The decision of the General Assembly On The Unification Of Conflicting Judgments dated 25.12.2019, numbered 2019/1 E, and 2019/8 K, was published in the official newspaper on 14.07.2020. With the decision, the disagreement between the Supreme Court of Appeals regarding whether the maturity date in the bond, which was timed out and therefore turned into the beginning of evidence (written) by losing its foreign exchange stock qualification, was resolved.
In other words, in a bond with an expired 3-year expiration date, it has become clear which date should be respected for the default date. Accordingly, the maturity date in the bond, which has expired and therefore loses its foreign exchange bond qualification to the beginning of (written) evidence; in a follow-up or lawsuit based on the basic relationship, it was decided that default cannot be based on default.
It is said in the Article 117/1 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) that the debtor of a debt is default by the creditor's warning. In this context, it is accepted that the default will take place not as of the due date, but as a rule from the warning of the creditor.
As a matter of fact, with the article 117/2 of the TBK, exceptions to the warning condition have been issued. Accordingly, the day the debt will be executed; It is said that if one of the parties is determined by making a duly notification based on a right determined together or reserved in the contract, the debtor will also be in default without the need for a notice.
A second debt relationship based on foreign exchange law emerges between the parties when the basic debt relationship issues a bond and gives it to the beneficiary. Here, the maturity regulated by Article 749 of the Turkish Commercial Law (TTK) on the bond is not the term of the basic debt relationship between the parties, but the term of the debt relationship based on foreign exchange law. For this reason, it cannot be mentioned that the maturity date in the bond is determined together within the scope of the basic relationship between the parties after the foreign exchange qualification is lost by timeout, or determined by one of the parties by the notice given to it.
For the reasons explained above, the Board; The maturity date in the bond, which was timed out in a follow-up or lawsuit based on the basic relationship and therefore turned into the beginning of evidence (written) by losing its foreign exchange stock qualification, decided that the warning was required for the debtor's default because it is not covered by a notice.
In the light of the reasons explained above, the maturity date in the bond, which was expired in the case of a follow-up or lawsuit made by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and based on the basic relationship, and thus turned into the beginning of (written) evidence by losing its foreign exchange stock qualification, is not within the scope of situations that do not require a warning for default. It has been decided that the warning is necessary for the debtor to default.