The Mayor’s Official Vehicle Is Not Required And May Be Seized
12th Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2019/7271
Decision Number: 2019/9780
“Judicial Precedent Text”
COURT: Enforcement Court
Upon the creditor’s request for an appeal review within the time limit of the court decision dated and numbered above, the file related to this case was sent to the chamber from the local court. After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge … for the case file and reading and examining all the documents in the file, the matter was discussed and considered:
In the debtor’s application to the enforcement court, it was understood that the debtor requested the lifting of the seizure on the vehicle with license plate number 01 KB 476 belonging to the Municipality, which was seized, on the grounds that it had been allocated to the public by a municipal council decision, and that the court decided to accept the case and the creditor appealed the decision.
Article 15/final of the Municipalities Law No. 5393 stipulates that “The property of the municipality actually used in public service and the tax, fee, and charge revenues collected by the municipality cannot be seized.” According to this article, for the municipality’s claim of exemption from seizure to be accepted, it is mandatory that the seized property be actually used in public service.
According to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and the principles of enforcement law, the primary objective is to ensure that the creditor receives their claim; therefore, as a rule, all of the debtor’s assets may be seized. For an asset to be exempt from seizure, there must be a legal regulation to that effect. Since exemption from seizure is an exceptional circumstance, regulations in this regard must also be interpreted narrowly.
Accordingly, it is indisputable that for movable or immovable property belonging to the debtor municipality to be exempt from seizure, that property must actually be used in public service. However, for property to be accepted as actually used in public service, it must be found to be suitable for the purpose of performing public service.
In the specific case, it is understood that the vehicle belonging to the debtor municipality, which is the subject of the exemption from seizure complaint, is the official vehicle of the mayor. In light of the principles explained above, it should be considered whether the mayor’s official vehicle is necessary for the municipality to perform its public service and whether a vehicle assigned as an official vehicle is actually used in public service.
Article 4 of Vehicle Law No. 237 regulates who is eligible for an official vehicle, and the mayor is not among those who are allocated an official vehicle under the aforementioned law.
On the other hand, the use of a vehicle as an official vehicle does not mean that it is actually used for public service, nor is it necessary for the mayor to have an official vehicle in order to perform public services. This is because the duties of municipalities are explained in Article 14 of Law No. 5393, and it is not mandatory for mayors to have official vehicles in order to perform these duties.
Therefore, it is inappropriate for the court to rule in favor of accepting the complaint with written justification instead of rejecting it.
CONCLUSION: The creditor’s appeal is accepted, and the court’s decision is overturned for the reasons stated above, in accordance with Articles 366 and 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. and Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the advance fee shall be refunded upon request. The decision is subject to appeal within 10 days of notification of the judgment. The decision was made unanimously on 10/06/2019.