REPORT IN EXECUTION
Execution minutes can become official deeds when they involve legal transactions. If the minutes contain material acts, it is possible to disprove the minutes with all kinds of evidence, whereas when they contain legal transactions, the contrary of the minutes must be proven with definitive evidence.
EVIDENCE NATURE OF EXECUTIVE MINUTES
When explaining the evidentiary nature of enforcement minutes, the first thing we need to say is that these documents are official documents and official documents have the power of proof. When these minutes contain a legal transaction (the debtor has admitted that he is a debtor in the enforcement report, and a third party has become the enforcement guarantor) and has the necessary signatures, they become promissory notes. In order for the minutes to be used as evidence, the transactions set out in the minutes must not be for the benefit of the issuing officer. If there are deleted areas in the report and it raises suspicion, the report may not be considered as evidence. If the transactions that the law accepts to be done in a certain way are not carried out in that way, they cannot be made valid even if they are proven with the report. The enforcement report, which is duly prepared and is conclusive evidence against the signatory, is an unconditional money order. If it includes debt, EBL art. 68. Because the signature in these documents is made in the presence of an official authority or officer, it is necessary to compare them with the notary approved deeds. In fact, since the signatures in these documents are signed in the presence of an official authority or officer, the signature is stronger than the notary approved deeds. In some cases, the legislator may attribute special characteristics to the execution minutes. When the debtor does not have property that can be seized, the seizure report containing this record is considered as a definitive certificate of insolvency. If the debtor will receive the seized goods and is not sufficient to cover the expenses, these records are subject to the provisions of EBL art. It is written in the minutes in accordance with Article 102 and this minute has the effect of a certificate of temporary insolvency (EBL art. 105/2). When the seizure report has the effect of a document of insolvency, a separate certificate of insolvency is not issued, the seizure report itself becomes a document of insolvency.
PROOF TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE MINUTES
EIC m. 8/3, “The minutes of the enforcement and bankruptcy offices are valid until proven otherwise” is in question to prove the contrary of the minutes. Proving the contrary of the execution minutes is not dependent on a special form, in accordance with the provision of TMK Article 7, “Proving that their contents are not correct is not dependent on any form, unless there is another provision in the law.” With this provision, HMK art. 201 should be addressed. HMK m. In Article 201, official bills were included and the obligation to prove the bill against the bill was accepted. TMK m. Unless there is another provision in the laws stated in Article 7, the expression is HMK art. 201, and when we consider both articles, the result is as follows: If the subject of official documents is a legal transaction, the opposite is HMK art. Except for the exceptions in Articles 202 and 203, it cannot be proven with a witness, it must be proven with a deed. If the subject of official documents is a material act, TMK art. Regulation 7 makes sense and the contrary can be proven with a witness. If the execution report documents a legal transaction and the minute is signed by the debtor, it is possible to prove the contrary of the minute only with definitive evidence.
Execution minutes can become official deeds when they involve legal transactions. If the minutes contain material acts, it is possible to disprove the minutes with all kinds of evidence, whereas when they contain legal transactions, the contrary of the minutes must be proven with definitive evidence.
REPORT IN CMK
HEARING REPORT
CMK 222: (1) How the hearing was held and whether it was held in accordance with the procedures and principles specified in the law can only be proven with the minutes. Only allegations of forgery can be made against the report.
The article stipulates that whether the legal forms and procedures were complied with at the hearing will be proven through a report, and that only a “forgery” claim can be made against this recorded report.
This regulation of the bill brings two positive and negative presumptions: It is accepted that every formal rule written in the minutes has been implemented and, on the other hand, the points not included in the minutes have not been realized.
As can be clearly understood from the article, this power of proof of the report is valid only in terms of showing that “it reflects the course and results of the hearing in its main lines and all the basic rules of the trial procedure are complied with” in Article 229 of the Draft and the first paragraph of Article 230. However, it is not valid for other matters written in the minutes. The power of proof was accepted only for the “hearing report”. The minutes prepared by the criminal judge of peace or the public prosecutor during the investigation phase do not have such a power of proof. For this reason, general rules apply in terms of statements in the minutes that are outside the “legal forms and procedures”, and according to the conscientious evidence system, that issue can be proven without the need to claim forgery. The bill and the hearing minutes are not considered valid until their falsity is proven, for the reasons explained above.
