Background
A lessor (an aluminum company serving as an intervening creditor) sought relief during a concordat proceeding—a Turkish bankruptcy composition process. The lessor and lessee had a series of lease agreements for cold storage facilities. Under the final lease (April 1, 2025–December 31, 2025), the monthly rent was 240,000 Turkish lira. On January 1, 2026, the new lease period began with rent increased to 323,612 Turkish lira monthly, applied according to the Turkish Statistical Institute’s (TÜİK) official rent increase rate.
After the lessee filed for concordat protection, rent arrears accumulated. The lessor requested that the trial court issue a deposit order (depo kararı) to secure payment of back rent accrued during the concordat period and authorize the concordat commissioners to prioritize ongoing rent payments. The first-instance court rejected these requests, finding that the concordat commissioners believed any rent payment beyond legally permitted increases would prejudice other creditors in the proceeding.
The lessor appealed, arguing the rent increase was lawful under the official rate, the property’s size justified the rent, and rent obligations arising after the concordat filing should not be subject to concordat protections.
The Court’s Holding
The Antalya Regional Court dismissed the appeal on purely procedural grounds. The court held that under Turkish Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İİK) Article 287 (final paragraph), as amended by Law 7101 of February 28, 2018, “no appeal may be taken from measures ordered by the court” during concordat proceedings. The appellate court determined that the deposit order decision—though an interim measure designed to secure rent payments—was not itself a provisional attachment decision and was not a final judgment. Therefore, no appeal of that decision could proceed.
The court emphasized that the concordat legislation contains specific provisions governing appeals of judicial decisions made during the concordat process. Because the deposit order fell within the category of interim measures from which no appeal lies, the procedural avenue for challenging the first-instance decision was closed by law. The court did not reach the merits of the lessor’s arguments regarding the lawfulness of the rent increase or the treatment of post-concordat obligations.
Key Takeaways
- Turkish concordat law restricts appellate review of interim measures ordered during the concordat process, precluding appeal of deposit orders and similar provisional orders.
- A court’s rejection of a deposit order request, though an interim procedural matter, cannot be appealed under İİK Article 287 once the 2018 reforms took effect.
- The availability of appeal is determined by the nature of the decision (interim vs. final) under the specific statutory framework for concordat proceedings, not by the substantive importance of the issues.
- The lessor’s arguments about the lawfulness and proportionality of the rent increase and the treatment of post-concordat rent obligations were not addressed on the merits due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the closed-door policy on appeals from interim measures in Turkish concordat proceedings under the 2018 statutory reforms. Parties seeking to challenge protective orders or deposit decisions during a concordat must exhaust available remedies within the first instance or accept the procedural foreclosure of appeal. The ruling clarifies that even requests affecting significant financial interests—here, substantial unpaid rent—cannot be appealed if the decision qualifies as an interim measure under the concordat framework.
For lessors and other creditors in concordat proceedings, the decision underscores the importance of framing arguments and remedies within the first-instance proceeding itself. The appellate court’s refusal to reach the substantive merits of the rent dispute and the lessor’s claims about post-concordat obligations demonstrates that procedural bars can be absolute regardless of the underlying dispute’s merits. Additionally, the decision reflects Turkish law’s protective stance toward debtors in concordat proceedings: even if a rent increase was lawfully applied under official indices, interim measures to enforce payment during the concordat may be denied to preserve the estate for all creditors.
Disposition
The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds. The court refunded the advance appeal fee and required the appellant to bear its own litigation costs. No attorney’s fee was awarded. The first-instance decision was upheld and ordered communicated to the parties.