the time limits for filing a lawsuit in unjust attachments.