In short
If the envelope of the payment order came back, the ground line is read first. A record that the person was not found at the address and the service was left, and a record that the person has moved or that the address is insufficient, are not the same step. The first may be counted as service. The second asks, in the same file, for a new address or for the address search in the statute. The return does not give the creditor a right to open a second enforcement file.
The return stamp does not complete the service so that it will pass by itself. A date of service is not said without the ground line. The debtor's objection about learning is not the subject of this text. Learning is built with the service return.
What the ground line separates
The sentence the service officer wrote determines whether time runs. If no one can be found at the known address, the Notification Law builds a regime of leaving word with a neighbour or with the neighbourhood head and of counting it as service by a particular procedure. This regime is not applied to a return in which the address was written wrongly from the start. Records that the addressee is not known, that the building is demolished or that the street does not exist are not put into an account of becoming final as if service had happened. The decision is not built as if there were service before the ground line is read.
If the address in the request for enforcement and the civil-registry record conflict, the creditor writes the last known address in the file. Saying it is unknown before the known address is searched does not speed the service. A notice of unknown address is not a shortcut that stands in for the address search. The register may show the known address. The register does not by itself prove that service was made. The document should show from the file whether the search was made. The debtor raises that the service was irregular with the date of learning. That claim stands under irregular service. This text recounts how the creditor will read the return envelope. The two intentions are not written in the same petition.
A second sending in the same file
When a new address is learned, service is sent out again on the existing file. The fee and the cost of service are written onto this sending. Changing the file number does not treat the old return as absent. If the interest and the attorney's fee of the second file are asked separately from the same claim in the first file, the debtor complains. The risk of a duplicate collection stands under a second enforcement file. An invoice may show that the same claim was written a second time. An invoice does not serve the return envelope.
A paper return to a person subject to electronic service is not treated as the electronic sending having been made by itself. If there is a UETS record, the service is read from that record. If there is no record, the paper procedure continues. The separation stands under electronic service. The first day of the person who actually received the payment order stands under the payment order arrived. In an order that was not served, the time of that list does not run. The time is not written into this text without the service return.
An account of becoming final is not built from the return
The enforcement becomes final when the time that runs from the date of service runs out. If there is no service, there is no becoming final either. The creditor cannot have it written, on top of the return stamp, that it became final. If a request for attachment is given early, before service happens, the step stays open to a complaint. The conditions of the request for attachment itself stand under an attachment in a file that has become final. This text does not build that request. The minute carries the ground of the service officer. If there is no minute, the ground is not assumed. The sending record on the envelope shows which file the service was tried on. If there is no record, a second sending is not assumed. The petition does not change the sending record.
The result of not notifying a change of address is a separate article in the Notification Law. Sticking every move onto that article skips the search. The article is applied only if the conditions in the statute are in the file. If the article number is not written in the file, it is not added to this text. The application should show from the envelope which address it was sent to. If there is no envelope, an address is not invented. The petition does not change the ground of the return with its own sentence.
Where the return envelope is read from
The ground line and the address record stand side by side, and this article does not add a day of service that is not written in the file. Counsel in Ankara reads from the service return that the office being in Çankaya does not change the competent office on the return envelope. This article does not count the return stamp as service having happened. This article does not count a second file as the repair of the return.
Conclusion
A return envelope does not mean the service never happened. The ground, the known address and the electronic record are read separately. The correction is made in the same file. A second enforcement does not serve the return. If the day of service is not in the file, it is not added. The frame stands on the enforcement and bankruptcy page. The official basis is the service provisions of Notification Law No. 7201 and of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004.