In short
If an enforcement file was taken off the docket, the debt is not erased; on the route of general attachment, the right to request attachment is limited to one year from service of the payment order. This one year is not the year in which the proceeding lapses. A year of lapse is not added to this text. The file is taken off the docket. The claim may stay alive.
An objection, an action, or an instalment contract at the enforcement office may stop this one year. Renewal does not open a new attachment before it is served on the debtor. If there is no service annotation, the year is not treated as having run of itself.
What the one year brings down
What falls is the right to go on requesting attachment in that file without a time limit. The claim does not fall of itself. The proceeding may stay pending. The mould built as "the proceeding lapsed" is, in most files, the wrong record. The right record is that the file was taken off the docket. Being taken off the docket is not a year that erases the debt. The ground that erases the debt is payment, a release, or another legal event.
The start of the year is the date the payment order was served. If there is no service, or it is irregular, the picture of the year shifts. If the debtor objected, or the creditor filed an action, the time from the moment the objection or the action was made until the judgment becomes final is not added to the one year. If there is an instalment contract at the enforcement office, the time until the contract is breached is not counted either. The day of breach is read from the instalment table. "We agreed orally" does not stop the year.
How the creditor wakes the file
Requesting attachment again depends on service on the debtor of the creditor's request for renewal. A writing of attachment is not awaited from the directorate before service. The service is not a copy of the old payment order. The heading and the date of the new service are kept separately.
In proceedings that do not rest on a judgment, a fee is taken again upon renewal. This fee and the cost of renewal cannot be charged to the debtor. The creditor deposits the fee. In enforcement upon a judgment, the fee mould is not a copy of the file without a judgment. Whether the paper is an enforcement order or a payment order is separated first. Before that separation, the fee is not written against the debtor.
If attachment was requested within the period and the request was not withdrawn, a later attachment may not ask for a renewal fee. The sentence that the file has been silent for years does not erase a request made in time. The date of the request paper is taken as the basis. If there is no date, silence does not mean the request was never made.
Not requesting a sale is another silence
Not requesting the sale after the attachment was placed is not a copy of the year for requesting attachment. Not requesting the sale may bring the attachment down. It does not erase the claim. The period relating to the sale is not added to this text. That period is read in the sale request's own record. A file taken off the docket does not produce a certificate of insolvency either. Insolvency is that property was searched for and the value did not suffice. A silent file is not a certificate that there is no property.
In enforcement on a negotiable instrument, the period and the door of objection are not the same as the year of general attachment. In a cheque or promissory-note file, this one year is not applied from memory. Saying that it applies ties the service in the instrument file, of itself, to the year of general attachment. The tie is not built before the kind of proceeding is separated.
The neighbouring records are as follows. The first day of the payment order sits under the payment order, and limitation under enforcement limitation. Not requesting the sale sits under a sale after attachment, and the certificate of insolvency under a certificate of insolvency. This record separates being taken off the docket from those headings.
Which paper starts the year
The document that is read is the payment order and the service. Service shows the starting date of the one year from the annotation. If there is no annotation, a start is not invented. A year of lapse is not invented either. If the contract carries the instalment table at the enforcement office, the day of breach is read from that table. The contract does not stop the year as an oral agreement. The petition should ask whether the request for renewal was served on the debtor. If the decision writes that the proceeding lapsed, this expression is compared with being taken off the docket. The debt is not treated as erased before the comparison is made. The application must show, with the date of the paper, whether the request for attachment was made in time. If the minutes write whether the request was withdrawn, those minutes build the need for renewal. An invoice may show the source of the claim. An invoice does not start the one year. The registry may show a party's title. The registry does not write that the file was taken off the docket.
Where being taken off the docket is read from
This article reads side by side the service annotation, the date of the request for attachment, and the renewal papers. This article does not add a year of lapse to this text. An Ankara lawyer reads from the record in the file that the office in Çankaya does not change the competent authority. This article does not treat the one year as the year in which the debt was erased.
Conclusion
A file taken off the docket is the stopping of the right to request attachment because of the one year. The debt is not erased. A year of lapse is not added. Renewal is served on the debtor. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. The basis is the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004.