New Procedures and Legal Assessment Introduced by the 2025 Regulation Amendment on Electronic Sales under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law

With the amendment published in the Official Gazette dated April 24, 2025, the deposit rates for electronic sales conducted under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law have been increased, a dynamic extension rule has been introduced to the auction process, and sample documents have been updated. These changes aim to ensure that sales transactions are carried out on a more secure, transparent, and competitive basis, and these regulations have been re-evaluated in light of fundamental rights, judicial precedents, and the principle of legal certainty.

Attorney Dr. Tolga Ersoy | 27/04/2025

The amendment made on April 24, 2025, to the regulation concerning the procedures for electronic sales under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, constitutes a significant step towards the digitalization of the compulsory enforcement process. This regulation amendment not only includes technical provisions but also contains stipulations capable of contributing to the resolution of potential disputes arising in practice. Accordingly, the regulation amendment should be re-evaluated in terms of protecting property rights within the context of enforcement law.

With this amendment, provisions particularly concerning the determination of the sale price and the operation of the auction process have been rendered more explicit and functional. The revision of the deposit, previously collected at a rate of one per mille, to 'five per mille,' and the increase of the minimum deposit amount to be collected in any case from 'one hundred Turkish Liras' to 'one thousand Turkish Liras,' is a regulation that will contribute to the seriousness of the sale and auction discipline. This regulation specifically aims to prevent malicious bidders.

From the perspective of enforcement law, the swift and effective monetization of assets is imperative. Consequently, it is self-evident that electronic sales must be transparent, auditable, and secure to ensure public interest. In this context, the technical updates made are not merely procedural corrections but also a reinforcement of legal safeguards.

A question may arise here: Why is the bidding period for electronic sales extended? This practice has been introduced to increase participation and determine the true market value. Thus, the possibility of bidders monopolizing the auction by making last-minute offers is eliminated, and the auction effectively transforms into a dynamic economic negotiation arena.

Pursuant to the provision added to the regulation, the auction period will continue with three-minute extensions for bids received in the last ten minutes; however, these extensions shall not exceed a total of one hour. Furthermore, it has been made possible for the Ministry of Justice to shorten, extend, or entirely abolish this period. This provision is considered an appropriate regulation in terms of operational flexibility.

The aforementioned regulation amendment, by updating sample document No: 52, is essential for ensuring uniformity in enforcement proceedings. Practitioners predominantly rely on these sample documents to conduct transactions, and the prevention of divergent interpretations is made possible through these standardized documents.

These regulations must also be considered within the framework of the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence. The Court, in its previous decisions, has stated that procedural regulations may constitute an interference with fundamental rights and has emphasized that this must be evaluated under the principles of proportionality and necessity. In this context, the technical limitations introduced regarding the sales process must not conflict with the principle of the rule of law.

In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning property rights, it is observed that the right to property requires not only de facto protection but also its establishment on an accessible legal basis. In this vein, regulations pertaining to electronic sales must be accessible, foreseeable, and proportionate.

The established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation also emphasizes that auctions must be conducted transparently and without hindering competition. For this reason, the limits imposed on bidding periods and the discretionary power of the Ministry must be based on specific criteria; otherwise, they may be subject to criticism for arbitrariness.

Another question may be posed here: Does the alteration of auction periods by a Ministry decision undermine the principle of legal certainty? In response to this question, the regulation stipulating that Ministry decisions will be published on its official website prevents arbitrariness and ensures legal predictability. However, it should also be considered that these decisions must be reasoned.

The technical infrastructure of the electronic sales system is directly related to aspects such as user-friendliness and data security. Given this, every regulation made also entails legal obligations concerning the protection of personal data. Within this framework, the archiving of digital data related to sales and its maintenance in an auditable state when necessary is of paramount importance.

The transition of enforcement sales to an electronic environment reduces the workload of the courts while also enabling more effective participation of parties in the process. This, in turn, accelerates the administration of justice, embodying the principle that 'justice delayed is justice denied.'

One of the problems encountered in practice is the participation of unrelated parties in the bidding solely to inflate prices. Such actions can be subject to an action for annulment of the auction. The increase in the deposit amount with the new regulation is a judicious step towards preventing such malicious acts.

Recent decisions by the Civil Chambers of the Regional Courts of Appeal indicate that technical errors made during the bidding process can lead to the annulment of the auction. Therefore, updating sample documents and ensuring that the digital infrastructure of the auction conforms to standards is crucial. Procedural errors related to the transfer of property can cause damages that are difficult to remedy.

The limitations imposed on the bidding period by the new regulation will contribute to the implementation of principles of equality and balance in practice. Healthier participation in auctions and realistic bids will ensure more effective collection of public receivables.

The establishment of trust in the enforcement system is directly related to the applicability of such regulations. From this perspective, legislative changes can be said to be part of a structural reform process, rather than merely technical adjustments.

In conclusion, the regulation amendment promotes the digitalization of the compulsory enforcement process while also incorporating structural guarantees that underscore the principle of the rule of law. However, in this process, informing practitioners and increasing technical training are also indispensable.

Consequently, considering the technical complexity of enforcement processes and the risk of loss of rights, it is of great importance for interested parties to avail themselves of legal counsel. Particularly, errors in the auction process that could lead to penal consequences, as they may result not only in financial loss but also in liability-generating outcomes, seeking expert assistance would be a prudent choice.

Relevant Regulation Text:

https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/04/20250424-1.htm