İcra hukukunda taşınır malların haczi
[ X ]
Tarih
2024
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Kırıkkale Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bu çalışmanın amacı Türk icra hukukunda "taşınır malların haczi" konusunu incelemektir. Öncelikle icra hukukunun tabi olduğu ilkelere çalışma konumuz ile ilgisi ile sınırlı düzeyde incelememizde yer verdik. Çalışmanın başından sonuna bu ilkesel çerçeveye uygun olarak incelememizi gerçekleştirdik. Taşınır mallar bir yerden bir yere kendinden veya dışarıdan bir kuvvet ile taşınabilen cismani varlıklar olarak tanımlanabilir. Lakin icra hukukundaki taşınır mallara ilişkin düzenlemeler maddi hukuktaki taşınır mal kavramından daha kapsayıcıdır. Maddi hukukta statüsü belirlenmemiş bazı varlıklar ile açıkça taşınmaz mal olarak nitelenebilecek bazı varlıklara icra hukukunda taşınır mallara ilişkin hükümlerin uygulanabileceği durumlar izlenebilir. Haciz işlemi alacaklı lehine borçlu aleyhine sonuçlar doğurur. Bu çekişmeli süreçte taraf menfaatlerinin ihlal edilmemesi gerekir. Ayrıca belirtmeliyiz ki bu çalışmada haczin türlerine değinmeden sadece "kesin haciz işlemi" üzerinden bir inceleme yürüttük. Taşınır malların haczine ilişkin bu çalışmada haczin genel teorisine en uygun haciz uygulamasına işaret etmeye çalıştık. Bu doğrultuda taşınır malların haczine ilişkin en makul uygulamayı önerdik. Taşınır mal haczi düzenlemelerinin kıyasen uygulanabileceği bazı gayri maddi mal türlerine değindik. Kanunda haciz usulü belirlenmemiş bazı durumlara ilişkin de görüşlerimizi belirttik.
The purpose of this study is to examine the issue of "seizure of movable property" in Turkish enforcement law. First of all, we have included a limited level of review of the principles governing enforcement law as it is related to our work. From the beginning to the end of the study, we conducted our review in accordance with this principled framework. Movable goods can be defined as tangible assets that can be moved from one place to another by itself or by an external force. However, regulations regarding movable property in enforcement law are more inclusive than the concept of movable property in substantive law. It can be observed that the provisions regarding movable property in enforcement law can be applied to some assets whose status has not been determined in substantive law and to some assets that can be clearly defined as immovable property. The foreclosure process results in favor of the creditor and against the debtor. In this contentious process, the interests of the parties should not be violated. In addition, we should point out that in this study, we carried out an examination only on the "final foreclosure process" without mentioning the types of foreclosures. In this study on the seizure of movable property, we tried to point out the foreclosure practice that best suits the general foreclosure theory. In this direction, we have proposed the most reasonable practice regarding the seizure of movable goods. We have touched upon some types of intangibles to which movable property confiscation arrangements can be applied by analogy. We have also expressed our views on some cases where the foreclosure procedure is not determined in the law.
The purpose of this study is to examine the issue of "seizure of movable property" in Turkish enforcement law. First of all, we have included a limited level of review of the principles governing enforcement law as it is related to our work. From the beginning to the end of the study, we conducted our review in accordance with this principled framework. Movable goods can be defined as tangible assets that can be moved from one place to another by itself or by an external force. However, regulations regarding movable property in enforcement law are more inclusive than the concept of movable property in substantive law. It can be observed that the provisions regarding movable property in enforcement law can be applied to some assets whose status has not been determined in substantive law and to some assets that can be clearly defined as immovable property. The foreclosure process results in favor of the creditor and against the debtor. In this contentious process, the interests of the parties should not be violated. In addition, we should point out that in this study, we carried out an examination only on the "final foreclosure process" without mentioning the types of foreclosures. In this study on the seizure of movable property, we tried to point out the foreclosure practice that best suits the general foreclosure theory. In this direction, we have proposed the most reasonable practice regarding the seizure of movable goods. We have touched upon some types of intangibles to which movable property confiscation arrangements can be applied by analogy. We have also expressed our views on some cases where the foreclosure procedure is not determined in the law.
Açıklama
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Özel Hukuk Ana Bilim Dalı
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law
