Court Says UYAP Access Can Count as Official Notification
A significant court ruling in Turkey could have important consequences for both landlords and tenants involved in rental disputes.
The case centered on unpaid rent and an eviction request. After the tenant failed to pay the outstanding rent, the landlord initiated enforcement proceedings seeking both the collection of unpaid rental payments and the tenant’s eviction from the property.
The tenant argued that the payment order had not been properly served and requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended. However, the Regional Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion after examining the case.
Rental Dispute Began Over Unpaid Rent
The dispute involved a residential property located in Istanbul’s Nişantaşı district.
The landlord launched enforcement proceedings after claiming that the tenant had failed to pay the rent. As part of the process, a payment order was issued, but the tenant claimed the notification was legally invalid.
According to the tenant, the notification had been sent to an address where they no longer lived. The tenant also argued that the authorities ignored the address stated in the rental agreement and instead sent the notification directly to the address registered in Turkey’s population system.
Based on these arguments, the tenant applied to the enforcement court, requesting that the notification date be corrected and the proceedings suspended.
Initial Court Ruled in Favor of the Tenant
The first-instance court agreed with the tenant.
It ruled that the payment order should first have been sent to the addresses specified in the rental agreement before using the address registered in the national address system. As a result, the court declared the notification invalid, corrected the notification date, and cancelled the enforcement proceedings.
Regional Court Reached a Different Decision
The landlord appealed the ruling, and the Regional Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision.
The appellate court found no procedural error in sending the payment order to the tenant’s registered MERNİS address after the first notification had been returned.
The most important part of the ruling, however, focused on the tenant’s activity within the UYAP Citizen Portal.
Viewing Documents on UYAP Was Considered Proof of Awareness
Court records showed that the tenant had accessed and viewed two notification documents in the enforcement file through the UYAP Citizen Portal on September 28, 2024.
The court also found that the tenant had viewed the enforcement request and supporting documents on different dates through the same system.
Because access to the UYAP Citizen Portal requires secure authentication using methods such as an e-Government password or electronic signature, the court concluded that the tenant had become aware of the enforcement proceedings on the date the documents were viewed.
The tenant’s claim that they only became aware of the proceedings on October 11, 2024, was therefore rejected.
Seven-Day Deadline Was Missed
Under Article 16 of Turkey’s Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, objections based on improper notification must be filed within seven days of the date the person becomes aware of the legal action.
Since the court determined that the tenant had viewed the documents on September 28, 2024, it ruled that the objection had not been submitted within the legal deadline.
As a result, the Regional Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and allowed the enforcement proceedings to continue.
