Background
The parties entered into an agreement for the sale and transfer of marble-factory machinery and equipment for TRY 236,000, payable through 11 checks. Although the buyer characterized the transaction as a transfer of the business, a judgment affirmed by the Court of Cassation treated it as a sale of movable property. After the workplace was sealed and the buyer stopped paying the checks, the seller obtained provisional attachments.
This action concerned the attachment obtained for six checks that had not yet matured. Machinery, stone, and other items were taken into custody under that order. The provisional attachment was later lifted following the buyer’s objection, and the lifting was upheld on appeal. The buyer sought TRY 10,000 in pecuniary damages and TRY 100,000 in non-pecuniary damages, alleging damage to the seized property, lost business income, and legal expenses. The commercial court rejected both claims in full, and the buyer appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Civil Chamber held that the provisional attachment was wrongful because the order had ultimately been set aside. Under Article 259(1) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, liability for pecuniary loss caused by a wrongful provisional attachment is strict. The record showed that travertine held by the custodian had sustained breakage assessed at 15 percent. The trial court therefore erred by rejecting the entire pecuniary-damages claim without calculating the value of that damage as of the date of the wrongful act.
The Chamber upheld the trial court’s reasoning as to the buyer’s other asserted losses. The buyer did not prove lost profits or an adequate causal connection between the attachment and the alleged collapse of its business, particularly given the attachment’s approximately 70-to-75-day duration, an earlier lawful enforcement proceeding, the condition of the premises, and later enforcement after the checks matured. Legal fees awarded in the related proceedings could not be recovered again, and no evidence established additional recoverable contractual fees.
The Chamber also found no basis for non-pecuniary damages because the buyer had not proved bad faith or gross fault by the seller. It nevertheless vacated the judgment in full under Article 353(1)(a)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure and remanded for a new trial because material evidence had not been collected or evaluated, including related court and enforcement files. The remand decision was final.
Key Takeaways
- A creditor is strictly liable for proven pecuniary loss caused by a provisional attachment that is later determined to have been wrongful.
- Documented physical damage to property held under the attachment must be valued and considered even when broader claims for lost profits remain unproven.
- Non-pecuniary damages for wrongful attachment require proof of bad faith or gross fault, while claimed business losses require proof of both damage and causation.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the standards governing different forms of relief after a wrongful provisional attachment. The wrongfulness of the attachment can establish the basis for strict pecuniary liability, but it does not dispense with proof of the amount and causal connection of each claimed loss.
For litigants, the ruling also underscores the importance of preserving valuation evidence and obtaining the complete files from related attachment, enforcement, and objection proceedings. A court may not reject a documented property-damage claim wholesale when those materials could establish compensable loss.