TO THE 2nd CONSUMER COURT OF ANTALYA
CASE NO.: …… E.
PLAINTIFF: ………….. Inc.
ATTORNEYS: Attorney ………….
DEFENDANT: ………..
SUBJECT: Objection to the expert report and submission of our statements.
EXPLANATIONS:
The Expert Report dated December 10, 2021, issued in the case pending before this Court under the case number stated above, has been served upon us; we hereby submit our statements and objections to the report within the prescribed time limit.
Pursuant to the contracts entered into between the plaintiff and our client, the bank, the plaintiff was granted credit card No. …. **** **** …. , credit deposit account No. …, support loan No. ….., support loan No. ….., and support loan No. …
Due to the failure to fulfill the obligations arising from the contracts and the failure to pay the debt owed to our client, the bank, enforcement proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff under file no. ………….. E. by the Antalya General Enforcement Directorate.
As a result of payments made by the plaintiff and an agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding the closure of the case at a reduced amount, the enforcement case was closed on April 14, 2021.
As can be seen in the expert report, the existence of our claim is established, and the case filed with the Antalya General Enforcement Directorate under case no. ……. was closed on April 14, 2021, through out-of-court collection with a discount applied. The debt balance of 3,119.50 TL determined by the expert stems from the interest deduction. Therefore, the allegation that we caused an overpayment despite closing the case with a discount is baseless and made in bad faith.
Attached is the account summary dated May 28, 2021, prepared by the Enforcement Directorate. This account summary calculates the total debt as 28,036.97 TL. (Explanations regarding the collections shown in this account summary and those reported to the enforcement case are also included in the attached document; a reported payment of 800.00 TL and a collection fee and expenses totaling 10,500.00 TL as of April 12, 2021 are not recorded in the UYAP system. If these amounts are also deducted from the case account, the remaining debt is approximately 17,000.00 TL.) The enforcement case initiated against the debtor was closed by the client bank through the application of an interest reduction. Therefore, there is no issue of excess interest collected from the plaintiff. On the contrary, the defendant, acting as the client, closed the plaintiff’s case by waiving a significant portion of the interest claim to which it was legally entitled.
Furthermore, as will be seen in the expert report, “Although the complaint requests calculations based on Articles 88, 100, and 120 of the Turkish Civil Code, since the maximum interest rates applicable to credit cards (credit card restructuring and debt settlement agreements) and the KMH are determined in accordance with Central Bank of Turkey (TCMB) circulars, we are of the opinion that the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code cannot be applied to these debts.” Accordingly, there is no irregularity in the interest rates applied by the bank, and they are in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.
As Mr. Öz also noted in his legal opinion:
“As commercial companies, banks are not subject to the contractual interest rate limit under Article 88(2) of the Turkish Civil Code (TBK) or the default interest rate limit under Article 120(2) of the TBK in any of their commercial transactions, including individual loan agreements, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK); furthermore, pursuant to Article 144 of the Banking Law No. 5411 and the circulars and regulations issued thereunder, they are not subject to the interest rate limits set forth in Articles 88(2) and 120(2) of the Turkish Civil Code; Since the fact that certain credit agreements are classified as consumer transactions under the Consumer Protection Law does not preclude them from also being classified as commercial transactions under Articles 3 and 19(2) of the Turkish Commercial Code, I have concluded that, unless they constitute unfair terms under Article 5 of the Consumer Protection Law, they will not be subject to contractual or default interest rate limits. (Prof. Dr. Turgut Öz, Legal Opinion, June 29, 2019, p. 10;)”
has clarified the matter with these findings. For these reasons, there is no irregularity in the interest rates applied to loans, credit cards, and credit deposit accounts. The claims that the client bank overcharged the plaintiff lack legal basis; it is established that the relevant case file No. ……… of the Antalya General Enforcement Directorate was closed following a reduction. …/…/…
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: Based on the reasons explained above and those to be considered ex officio by the Honorable Court, in accordance with our answer and the expert report;
We request that the case be DISMISSED,
and that the litigation costs and attorney’s fees be ordered to be borne by the defendant.
Respectfully,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff…………