A creditor may discover that a Turkish debtor has little money in its bank accounts, no easily attachable real estate and no obvious movable assets. That does not necessarily mean that the debtor has no economically valuable rights.
The debtor may itself be a creditor.
For example, a Turkish company that owes money to a foreign supplier may already be pursuing one of its own customers through a separate enforcement proceeding. The claim being recovered in that second file can become relevant to the first creditor’s enforcement strategy.
Turkish enforcement practice recognises the possibility of attaching a debtor’s receivable in another enforcement file. UYAP, Türkiye’s judicial information system, also contains a specific functionality for recording this type of attachment.
But the mechanism is more nuanced than simply finding another file and diverting whatever money may eventually arrive there. Recent case law shows that the existence and legal character of the receivable, the method used to attach it, exemptions from attachment and competing creditors can determine whether the measure produces any recovery at all.
A receivable in another enforcement file can itself become an enforcement target
Article 85 of the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law — İcra ve İflâs Kanunu, or İİK — provides the general basis for attaching a debtor’s property, receivables and rights to the extent required to satisfy the creditor’s principal claim, interest and enforcement costs.
The application of that principle to a receivable recorded in another enforcement file was considered by the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/11043, K. 2023/3394, 16 May 2023.
In that case, the creditor identified enforcement files in which its own debtor appeared as creditor and requested attachment of the relevant file receivables. The request also sought to direct amounts payable in those files toward the creditor’s enforcement proceeding.
The debtor challenged the enforcement office’s decision.
The first-instance enforcement court held that a receivable belonging to a debtor in another enforcement file could be attached under Article 85. The regional appellate court agreed, and the Court of Cassation ultimately upheld the decision.
The practical point is important: the economic asset is not the enforcement file itself. It is the debtor’s receivable or right connected with that file. The fact that the debtor is pursuing someone else can therefore reveal an additional source from which the original creditor may seek satisfaction.
UYAP created a specific procedure for file-receivable attachments
The practical administration of this mechanism became easier after a UYAP update announced by the Turkish Ministry of Justice on 26 June 2020.
The Ministry created a dedicated screen for adding and removing an attachment over a receivable in another enforcement file — Dosya Alacağına Haciz Ekleme/Kaldırma İşlemleri.
According to the official announcement, the system can query enforcement files across Türkiye in which the relevant party is recorded in various capacities, including as creditor or debtor. Where appropriate, an attachment can then be recorded against the identified file through UYAP.
The system also records the action in the histories of both the file from which the attachment originates and the file whose receivable is being attached. The relevant enforcement offices receive information about the action, and existing file-receivable attachments can be queried and reported through the system.
This is operationally significant in a cross-border recovery case. A creditor does not necessarily need to treat every enforcement office as an isolated source of information once a relevant file relationship has been identified.
At the same time, UYAP is an infrastructure for implementing enforcement measures. It does not turn an otherwise legally invalid attachment into a valid one, and it does not eliminate the need for the competent enforcement office to assess the legal basis of the request.
The UYAP function is not a reservation of every future payment
The distinction became particularly important in a much more recent case.
In Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2026/1070, K. 2026/1199, 2 April 2026, a creditor argued that it had attached a debtor’s receivable before another creditor received payment through a competing enforcement route.
The lower courts found that, when the contested attachment was made, there was no money in the relevant enforcement file. They treated the measure as an attachment under Article 88 directed at a value that was not then present and considered it ineffective. The regional appellate court upheld that result, and the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation affirmed the appellate decision.
The creditor had specifically argued on appeal that the measure should instead have been characterised as an attachment of a receivable under Article 85. That argument did not result in reversal.
The decision should therefore make creditors cautious about an overly broad assumption that placing an attachment notation on an enforcement file necessarily captures every amount that might arise there in the future.
The 2023 and 2026 decisions are best read together. The 2023 decision confirms that an identifiable receivable belonging to the debtor in another enforcement proceeding can be an attachable asset. The 2026 dispute shows that the precise object of the attachment and the factual status of the target file at the relevant time can still be decisive.
For a foreign creditor, the question should therefore not merely be: “Does the debtor have another enforcement file?”
The more useful question is: “What enforceable receivable or existing right does the debtor actually have in that file at the time the attachment is requested?”
A file-receivable attachment should not be confused with every Article 89 notice
Turkish enforcement law also contains a separate mechanism under Article 89 for attaching rights or receivables held by or owed by third parties.
That procedure can involve an attachment notice directed to a third party that owes money to the debtor or holds property or rights for the debtor.
A file-receivable attachment has a different practical focus: the creditor targets the debtor’s creditor position associated with another enforcement proceeding.
The two mechanisms can nevertheless intersect.
The 2026 Court of Cassation case is a useful illustration. The dispute involved both a purported attachment associated with another enforcement file and a competing payment made in connection with an Article 89/1 attachment notice. The outcome depended on whether the earlier measure had created a legally valid attachment capable of generating priority.
For this reason, identifying an enforcement file in UYAP is only the start of the analysis. The lawyer handling the matter must determine what exactly is being attached, which statutory route applies and whether the procedural steps used are capable of producing the intended legal effect.
Some receivables cannot be attached even if they appear in UYAP
Another limit concerns the nature of the underlying receivable.
Article 82 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law identifies property and rights that are protected from attachment, while additional exemptions can arise under special legislation.
This creates a particular problem where one enforcement office receives a request to attach a debtor’s receivable in another file but does not have enough information about the legal basis of that second claim.
The Turkish Ministry of Justice addressed exactly this problem in an official opinion dated 19 February 2024.
The Ministry explained that, where a file-receivable attachment is made and the enforcement office administering the target file considers that the underlying receivable may be legally exempt from attachment, that office should notify the enforcement office that requested the attachment.
Relevant documents and information — such as the basis of the enforcement proceeding, the payment order, the nature of the claim and its amount — should be transmitted so that the office that requested the attachment can assess whether the measure should continue.
The practical consequence is clear: the existence of a receivable does not automatically mean that the receivable is available to satisfy another creditor.
Its legal source matters.
Competing creditors create a second problem: who gets paid first?
Even a valid file-receivable attachment does not guarantee that the attaching creditor will receive the money.
The debtor may have several creditors.
If several enforcement files contain attachments directed at the same receivable and the amount ultimately recovered is insufficient to satisfy them all, Turkish rules on participation in attachment and distribution become relevant.
Articles 100 and 140 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulate important aspects of this process.
The Ministry of Justice examined the issue specifically in a 30 December 2022 opinion concerning attachments placed on a receivable in another enforcement file.
Referring to Court of Cassation case law, the Ministry concluded that the enforcement office responsible for the first definitive attachment is generally the office competent to prepare the distribution list. The opinion cites, among others, decisions of the 12th Civil Chamber in E. 2014/15865, K. 2014/17794 and E. 2016/17901, K. 2016/23324.
The Ministry also described an operational process in which information concerning the attachments and amounts collected is transmitted between the relevant enforcement offices so that the competent office can gather the information required under Article 100 and prepare the distribution.
This means that finding an attachable receivable is only part of the commercial analysis. A creditor should also determine whether earlier attachments already exist and whether the expected recovery is sufficient to leave a meaningful amount available after priority and distribution rules are applied.
The Ministry’s opinions provide administrative guidance for enforcement offices; where a dispute reaches the courts, the judicial decision in the individual case remains decisive.
Consider a foreign supplier pursuing a Turkish buyer
Assume that a European manufacturer is owed €180,000 by a Turkish distributor.
An enforcement proceeding against the distributor has reached the compulsory enforcement stage, but initial asset checks reveal no significant balance in the known bank accounts.
Further investigation shows that the distributor is itself a creditor in another Turkish enforcement proceeding against one of its customers.
That second file should not automatically be treated as €180,000 of available security.
The creditor should first establish what receivable actually belongs to the distributor, whether the claim exists and is legally attachable, whether money has already been collected, whether earlier attachments have been recorded, and whether another enforcement mechanism affects the same receivable.
If those questions are answered favourably, the debtor’s position as creditor in the second proceeding may provide an additional path to recovery.
If they are not, the existence of the UYAP file alone may have little practical value.
What should a foreign creditor verify before relying on the mechanism?
Before treating another enforcement file as an enforcement asset, the creditor and its Turkish counsel should normally check:
- whether the enforcement proceeding against the original debtor has reached the stage required for attachment;
- whether the debtor is genuinely the creditor or holder of the receivable in the target file;
- whether an identifiable and existing receivable or amount can be attached;
- whether the underlying claim is wholly or partly exempt from attachment under Article 82 or special legislation;
- whether earlier file-receivable attachments, Article 89 measures or other competing rights already exist;
- which enforcement office has the first definitive attachment and may therefore become responsible for distribution; and
- whether the expected amount and timing of recovery justify the additional enforcement work.
The distinction between identifying a legal right and recovering cash from it is especially important in international cases. A debtor may appear to have a valuable claim against a third party, but that claim may be disputed, exempt, junior to competing attachments or commercially difficult to realise.
Why this matters for cross-border debt collection
A conventional asset search often focuses on bank accounts, real estate, vehicles and corporate ownership.
In Türkiye, a debtor’s own enforcement activity can add another category to that analysis.
If the debtor is actively attempting to collect significant sums from third parties, its position as creditor may itself represent an asset worth examining.
This mechanism is therefore best viewed as part of a wider debt collection in Turkey strategy rather than as a substitute for ordinary enforcement measures.
It can be particularly relevant where the debtor remains commercially active but keeps limited cash in visible accounts, where known physical assets are already encumbered, or where the debtor’s own receivables appear more valuable than its immediately identifiable property.
The priority should be to establish the legal and economic reality behind the second enforcement file before relying on the UYAP attachment function.
Conclusion
Turkish enforcement law can allow a creditor to attach a receivable that its debtor holds in another enforcement file.
UYAP makes that mechanism operationally significant by providing a dedicated system for identifying relevant files and recording file-receivable attachments across enforcement offices.
But the existence of the UYAP function should not be mistaken for an unconditional right to intercept every future payment.
The 2023 Court of Cassation decision confirms that an identifiable receivable in another enforcement file can be attached under Turkish enforcement law. The 2026 case provides an equally important warning: where the object of the purported attachment is not legally or factually established at the relevant time, an earlier attachment notation may fail to produce the priority the creditor expected.
Exempt receivables and competing attachments create additional limitations.
For an international creditor, the useful strategy is therefore not simply to ask whether the debtor has other enforcement proceedings. It is to determine what receivable exists in those proceedings, whether it can legally be attached, what other creditors already have rights over it and whether the expected proceeds justify pursuing it.
When those elements align, the debtor’s own debt-collection activity can become a meaningful source of recovery for the creditor.
