Automatic Penalty for Termination of the Auction Has Ended
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 20/5/2026, Application No. 2022/49505
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the high fine imposed on the applicant at a rate of 10% in the lawsuit for termination of the enforcement auction violated the right of access to the court. The decision emphasized that courts must use their discretion and determine the proportionality of the penalty through concrete reasoning.
Details of the Regulation
The applicant, Gazmer Petrol Ürünleri Plastik ve Kauçuk Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., filed a lawsuit seeking termination of the auction following the sale of its mortgaged immovable property through enforcement proceedings. The applicant argued that the auction should be terminated due to reasons such as irregularities in the payment order, an error in the amount of the debt, and deficiencies in the auction notice. However, the Konya 2. Enforcement Civil Court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered that a fine equal to 10% of the auction price, namely 560.000 TL, be recorded as revenue to the Treasury. This decision became final after review under appeal on facts and law and appeal on points of law.
The Constitutional Court examined the applicant's complaint under the allegation that the right of access to the court, which is a component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the constitution, had been violated. AYM accepted that imposing a fine during the enforcement auction process served a legitimate purpose of deterring unnecessary lawsuits, but assessed whether this interference complied with the principle of proportionality. In particular, although the amendment made by Statute No. 7343 dated 24/11/2021 to Article 134 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law granted the judge discretion to determine the amount of the fine, AYM found it problematic that the lower courts exercised this discretion at the upper limit without providing concrete reasoning.
AYM held that the confirmation of the 10% fine through abstract language by the Chamber of Appeal on Facts and Law, without assessing matters such as the applicant's legal capacity, financial situation, and whether the request for termination was intended to prolong the proceedings, was contrary to the principle of proportionality. It concluded that this constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right of access to the court. AYM decided to remit the case to the Konya 2. Enforcement Civil Court for retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation. The applicant's claim for compensation was dismissed, but payment of 40.664,10 TL in litigation costs was ordered.
Questions You Might Have
- What is the primary purpose of imposing a fine in a lawsuit for termination of the auction?
- The primary purpose of imposing a fine is to prevent delays in payment, enable the creditor to recover the debt in a timely manner, and deter unnecessary lawsuits filed with the aim of prolonging the auction process.
- How will this decision of AYM affect the authority of the lower courts to determine fines?
- AYM's decision requires the lower courts to exercise their discretion proportionately by taking into account the circumstances of the concrete case, the applicant's financial situation, and whether the request for termination was intended to prolong the proceedings.
- Which rights under which articles of the constitution does the decision safeguard?
- The decision safeguards the right of access to the court within the scope of the right to a fair trial under Article 36 of the constitution and the principle of proportionality under Article 13.
Key Terms
- İhalenin feshi davası
- A lawsuit seeking annulment of an auction conducted under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law due to irregularities.
- Mahkemeye erişim hakkı
- The freedom to seek legal remedy, guaranteed under Article 36 of the constitution and constituting a component of everyone's right to bring and defend a lawsuit before the judicial authorities.
- Ölçülülük ilkesi
- The legal principle under Article 13 of the constitution that restrictions imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms must be suitable for achieving their purpose, necessary, and proportionate.
- İrat kaydı
- The recording of revenue or a penalty as revenue to the public treasury.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 47 items in the Official Gazette of 17 September 2026; we published only 6 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 aims to prevent the arbitrariness of fines imposed in lawsuits for termination of the auction under enforcement law and to ensure that judicial authorities exercise their discretion in compliance with the principle of proportionality in the constitution. For citizens and companies, it ensures that the potential financial liabilities encountered when filing a lawsuit for termination of an auction are subject to judicial scrutiny and that each concrete case is assessed on its own individual circumstances. This represents an important step toward protecting the freedom to seek legal remedy and may produce fairer outcomes in similar cases in the future.